Hi all,

I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.
I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the inside.
Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.
It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it to happen.

So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but is there any other magic in there for others?

It's not necessarily concavity, but the whole baffle profile that matters. Not only that, but side walls, chamber and of course the lay. 

Acoustically, the profile of the baffle affects the Bernoulli effect that snaps the reed shut when the reed is nearly closed during the pressure cycle, and this difference at the very end of the reed's cycle has a large effect on the partial composition of the note. There is also an effect due to
 constructive and destructive interference with the frequencies of the partials.

One recommendation is that there be a bit of space just behind the tip rail, as this improves the reed response. Some authors recommend cutting an actual groove just behind the tip rail. I did this with a Berg Larsen and for me it improved response and mostly eliminated the tendency to chirp
 without really changing the character of the piece.

If you hollow the baffle just behind the tip rail it should darken the piece somewhat, but if you leave the rest of a high baffle untouched it will often make the piece less shrill but still leave the edge and "projection" pretty much untouched.

I have a couple of Runyon pieces, alto and sop, that are like this, and I like them very much.

Toby

artmutan <artmutan@...> wrote:                                           Hi all,
 
 I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
 I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.
 I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
 I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
 I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the inside.
 Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
 Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.
 It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it to happen.
 
 So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
 It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but is there any other magic in there for others?
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the center of 
the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find they have straight ramped 
baffles.  Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a straight baffle.  The 
Ponzol baffles are concaved from left to right.  Ponzol tip rails are also a 
little concaved, which I think hurts response.  


A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over baffles 
near the tip rail.  Perhaps these designs are easier to mass-produce.  In most 
cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the sound 
(less shrill) and response.  

 
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: artmutan <artmutan@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle

  
Hi all,

I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.
I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem 
to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly 
concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the 
inside.
Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly 
concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece 
before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.
It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it 
to happen.

So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but 
is there any other magic in there for others?





      

Yes the concavity is only left to right.
Both of the pieces were originally straight baffle with no roll over. I added a roll over to the M1 and got more shrill in as expected but still the overall sound is more meaty than my other high baffle pieces.
I also noticed something funky in the original tip rail. The M1 was really suffering from the odd tip rail configuration so that it immediately improved by just polishing tip area of the facing.

Anyway the conclusion seems to be the baffle concavity itself is not known to have any special effect.

Thanks for both responders.

-Arto

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the center of 
> the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find they have straight ramped 
> baffles.  Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a straight baffle.  The 
> Ponzol baffles are concaved from left to right.  Ponzol tip rails are also a 
> little concaved, which I think hurts response.  
> 
> 
> A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over baffles 
> near the tip rail.  Perhaps these designs are easier to mass-produce.  In most 
> cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the sound 
> (less shrill) and response.  
> 
>  
> 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: artmutan <artmutan@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle
> 
>   
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
> I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.
> I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem 
> to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
> I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly 
> concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
> I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the 
> inside.
> Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly 
> concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece 
> before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
> Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.
> It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it 
> to happen.
> 
> So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
> It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but 
> is there any other magic in there for others?
>

That's correct, concavity itself has no special effect. It appears that the effect of the baffle is dependent on the volume of air under the reed as you travel down the bore. The same can be said about the bore itself. Within broad limits, the shape of the bore is not imporant: a square bore or
 oval bore of the same area volume plays the same as a round bore, although this changes the resonances of the wall material. This is why the material out of which square organ pipes are made can affect the sound.

Toby

artmutan <artmutan@...> wrote:                                           Yes the concavity is only left to right.
 Both of the pieces were originally straight baffle with no roll over. I added a roll over to the M1 and got more shrill in as expected but still the overall sound is more meaty than my other high baffle pieces.
 I also noticed something funky in the original tip rail. The M1 was really suffering from the odd tip rail configuration so that it immediately improved by just polishing tip area of the facing.
 
 Anyway the conclusion seems to be the baffle concavity itself is not known to have any special effect.
 
 Thanks for both responders.
 
 -Arto
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
 >
 > I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the center of 
 > the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find�they have straight ramped 
 > baffles.� Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a straight baffle.� The 
 > Ponzol baffles�are concaved from left to right.� Ponzol tip rails are also a 
 > little concaved, which I think hurts response.� 
 > 
 > 
 > A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over baffles 
 > near the tip rail.� Perhaps these designs are easier to mass-produce.� In most 
 > cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the sound 
 > (less shrill) and response.� 
 > 
 > �
 > 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: artmutan <artmutan@...>
 > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM
 > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle
 > 
 > � 
 > Hi all,
 > 
 > I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
 > I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.
 > I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem 
 > to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
 > I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly 
 > concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
 > I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the 
 > inside.
 > Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly 
 > concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece 
 > before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
 > Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.
 > It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it 
 > to happen.
 > 
 > So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
 > It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but 
 > is there any other magic in there for others?
 >
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

Interesting subject! Good info to have. Matt Stohrer once mentioned to me that the area right behind the tip rail in the mouthpiece really has a lot to do with response. In my limited experience, I've also found that to be true. Studying a few a piece I have that really plays great that was finished by someone else, I've noticed that in addition to having a really nice facing curve and great tip work, the area right behind the baffle is super smooth. I was hanging out with a friend yesterday who happens to play on a Ted Klum Focustone Acoustimer. Ted's work, to me, is among the best, I just love his style and his precise work. Those are really interesting pieces. What I've noticed with his work is that a lot of his pieces have a bit of a roll over baffle, but the area right behind the tip rail is always super smooth. On some of them it looks as if he maybe even buffs the inside of the mouthpiece after he finishes them, they are so smooth. The Focustones, as well as a few other pieces I've seen that he's finished, seem to have a few things in common, a super-fine thin tip rail, moderately thin side rails, the area beneath the window is often undercut to lead more smoothly into the chamber, a very smooth area right behind the tip rail, and they often have a medium-length low but very visible baffle. Many of these mouthpieces have been among the best I've ever had the pleasure of trying. 
However, on a couple of mouthpieces I've been experimenting with, I've filed down the baffle real low, especially right behind the tip rail. A tenor Link I was working on had a bit too much material in the baffle area after I'd opened it slightly, and after finishing the facing it still played really strangely and a little bit too brightly. I filed down the baffle to try and get it fairly smooth behind the tip rail, almost to the point of completely removing the baffle and just trying to create a smooth area leading to the rest of the floor (although I didn't necessarily want to make it concave, I was just going to evenness), and after smoothing this area out the response and sound improved on the mouthpiece  a lot. I found that even with the baffle smoothed out so that there's not really much roll-over baffle there at all, the piece still plays with plenty of projection and the response seems to be much better than before. I'm going to keep experimenting. Maybe next time I'll see how hard it is to try and make a short roll over baffle like Ted does a lot in his work, maybe by opening a mouthpiece slightly and then smoothing out the area right behind the tip rail but leaving the baffle material left behind that area (without removing it a smoothing it out) and rolling it over a little bit into the floor, leaving some material there for a bit of a bit of roll over baffle. I'm curious to see if this adds projection without sacrificing response and warmth, which to me are equally (if not more) important. 
I don't know,  for me I guess it'll just take some more trail and error in the baffle department to find out how exactly different aspects of the baffle area affect the sound/response in different ways.

Matt


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> That's correct, concavity itself has no special effect. It appears that the effect of the baffle is dependent on the volume of air under the reed as you travel down the bore. The same can be said about the bore itself. Within broad limits, the shape of the bore is not imporant: a square bore or
>  oval bore of the same area volume plays the same as a round bore, although this changes the resonances of the wall material. This is why the material out of which square organ pipes are made can affect the sound.
> 
> Toby
> 
> artmutan <artmutan@...> wrote:                                           Yes the concavity is only left to right.
>  Both of the pieces were originally straight baffle with no roll over. I added a roll over to the M1 and got more shrill in as expected but still the overall sound is more meaty than my other high baffle pieces.
>  I also noticed something funky in the original tip rail. The M1 was really suffering from the odd tip rail configuration so that it immediately improved by just polishing tip area of the facing.
>  
>  Anyway the conclusion seems to be the baffle concavity itself is not known to have any special effect.
>  
>  Thanks for both responders.
>  
>  -Arto
>  
>  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
>  >
>  > I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the center of 
>  > the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find�they have straight ramped 
>  > baffles.� Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a straight baffle.� The 
>  > Ponzol baffles�are concaved from left to right.� Ponzol tip rails are also a 
>  > little concaved, which I think hurts response.� 
>  > 
>  > 
>  > A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over baffles 
>  > near the tip rail.� Perhaps these designs are easier to mass-produce.� In most 
>  > cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the sound 
>  > (less shrill) and response.� 
>  > 
>  > �
>  > 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: artmutan <artmutan@>
>  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>  > Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM
>  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle
>  > 
>  > � 
>  > Hi all,
>  > 
>  > I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
>  > I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.
>  > I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem 
>  > to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
>  > I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly 
>  > concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
>  > I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the 
>  > inside.
>  > Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly 
>  > concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece 
>  > before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
>  > Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.
>  > It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it 
>  > to happen.
>  > 
>  > So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
>  > It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but 
>  > is there any other magic in there for others?
>  >
>

The curvature of the first 3/16" or so behind the tip rail is crucial to the response and tone of a roll-over design.  The surface should be flat-ish, but not flat.  Too much curve and the mouthpiece plays stuffy - the typical stock STM dull sound.  As you reduce the curve, the tone will open up and become more resonant, clearer, and more responsive, until it becomes too close to flat, and the tone starts to become brittle, with a harshness that for me, becomes fist apparent on high Bb.  


--- On Thu, 9/16/10, mattmarantz86 <mattmarantz86@...> wrote:

From: mattmarantz86 <mattmarantz86@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, September 16, 2010, 7:53 PM







 



  


    
      
      
      Interesting subject! Good info to have. Matt Stohrer once mentioned to me that the area right behind the tip rail in the mouthpiece really has a lot to do with response. In my limited experience, I've also found that to be true. Studying a few a piece I have that really plays great that was finished by someone else, I've noticed that in addition to having a really nice facing curve and great tip work, the area right behind the baffle is super smooth. I was hanging out with a friend yesterday who happens to play on a Ted Klum Focustone Acoustimer. Ted's work, to me, is among the best, I just love his style and his precise work. Those are really interesting pieces. What I've noticed with his work is that a lot of his pieces have a bit of a roll over baffle, but the area right behind the tip rail is always super smooth. On some of them it looks as if he maybe even buffs the inside of the mouthpiece after he finishes them, they are so smooth. The
 Focustones, as well as a few other pieces I've seen that he's finished, seem to have a few things in common, a super-fine thin tip rail, moderately thin side rails, the area beneath the window is often undercut to lead more smoothly into the chamber, a very smooth area right behind the tip rail, and they often have a medium-length low but very visible baffle. Many of these mouthpieces have been among the best I've ever had the pleasure of trying. 

However, on a couple of mouthpieces I've been experimenting with, I've filed down the baffle real low, especially right behind the tip rail. A tenor Link I was working on had a bit too much material in the baffle area after I'd opened it slightly, and after finishing the facing it still played really strangely and a little bit too brightly. I filed down the baffle to try and get it fairly smooth behind the tip rail, almost to the point of completely removing the baffle and just trying to create a smooth area leading to the rest of the floor (although I didn't necessarily want to make it concave, I was just going to evenness), and after smoothing this area out the response and sound improved on the mouthpiece  a lot. I found that even with the baffle smoothed out so that there's not really much roll-over baffle there at all, the piece still plays with plenty of projection and the response seems to be much better than before. I'm going to keep
 experimenting. Maybe next time I'll see how hard it is to try and make a short roll over baffle like Ted does a lot in his work, maybe by opening a mouthpiece slightly and then smoothing out the area right behind the tip rail but leaving the baffle material left behind that area (without removing it a smoothing it out) and rolling it over a little bit into the floor, leaving some material there for a bit of a bit of roll over baffle. I'm curious to see if this adds projection without sacrificing response and warmth, which to me are equally (if not more) important. 

I don't know,  for me I guess it'll just take some more trail and error in the baffle department to find out how exactly different aspects of the baffle area affect the sound/response in different ways.



Matt



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:

>

> That's correct, concavity itself has no special effect. It appears that the effect of the baffle is dependent on the volume of air under the reed as you travel down the bore. The same can be said about the bore itself. Within broad limits, the shape of the bore is not imporant: a square bore or

>  oval bore of the same area volume plays the same as a round bore, although this changes the resonances of the wall material. This is why the material out of which square organ pipes are made can affect the sound.

> 

> Toby

> 

> artmutan <artmutan@...> wrote:                                           Yes the concavity is only left to right.

>  Both of the pieces were originally straight baffle with no roll over. I added a roll over to the M1 and got more shrill in as expected but still the overall sound is more meaty than my other high baffle pieces.

>  I also noticed something funky in the original tip rail. The M1 was really suffering from the odd tip rail configuration so that it immediately improved by just polishing tip area of the facing.

>  

>  Anyway the conclusion seems to be the baffle concavity itself is not known to have any special effect.

>  

>  Thanks for both responders.

>  

>  -Arto

>  

>  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:

>  >

>  > I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the center of 

>  > the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find�they have straight ramped 

>  > baffles.� Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a straight baffle.� The 

>  > Ponzol baffles�are concaved from left to right.� Ponzol tip rails are also a 

>  > little concaved, which I think hurts response.� 

>  > 

>  > 

>  > A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over baffles 

>  > near the tip rail.� Perhaps these designs are easier to mass-produce.� In most 

>  > cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the sound 

>  > (less shrill) and response.� 

>  > 

>  > �

>  > 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: artmutan <artmutan@>

>  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com

>  > Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM

>  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle

>  > 

>  > � 

>  > Hi all,

>  > 

>  > I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.

>  > I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.

>  > I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem 

>  > to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.

>  > I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly 

>  > concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.

>  > I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the 

>  > inside.

>  > Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly 

>  > concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece 

>  > before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.

>  > Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.

>  > It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it 

>  > to happen.

>  > 

>  > So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?

>  > It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but 

>  > is there any other magic in there for others?

>  >

>





    
     

    
    


 



  






      

I have taken a rather radical step with two of my high-baffle mpcs, a Beechler bellite alto and a Berg Larsen tenor. I put a small round diamond bit on my Dremel and cut a fairly deep groove immediately behind the tip rail. Both had a tendency to chirp, and now that is completely gone. It is not
 pretty at all, since it is next to impossible to cut the groove evenly without CNC, but that doesn't matter to me since no one but me is going to see it.

I did this in response to an article I read, which is unfortunately no longer online. However it appears that some air space directly behind the tip rail is acoustically desirable for good reed response. 

This does change the sound somewhat, but for the better--it gets rid of the high edgy sound that is at or near the frequency of the chirp, but it doesn't affect the projection or general timbre of the sound much, since the baffle is left pretty much intact.

I did it first to the Beechler, since no matter how I refaced it there was always a tendency for it to chirp when pushed. It is still not my favorite mpc, but it is now behaving much better. Later I decided to try it also on the Berg, which is my main tenor mpc. This one wasn't bad, but it seems
 to be even better now; at least that is my impression after playing on it for a while.

If any of you have mpcs that like to squeal, I do recommend trying this. You have to be very careful, of course, not to wipe out the tip rail, which is pretty easy if you are not careful with a power tool, but you are not going to be able to cut a groove with a file. You want a definite ledge just
 behind the tip rail: you don't want the baffle to blend into the tip rail. After I cut this groove (maybe about .5mm deep or a bit more) I carefully file the back edge off with a curved round needle file and then use some fine sandpaper on a soft backing (usually wrapped around the rubber-sleeved
 butt end of the file). Then a quick couple of swipes to redefine the tip rail, which often gets a bit rounded because it is so close to the working area. 

Don't do this to your favorite piece (at least at first), but if you have a few old mpcs you can try this on to see the result it is worth the experimenting IMO.

Toby

Toby

mattmarantz86 <mattmarantz86@...> wrote:                                           Interesting subject! Good info to have. Matt Stohrer once mentioned to me that the area right behind the tip rail in the mouthpiece really has a lot to do with response. In my limited experience, I've also
 found that to be true. Studying a few a piece I have that really plays great that was finished by someone else, I've noticed that in addition to having a really nice facing curve and great tip work, the area right behind the baffle is super smooth. I was hanging out with a friend yesterday who
 happens to play on a Ted Klum Focustone Acoustimer. Ted's work, to me, is among the best, I just love his style and his precise work. Those are really interesting pieces. What I've noticed with his work is that a lot of his pieces have a bit of a roll over baffle, but the area right behind the
 tip rail is always super smooth. On some of them it looks as if he maybe even buffs the inside of the mouthpiece after he finishes them, they are so smooth. The Focustones, as well as a few other pieces I've seen that he's finished, seem to have a few things in common, a super-fine thin tip rail,
 moderately thin side rails, the area beneath the window is often undercut to lead more smoothly into the chamber, a very smooth area right behind the tip rail, and they often have a medium-length low but very visible baffle. Many of these mouthpieces have been among the best I've ever had the
 pleasure of trying. 
 However, on a couple of mouthpieces I've been experimenting with, I've filed down the baffle real low, especially right behind the tip rail. A tenor Link I was working on had a bit too much material in the baffle area after I'd opened it slightly, and after finishing the facing it still played
 really strangely and a little bit too brightly. I filed down the baffle to try and get it fairly smooth behind the tip rail, almost to the point of completely removing the baffle and just trying to create a smooth area leading to the rest of the floor (although I didn't necessarily want to make
 it concave, I was just going to evenness), and after smoothing this area out the response and sound improved on the mouthpiece  a lot. I found that even with the baffle smoothed out so that there's not really much roll-over baffle there at all, the piece still plays with plenty of projection and
 the response seems to be much better than before. I'm going to keep experimenting. Maybe next time I'll see how hard it is to try and make a short roll over baffle like Ted does a lot in his work, maybe by opening a mouthpiece slightly and then smoothing out the area right behind the tip rail but
 leaving the baffle material left behind that area (without removing it a smoothing it out) and rolling it over a little bit into the floor, leaving some material there for a bit of a bit of roll over baffle. I'm curious to see if this adds projection without sacrificing response and warmth, which
 to me are equally (if not more) important. 
 I don't know,  for me I guess it'll just take some more trail and error in the baffle department to find out how exactly different aspects of the baffle area affect the sound/response in different ways.
 
 Matt
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
 >
 > That's correct, concavity itself has no special effect. It appears that the effect of the baffle is dependent on the volume of air under the reed as you travel down the bore. The same can be said about the bore itself. Within broad limits, the shape of the bore is not imporant: a square bore or
 >  oval bore of the same area volume plays the same as a round bore, although this changes the resonances of the wall material. This is why the material out of which square organ pipes are made can affect the sound.
 > 
 > Toby
 > 
 > artmutan <artmutan@...> wrote:                                           Yes the concavity is only left to right.
 >  Both of the pieces were originally straight baffle with no roll over. I added a roll over to the M1 and got more shrill in as expected but still the overall sound is more meaty than my other high baffle pieces.
 >  I also noticed something funky in the original tip rail. The M1 was really suffering from the odd tip rail configuration so that it immediately improved by just polishing tip area of the facing.
 >  
 >  Anyway the conclusion seems to be the baffle concavity itself is not known to have any special effect.
 >  
 >  Thanks for both responders.
 >  
 >  -Arto
 >  
 >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
 >  >
 >  > I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the center of 
 >  > the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find�they have straight ramped 
 >  > baffles.� Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a straight baffle.� The 
 >  > Ponzol baffles�are concaved from left to right.� Ponzol tip rails are also a 
 >  > little concaved, which I think hurts response.� 
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over baffles 
 >  > near the tip rail.� Perhaps these designs are easier to mass-produce.� In most 
 >  > cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the sound 
 >  > (less shrill) and response.� 
 >  > 
 >  > �
 >  > 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: artmutan <artmutan@>
 >  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 >  > Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM
 >  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle
 >  > 
 >  > � 
 >  > Hi all,
 >  > 
 >  > I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
 >  > I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.
 >  > I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem 
 >  > to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
 >  > I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly 
 >  > concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
 >  > I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the 
 >  > inside.
 >  > Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly 
 >  > concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece 
 >  > before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
 >  > Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.
 >  > It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it 
 >  > to happen.
 >  > 
 >  > So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
 >  > It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but 
 >  > is there any other magic in there for others?
 >  >
 >
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

How wide was the groove?  That is, what diameter bit did you uuse?  I'm intrigued by this idea.

DT

Sent from my Samsung Intercept™

kymarto123@ybb.ne.jp wrote:

>I have taken a rather radical step with two of my high-baffle mpcs, a Beechler bellite alto and a Berg Larsen tenor. I put a small round diamond bit on my Dremel and cut a fairly deep groove immediately behind the tip rail. Both had a tendency to chirp, and now that is completely gone. It is not
> pretty at all, since it is next to impossible to cut the groove evenly without CNC, but that doesn't matter to me since no one but me is going to see it.
>
>I did this in response to an article I read, which is unfortunately no longer online. However it appears that some air space directly behind the tip rail is acoustically desirable for good reed response. 
>
>This does change the sound somewhat, but for the better--it gets rid of the high edgy sound that is at or near the frequency of the chirp, but it doesn't affect the projection or general timbre of the sound much, since the baffle is left pretty much intact.
>
>I did it first to the Beechler, since no matter how I refaced it there was always a tendency for it to chirp when pushed. It is still not my favorite mpc, but it is now behaving much better. Later I decided to try it also on the Berg, which is my main tenor mpc. This one wasn't bad, but it seems
> to be even better now; at least that is my impression after playing on it for a while.
>
>If any of you have mpcs that like to squeal, I do recommend trying this. You have to be very careful, of course, not to wipe out the tip rail, which is pretty easy if you are not careful with a power tool, but you are not going to be able to cut a groove with a file. You want a definite ledge just
> behind the tip rail: you don't want the baffle to blend into the tip rail. After I cut this groove (maybe about .5mm deep or a bit more) I carefully file the back edge off with a curved round needle file and then use some fine sandpaper on a soft backing (usually wrapped around the rubber-sleeved
> butt end of the file). Then a quick couple of swipes to redefine the tip rail, which often gets a bit rounded because it is so close to the working area. 
>
>Don't do this to your favorite piece (at least at first), but if you have a few old mpcs you can try this on to see the result it is worth the experimenting IMO.
>
>Toby
>
>Toby
>
>mattmarantz86  wrote:                                           Interesting subject! Good info to have. Matt Stohrer once mentioned to me that the area right behind the tip rail in the mouthpiece really has a lot to do with response. In my limited experience, I've also
> found that to be true. Studying a few a piece I have that really plays great that was finished by someone else, I've noticed that in addition to having a really nice facing curve and great tip work, the area right behind the baffle is super smooth. I was hanging out with a friend yesterday who
> happens to play on a Ted Klum Focustone Acoustimer. Ted's work, to me, is among the best, I just love his style and his precise work. Those are really interesting pieces. What I've noticed with his work is that a lot of his pieces have a bit of a roll over baffle, but the area right behind the
> tip rail is always super smooth. On some of them it looks as if he maybe even buffs the inside of the mouthpiece after he finishes them, they are so smooth. The Focustones, as well as a few other pieces I've seen that he's finished, seem to have a few things in common, a super-fine thin tip rail,
> moderately thin side rails, the area beneath the window is often undercut to lead more smoothly into the chamber, a very smooth area right behind the tip rail, and they often have a medium-length low but very visible baffle. Many of these mouthpieces have been among the best I've ever had the
> pleasure of trying. 
> However, on a couple of mouthpieces I've been experimenting with, I've filed down the baffle real low, especially right behind the tip rail. A tenor Link I was working on had a bit too much material in the baffle area after I'd opened it slightly, and after finishing the facing it still played
> really strangely and a little bit too brightly. I filed down the baffle to try and get it fairly smooth behind the tip rail, almost to the point of completely removing the baffle and just trying to create a smooth area leading to the rest of the floor (although I didn't necessarily want to make
> it concave, I was just going to evenness), and after smoothing this area out the response and sound improved on the mouthpiece  a lot. I found that even with the baffle smoothed out so that there's not really much roll-over baffle there at all, the piece still plays with plenty of projection and
> the response seems to be much better than before. I'm going to keep experimenting. Maybe next time I'll see how hard it is to try and make a short roll over baffle like Ted does a lot in his work, maybe by opening a mouthpiece slightly and then smoothing out the area right behind the tip rail but
> leaving the baffle material left behind that area (without removing it a smoothing it out) and rolling it over a little bit into the floor, leaving some material there for a bit of a bit of roll over baffle. I'm curious to see if this adds projection without sacrificing response and warmth, which
> to me are equally (if not more) important. 
> I don't know,  for me I guess it'll just take some more trail and error in the baffle department to find out how exactly different aspects of the baffle area affect the sound/response in different ways.
> 
> Matt
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,  wrote:
> >
> > That's correct, concavity itself has no special effect. It appears that the effect of the baffle is dependent on the volume of air under the reed as you travel down the bore. The same can be said about the bore itself. Within broad limits, the shape of the bore is not imporant: a square bore or
> >  oval bore of the same area volume plays the same as a round bore, although this changes the resonances of the wall material. This is why the material out of which square organ pipes are made can affect the sound.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > artmutan  wrote:                                           Yes the concavity is only left to right.
> >  Both of the pieces were originally straight baffle with no roll over. I added a roll over to the M1 and got more shrill in as expected but still the overall sound is more meaty than my other high baffle pieces.
> >  I also noticed something funky in the original tip rail. The M1 was really suffering from the odd tip rail configuration so that it immediately improved by just polishing tip area of the facing.
> >  
> >  Anyway the conclusion seems to be the baffle concavity itself is not known to have any special effect.
> >  
> >  Thanks for both responders.
> >  
> >  -Arto
> >  
> >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury  wrote:
> >  >
> >  > I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the center of 
> >  > the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find�they have straight ramped 
> >  > baffles.� Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a straight baffle.� The 
> >  > Ponzol baffles�are concaved from left to right.� Ponzol tip rails are also a 
> >  > little concaved, which I think hurts response.� 
> >  > 
> >  > 
> >  > A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over baffles 
> >  > near the tip rail.� Perhaps these designs are easier to mass-produce.� In most 
> >  > cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the sound 
> >  > (less shrill) and response.� 
> >  > 
> >  > �
> >  > 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: artmutan 
> >  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> >  > Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM
> >  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle
> >  > 
> >  > � 
> >  > Hi all,
> >  > 
> >  > I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
> >  > I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.
> >  > I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem 
> >  > to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
> >  > I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly 
> >  > concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
> >  > I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the 
> >  > inside.
> >  > Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly 
> >  > concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece 
> >  > before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
> >  > Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.
> >  > It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it 
> >  > to happen.
> >  > 
> >  > So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
> >  > It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but 
> >  > is there any other magic in there for others?
> >  >
> >
> 
> 
>      
>                 
>                 
> 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:
>
> How wide was the groove?  That is, what diameter bit did you uuse?  I'm intrigued by this idea.
> 
> DT
> 
> Sent from my Samsung Intercept™
> 
> kymarto123@... wrote:
> 
> >I have taken a rather radical step with two of my high-baffle mpcs, a Beechler bellite alto and a Berg Larsen tenor. I put a small round diamond bit on my Dremel and cut a fairly deep groove immediately behind the tip rail. Both had a tendency to chirp, and now that is completely gone. It is not
> > pretty at all, since it is next to impossible to cut the groove evenly without CNC, but that doesn't matter to me since no one but me is going to see it.
> >
> >I did this in response to an article I read, which is unfortunately no longer online. However it appears that some air space directly behind the tip rail is acoustically desirable for good reed response. 
> >
> >This does change the sound somewhat, but for the better--it gets rid of the high edgy sound that is at or near the frequency of the chirp, but it doesn't affect the projection or general timbre of the sound much, since the baffle is left pretty much intact.
> >
> >I did it first to the Beechler, since no matter how I refaced it there was always a tendency for it to chirp when pushed. It is still not my favorite mpc, but it is now behaving much better. Later I decided to try it also on the Berg, which is my main tenor mpc. This one wasn't bad, but it seems
> > to be even better now; at least that is my impression after playing on it for a while.
> >
> >If any of you have mpcs that like to squeal, I do recommend trying this. You have to be very careful, of course, not to wipe out the tip rail, which is pretty easy if you are not careful with a power tool, but you are not going to be able to cut a groove with a file. You want a definite ledge just
> > behind the tip rail: you don't want the baffle to blend into the tip rail. After I cut this groove (maybe about .5mm deep or a bit more) I carefully file the back edge off with a curved round needle file and then use some fine sandpaper on a soft backing (usually wrapped around the rubber-sleeved
> > butt end of the file). Then a quick couple of swipes to redefine the tip rail, which often gets a bit rounded because it is so close to the working area. 
> >
> >Don't do this to your favorite piece (at least at first), but if you have a few old mpcs you can try this on to see the result it is worth the experimenting IMO.
> >
> >Toby
> >
> >Toby
> >
> >mattmarantz86 <mattmarantz86@...> wrote:                                           Interesting subject! Good info to have. Matt Stohrer once mentioned to me that the area right behind the tip rail in the mouthpiece really has a lot to do with response. In my limited experience, I've also
> > found that to be true. Studying a few a piece I have that really plays great that was finished by someone else, I've noticed that in addition to having a really nice facing curve and great tip work, the area right behind the baffle is super smooth. I was hanging out with a friend yesterday who
> > happens to play on a Ted Klum Focustone Acoustimer. Ted's work, to me, is among the best, I just love his style and his precise work. Those are really interesting pieces. What I've noticed with his work is that a lot of his pieces have a bit of a roll over baffle, but the area right behind the
> > tip rail is always super smooth. On some of them it looks as if he maybe even buffs the inside of the mouthpiece after he finishes them, they are so smooth. The Focustones, as well as a few other pieces I've seen that he's finished, seem to have a few things in common, a super-fine thin tip rail,
> > moderately thin side rails, the area beneath the window is often undercut to lead more smoothly into the chamber, a very smooth area right behind the tip rail, and they often have a medium-length low but very visible baffle. Many of these mouthpieces have been among the best I've ever had the
> > pleasure of trying. 
> > However, on a couple of mouthpieces I've been experimenting with, I've filed down the baffle real low, especially right behind the tip rail. A tenor Link I was working on had a bit too much material in the baffle area after I'd opened it slightly, and after finishing the facing it still played
> > really strangely and a little bit too brightly. I filed down the baffle to try and get it fairly smooth behind the tip rail, almost to the point of completely removing the baffle and just trying to create a smooth area leading to the rest of the floor (although I didn't necessarily want to make
> > it concave, I was just going to evenness), and after smoothing this area out the response and sound improved on the mouthpiece  a lot. I found that even with the baffle smoothed out so that there's not really much roll-over baffle there at all, the piece still plays with plenty of projection and
> > the response seems to be much better than before. I'm going to keep experimenting. Maybe next time I'll see how hard it is to try and make a short roll over baffle like Ted does a lot in his work, maybe by opening a mouthpiece slightly and then smoothing out the area right behind the tip rail but
> > leaving the baffle material left behind that area (without removing it a smoothing it out) and rolling it over a little bit into the floor, leaving some material there for a bit of a bit of roll over baffle. I'm curious to see if this adds projection without sacrificing response and warmth, which
> > to me are equally (if not more) important. 
> > I don't know,  for me I guess it'll just take some more trail and error in the baffle department to find out how exactly different aspects of the baffle area affect the sound/response in different ways.
> > 
> > Matt
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's correct, concavity itself has no special effect. It appears that the effect of the baffle is dependent on the volume of air under the reed as you travel down the bore. The same can be said about the bore itself. Within broad limits, the shape of the bore is not imporant: a square bore or
> > >  oval bore of the same area volume plays the same as a round bore, although this changes the resonances of the wall material. This is why the material out of which square organ pipes are made can affect the sound.
> > > 
> > > Toby
> > > 
> > > artmutan <artmutan@> wrote:                                           Yes the concavity is only left to right.
> > >  Both of the pieces were originally straight baffle with no roll over. I added a roll over to the M1 and got more shrill in as expected but still the overall sound is more meaty than my other high baffle pieces.
> > >  I also noticed something funky in the original tip rail. The M1 was really suffering from the odd tip rail configuration so that it immediately improved by just polishing tip area of the facing.
> > >  
> > >  Anyway the conclusion seems to be the baffle concavity itself is not known to have any special effect.
> > >  
> > >  Thanks for both responders.
> > >  
> > >  -Arto
> > >  
> > >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
> > >  >
> > >  > I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the center of 
> > >  > the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find�they have straight ramped 
> > >  > baffles.� Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a straight baffle.� The 
> > >  > Ponzol baffles�are concaved from left to right.� Ponzol tip rails are also a 
> > >  > little concaved, which I think hurts response.� 
> > >  > 
> > >  > 
> > >  > A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over baffles 
> > >  > near the tip rail.� Perhaps these designs are easier to mass-produce.� In most 
> > >  > cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the sound 
> > >  > (less shrill) and response.� 
> > >  > 
> > >  > �
> > >  > 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: artmutan <artmutan@>
> > >  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > >  > Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM
> > >  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle
> > >  > 
> > >  > � 
> > >  > Hi all,
> > >  > 
> > >  > I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
> > >  > I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.
> > >  > I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem 
> > >  > to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
> > >  > I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly 
> > >  > concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
> > >  > I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the 
> > >  > inside.
> > >  > Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly 
> > >  > concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece 
> > >  > before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
> > >  > Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.
> > >  > It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it 
> > >  > to happen.
> > >  > 
> > >  > So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
> > >  > It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but 
> > >  > is there any other magic in there for others?
> > >  >
> > >
> >See a photographic example of a concave baffle at :-
   www.theowanne.com/mouthpieces101/baffle.php 
   

> > 
> >      
> >                 
> >                 
> >
>

I used my smallest diamond ball--2mm--to cut the groove, because I wanted a clean drop-off from just behind the tip rail. And the groove itself is just over 2mm wide, since I did this by hand and so I had to approach the tip rail from a bit farther back. After I cut the groove I went back with a
 3mm ball and smoothed the edge where it joins the baffle so that there is not a sharp ledge there. I was scared shitless at first that the drill would chatter and tear up the tip rail, but I managed with only a few small slips (at the corner of the tip and side rail), which were shallow enough to
 only need a couple of pulls across some 1200 grit paper to smooth out). It ain't real even and it ain't real pretty, and it ain't too deep either, but it seems to help. I should probably clean it up a bit, but it's difficult to find a tool small enough that won't compromise the thin tip rail.

Here is a link to a pic:

http://s471.photobucket.com/albums/rr78/kymarto/?action=view¤t=mpc.jpg

Toby

Edward McLean <ed@...> wrote:                                           
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:
 >
 > How wide was the groove?  That is, what diameter bit did you uuse?  I'm intrigued by this idea.
 > 
 > DT
 > 
 > Sent from my Samsung Intercept$Bcd!V(B
 > 
 > kymarto123@... wrote:
 > 
 > >I have taken a rather radical step with two of my high-baffle mpcs, a Beechler bellite alto and a Berg Larsen tenor. I put a small round diamond bit on my Dremel and cut a fairly deep groove immediately behind the tip rail. Both had a tendency to chirp, and now that is completely gone. It is
 not
 > > pretty at all, since it is next to impossible to cut the groove evenly without CNC, but that doesn't matter to me since no one but me is going to see it.
 > >
 > >I did this in response to an article I read, which is unfortunately no longer online. However it appears that some air space directly behind the tip rail is acoustically desirable for good reed response. 
 > >
 > >This does change the sound somewhat, but for the better--it gets rid of the high edgy sound that is at or near the frequency of the chirp, but it doesn't affect the projection or general timbre of the sound much, since the baffle is left pretty much intact.
 > >
 > >I did it first to the Beechler, since no matter how I refaced it there was always a tendency for it to chirp when pushed. It is still not my favorite mpc, but it is now behaving much better. Later I decided to try it also on the Berg, which is my main tenor mpc. This one wasn't bad, but it
 seems
 > > to be even better now; at least that is my impression after playing on it for a while.
 > >
 > >If any of you have mpcs that like to squeal, I do recommend trying this. You have to be very careful, of course, not to wipe out the tip rail, which is pretty easy if you are not careful with a power tool, but you are not going to be able to cut a groove with a file. You want a definite ledge
 just
 > > behind the tip rail: you don't want the baffle to blend into the tip rail. After I cut this groove (maybe about .5mm deep or a bit more) I carefully file the back edge off with a curved round needle file and then use some fine sandpaper on a soft backing (usually wrapped around the
 rubber-sleeved
 > > butt end of the file). Then a quick couple of swipes to redefine the tip rail, which often gets a bit rounded because it is so close to the working area. 
 > >
 > >Don't do this to your favorite piece (at least at first), but if you have a few old mpcs you can try this on to see the result it is worth the experimenting IMO.
 > >
 > >Toby
 > >
 > >Toby
 > >
 > >mattmarantz86 <mattmarantz86@...> wrote:                                           Interesting subject! Good info to have. Matt Stohrer once mentioned to me that the area right behind the tip rail in the mouthpiece really has a lot to do with response. In my limited experience, I've also
 > > found that to be true. Studying a few a piece I have that really plays great that was finished by someone else, I've noticed that in addition to having a really nice facing curve and great tip work, the area right behind the baffle is super smooth. I was hanging out with a friend yesterday who
 > > happens to play on a Ted Klum Focustone Acoustimer. Ted's work, to me, is among the best, I just love his style and his precise work. Those are really interesting pieces. What I've noticed with his work is that a lot of his pieces have a bit of a roll over baffle, but the area right behind the
 > > tip rail is always super smooth. On some of them it looks as if he maybe even buffs the inside of the mouthpiece after he finishes them, they are so smooth. The Focustones, as well as a few other pieces I've seen that he's finished, seem to have a few things in common, a super-fine thin tip
 rail,
 > > moderately thin side rails, the area beneath the window is often undercut to lead more smoothly into the chamber, a very smooth area right behind the tip rail, and they often have a medium-length low but very visible baffle. Many of these mouthpieces have been among the best I've ever had the
 > > pleasure of trying. 
 > > However, on a couple of mouthpieces I've been experimenting with, I've filed down the baffle real low, especially right behind the tip rail. A tenor Link I was working on had a bit too much material in the baffle area after I'd opened it slightly, and after finishing the facing it still played
 > > really strangely and a little bit too brightly. I filed down the baffle to try and get it fairly smooth behind the tip rail, almost to the point of completely removing the baffle and just trying to create a smooth area leading to the rest of the floor (although I didn't necessarily want to
 make
 > > it concave, I was just going to evenness), and after smoothing this area out the response and sound improved on the mouthpiece  a lot. I found that even with the baffle smoothed out so that there's not really much roll-over baffle there at all, the piece still plays with plenty of projection
 and
 > > the response seems to be much better than before. I'm going to keep experimenting. Maybe next time I'll see how hard it is to try and make a short roll over baffle like Ted does a lot in his work, maybe by opening a mouthpiece slightly and then smoothing out the area right behind the tip rail
 but
 > > leaving the baffle material left behind that area (without removing it a smoothing it out) and rolling it over a little bit into the floor, leaving some material there for a bit of a bit of roll over baffle. I'm curious to see if this adds projection without sacrificing response and warmth,
 which
 > > to me are equally (if not more) important. 
 > > I don't know,  for me I guess it'll just take some more trail and error in the baffle department to find out how exactly different aspects of the baffle area affect the sound/response in different ways.
 > > 
 > > Matt
 > > 
 > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
 > > >
 > > > That's correct, concavity itself has no special effect. It appears that the effect of the baffle is dependent on the volume of air under the reed as you travel down the bore. The same can be said about the bore itself. Within broad limits, the shape of the bore is not imporant: a square
 bore or
 > > >  oval bore of the same area volume plays the same as a round bore, although this changes the resonances of the wall material. This is why the material out of which square organ pipes are made can affect the sound.
 > > > 
 > > > Toby
 > > > 
 > > > artmutan <artmutan@> wrote:                                           Yes the concavity is only left to right.
 > > >  Both of the pieces were originally straight baffle with no roll over. I added a roll over to the M1 and got more shrill in as expected but still the overall sound is more meaty than my other high baffle pieces.
 > > >  I also noticed something funky in the original tip rail. The M1 was really suffering from the odd tip rail configuration so that it immediately improved by just polishing tip area of the facing.
 > > >  
 > > >  Anyway the conclusion seems to be the baffle concavity itself is not known to have any special effect.
 > > >  
 > > >  Thanks for both responders.
 > > >  
 > > >  -Arto
 > > >  
 > > >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
 > > >  >
 > > >  > I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the center of 
 > > >  > the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find�they have straight ramped 
 > > >  > baffles.� Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a straight baffle.� The 
 > > >  > Ponzol baffles�are concaved from left to right.� Ponzol tip rails are also a 
 > > >  > little concaved, which I think hurts response.� 
 > > >  > 
 > > >  > 
 > > >  > A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over baffles 
 > > >  > near the tip rail.� Perhaps these designs are easier to mass-produce.� In most 
 > > >  > cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the sound 
 > > >  > (less shrill) and response.� 
 > > >  > 
 > > >  > �
 > > >  > 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: artmutan <artmutan@>
 > > >  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
 > > >  > Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM
 > > >  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle
 > > >  > 
 > > >  > � 
 > > >  > Hi all,
 > > >  > 
 > > >  > I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
 > > >  > I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.
 > > >  > I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem 
 > > >  > to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
 > > >  > I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly 
 > > >  > concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
 > > >  > I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the 
 > > >  > inside.
 > > >  > Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly 
 > > >  > concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece 
 > > >  > before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
 > > >  > Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.
 > > >  > It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it 
 > > >  > to happen.
 > > >  > 
 > > >  > So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
 > > >  > It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but 
 > > >  > is there any other magic in there for others?
 > > >  >
 > > >
 > >See a photographic example of a concave baffle at :-
    www.theowanne.com/mouthpieces101/baffle.php 
    
 
 > > 
 > >      
 > >                 
 > >                 
 > >
 >
 
 
      
                 
                 
 

My very favourite tenor mouthpiece is a Lawton 8*BR.  The "R" stands for reflector baffle which was Geoff Lawton's experimental design with a depression machined into the baffle immediately behind the tip rail.  Speaking to Geoff's son Jason, the idea was to take out the highest partials and reduce the risk of chirping/squeaking, but leave the power and edge of high baffle pieces.

I've got some pictures of my mouthpiece here: http://www.photobox.co.uk/my/album?album_id=491913035

You can see that the feature is similar to Toby's machined groove but this one extends further away from the tip rail.

The sound of this piece is really warm and rich but still with lots of edge and power.  On MOJO's advice I tried temporarily filling the depression with Blu-Tak to hear what difference the depression makes.  Then it just sounded like a decent high baffle piece, but lost its warmth.

I searched and searched and eventually found an alto Lawton with a similar feature in the baffle, but it wasn't so good, perhaps because the depression was smaller.

I also got Lawrie Waldron (LAW mouthpieces) to modfiy another Lawton alto piece by machining in a similar depression behind the tip rail.  He did an absolutely superb job, but the effect wasn't quite what I had hoped for.  Nice mouthpiece, but the sound was a bit "airy" rather than warm.

Then I had Lawrie make me a replica of my Lawton tenor piece - as close as he could get to all the same measurements of facing, baffle, chamber, throat.  He sent it to me unplated and with no depression on the baffle, having persuaded me to try it out like that and saying he would add the depression later if I wasn't happy.  Well, I was very impressed with the mouthpiece just as it was: it matched the Lawton really well and we decided not to risk losing that and so just plated the piece as it was, with no baffle depression.  This just left me confused as to what it was about the original piece that is so great !

Rhys

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I used my smallest diamond ball--2mm--to cut the groove, because I wanted a clean drop-off from just behind the tip rail. And the groove itself is just over 2mm wide, since I did this by hand and so I had to approach the tip rail from a bit farther back. After I cut the groove I went back with a
>  3mm ball and smoothed the edge where it joins the baffle so that there is not a sharp ledge there. I was scared shitless at first that the drill would chatter and tear up the tip rail, but I managed with only a few small slips (at the corner of the tip and side rail), which were shallow enough to
>  only need a couple of pulls across some 1200 grit paper to smooth out). It ain't real even and it ain't real pretty, and it ain't too deep either, but it seems to help. I should probably clean it up a bit, but it's difficult to find a tool small enough that won't compromise the thin tip rail.
> 
> Here is a link to a pic:
> 
> http://s471.photobucket.com/albums/rr78/kymarto/?action=view¤t=mpc.jpg
> 
> Toby
> 
> Edward McLean <ed@...> wrote:                                           
>  
>  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@> wrote:
>  >
>  > How wide was the groove?  That is, what diameter bit did you uuse?  I'm intrigued by this idea.
>  > 
>  > DT
>  > 
>  > Sent from my Samsung Interceptãä¡Ö
>  > 
>  > kymarto123@ wrote:
>  > 
>  > >I have taken a rather radical step with two of my high-baffle mpcs, a Beechler bellite alto and a Berg Larsen tenor. I put a small round diamond bit on my Dremel and cut a fairly deep groove immediately behind the tip rail. Both had a tendency to chirp, and now that is completely gone. It is
>  not
>  > > pretty at all, since it is next to impossible to cut the groove evenly without CNC, but that doesn't matter to me since no one but me is going to see it.
>  > >
>  > >I did this in response to an article I read, which is unfortunately no longer online. However it appears that some air space directly behind the tip rail is acoustically desirable for good reed response. 
>  > >
>  > >This does change the sound somewhat, but for the better--it gets rid of the high edgy sound that is at or near the frequency of the chirp, but it doesn't affect the projection or general timbre of the sound much, since the baffle is left pretty much intact.
>  > >
>  > >I did it first to the Beechler, since no matter how I refaced it there was always a tendency for it to chirp when pushed. It is still not my favorite mpc, but it is now behaving much better. Later I decided to try it also on the Berg, which is my main tenor mpc. This one wasn't bad, but it
>  seems
>  > > to be even better now; at least that is my impression after playing on it for a while.
>  > >
>  > >If any of you have mpcs that like to squeal, I do recommend trying this. You have to be very careful, of course, not to wipe out the tip rail, which is pretty easy if you are not careful with a power tool, but you are not going to be able to cut a groove with a file. You want a definite ledge
>  just
>  > > behind the tip rail: you don't want the baffle to blend into the tip rail. After I cut this groove (maybe about .5mm deep or a bit more) I carefully file the back edge off with a curved round needle file and then use some fine sandpaper on a soft backing (usually wrapped around the
>  rubber-sleeved
>  > > butt end of the file). Then a quick couple of swipes to redefine the tip rail, which often gets a bit rounded because it is so close to the working area. 
>  > >
>  > >Don't do this to your favorite piece (at least at first), but if you have a few old mpcs you can try this on to see the result it is worth the experimenting IMO.
>  > >
>  > >Toby
>  > >
>  > >Toby
>  > >
>  > >mattmarantz86 <mattmarantz86@> wrote:                                           Interesting subject! Good info to have. Matt Stohrer once mentioned to me that the area right behind the tip rail in the mouthpiece really has a lot to do with response. In my limited experience, I've also
>  > > found that to be true. Studying a few a piece I have that really plays great that was finished by someone else, I've noticed that in addition to having a really nice facing curve and great tip work, the area right behind the baffle is super smooth. I was hanging out with a friend yesterday who
>  > > happens to play on a Ted Klum Focustone Acoustimer. Ted's work, to me, is among the best, I just love his style and his precise work. Those are really interesting pieces. What I've noticed with his work is that a lot of his pieces have a bit of a roll over baffle, but the area right behind the
>  > > tip rail is always super smooth. On some of them it looks as if he maybe even buffs the inside of the mouthpiece after he finishes them, they are so smooth. The Focustones, as well as a few other pieces I've seen that he's finished, seem to have a few things in common, a super-fine thin tip
>  rail,
>  > > moderately thin side rails, the area beneath the window is often undercut to lead more smoothly into the chamber, a very smooth area right behind the tip rail, and they often have a medium-length low but very visible baffle. Many of these mouthpieces have been among the best I've ever had the
>  > > pleasure of trying. 
>  > > However, on a couple of mouthpieces I've been experimenting with, I've filed down the baffle real low, especially right behind the tip rail. A tenor Link I was working on had a bit too much material in the baffle area after I'd opened it slightly, and after finishing the facing it still played
>  > > really strangely and a little bit too brightly. I filed down the baffle to try and get it fairly smooth behind the tip rail, almost to the point of completely removing the baffle and just trying to create a smooth area leading to the rest of the floor (although I didn't necessarily want to
>  make
>  > > it concave, I was just going to evenness), and after smoothing this area out the response and sound improved on the mouthpiece  a lot. I found that even with the baffle smoothed out so that there's not really much roll-over baffle there at all, the piece still plays with plenty of projection
>  and
>  > > the response seems to be much better than before. I'm going to keep experimenting. Maybe next time I'll see how hard it is to try and make a short roll over baffle like Ted does a lot in his work, maybe by opening a mouthpiece slightly and then smoothing out the area right behind the tip rail
>  but
>  > > leaving the baffle material left behind that area (without removing it a smoothing it out) and rolling it over a little bit into the floor, leaving some material there for a bit of a bit of roll over baffle. I'm curious to see if this adds projection without sacrificing response and warmth,
>  which
>  > > to me are equally (if not more) important. 
>  > > I don't know,  for me I guess it'll just take some more trail and error in the baffle department to find out how exactly different aspects of the baffle area affect the sound/response in different ways.
>  > > 
>  > > Matt
>  > > 
>  > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
>  > > >
>  > > > That's correct, concavity itself has no special effect. It appears that the effect of the baffle is dependent on the volume of air under the reed as you travel down the bore. The same can be said about the bore itself. Within broad limits, the shape of the bore is not imporant: a square
>  bore or
>  > > >  oval bore of the same area volume plays the same as a round bore, although this changes the resonances of the wall material. This is why the material out of which square organ pipes are made can affect the sound.
>  > > > 
>  > > > Toby
>  > > > 
>  > > > artmutan <artmutan@> wrote:                                           Yes the concavity is only left to right.
>  > > >  Both of the pieces were originally straight baffle with no roll over. I added a roll over to the M1 and got more shrill in as expected but still the overall sound is more meaty than my other high baffle pieces.
>  > > >  I also noticed something funky in the original tip rail. The M1 was really suffering from the odd tip rail configuration so that it immediately improved by just polishing tip area of the facing.
>  > > >  
>  > > >  Anyway the conclusion seems to be the baffle concavity itself is not known to have any special effect.
>  > > >  
>  > > >  Thanks for both responders.
>  > > >  
>  > > >  -Arto
>  > > >  
>  > > >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
>  > > >  >
>  > > >  > I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the center of 
>  > > >  > the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find�they have straight ramped 
>  > > >  > baffles.� Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a straight baffle.� The 
>  > > >  > Ponzol baffles�are concaved from left to right.� Ponzol tip rails are also a 
>  > > >  > little concaved, which I think hurts response.� 
>  > > >  > 
>  > > >  > 
>  > > >  > A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over baffles 
>  > > >  > near the tip rail.� Perhaps these designs are easier to mass-produce.� In most 
>  > > >  > cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the sound 
>  > > >  > (less shrill) and response.� 
>  > > >  > 
>  > > >  > �
>  > > >  > 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: artmutan <artmutan@>
>  > > >  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>  > > >  > Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM
>  > > >  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle
>  > > >  > 
>  > > >  > � 
>  > > >  > Hi all,
>  > > >  > 
>  > > >  > I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
>  > > >  > I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.
>  > > >  > I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem 
>  > > >  > to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
>  > > >  > I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly 
>  > > >  > concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
>  > > >  > I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the 
>  > > >  > inside.
>  > > >  > Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly 
>  > > >  > concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece 
>  > > >  > before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
>  > > >  > Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.
>  > > >  > It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it 
>  > > >  > to happen.
>  > > >  > 
>  > > >  > So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
>  > > >  > It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but 
>  > > >  > is there any other magic in there for others?
>  > > >  >
>  > > >
>  > >See a photographic example of a concave baffle at :-
>     www.theowanne.com/mouthpieces101/baffle.php 
>     
>  
>  > > 
>  > >      
>  > >                 
>  > >                 
>  > >
>  >
>

Looking at that particular example, it seems to me that the effect gained by removing baffle material behind the tip (in high baffle pieces)is the same as adding a wedge baffle to a mpc with a lower baffle to begin with. Less messing around, no?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "rhysonsax" <rhysonsax@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> My very favourite tenor mouthpiece is a Lawton 8*BR.  The "R" stands for reflector baffle which was Geoff Lawton's experimental design with a depression machined into the baffle immediately behind the tip rail.  Speaking to Geoff's son Jason, the idea was to take out the highest partials and reduce the risk of chirping/squeaking, but leave the power and edge of high baffle pieces.
> 
> I've got some pictures of my mouthpiece here: http://www.photobox.co.uk/my/album?album_id=491913035
> 
> You can see that the feature is similar to Toby's machined groove but this one extends further away from the tip rail.
> 
> The sound of this piece is really warm and rich but still with lots of edge and power.  On MOJO's advice I tried temporarily filling the depression with Blu-Tak to hear what difference the depression makes.  Then it just sounded like a decent high baffle piece, but lost its warmth.
> 
> I searched and searched and eventually found an alto Lawton with a similar feature in the baffle, but it wasn't so good, perhaps because the depression was smaller.
> 
> I also got Lawrie Waldron (LAW mouthpieces) to modfiy another Lawton alto piece by machining in a similar depression behind the tip rail.  He did an absolutely superb job, but the effect wasn't quite what I had hoped for.  Nice mouthpiece, but the sound was a bit "airy" rather than warm.
> 
> Then I had Lawrie make me a replica of my Lawton tenor piece - as close as he could get to all the same measurements of facing, baffle, chamber, throat.  He sent it to me unplated and with no depression on the baffle, having persuaded me to try it out like that and saying he would add the depression later if I wasn't happy.  Well, I was very impressed with the mouthpiece just as it was: it matched the Lawton really well and we decided not to risk losing that and so just plated the piece as it was, with no baffle depression.  This just left me confused as to what it was about the original piece that is so great !
> 
> Rhys
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >
> > I used my smallest diamond ball--2mm--to cut the groove, because I wanted a clean drop-off from just behind the tip rail. And the groove itself is just over 2mm wide, since I did this by hand and so I had to approach the tip rail from a bit farther back. After I cut the groove I went back with a
> >  3mm ball and smoothed the edge where it joins the baffle so that there is not a sharp ledge there. I was scared shitless at first that the drill would chatter and tear up the tip rail, but I managed with only a few small slips (at the corner of the tip and side rail), which were shallow enough to
> >  only need a couple of pulls across some 1200 grit paper to smooth out). It ain't real even and it ain't real pretty, and it ain't too deep either, but it seems to help. I should probably clean it up a bit, but it's difficult to find a tool small enough that won't compromise the thin tip rail.
> > 
> > Here is a link to a pic:
> > 
> > http://s471.photobucket.com/albums/rr78/kymarto/?action=view¤t=mpc.jpg
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > Edward McLean <ed@> wrote:                                           
> >  
> >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@> wrote:
> >  >
> >  > How wide was the groove?  That is, what diameter bit did you uuse?  I'm intrigued by this idea.
> >  > 
> >  > DT
> >  > 
> >  > Sent from my Samsung Interceptãä¡Ö
> >  > 
> >  > kymarto123@ wrote:
> >  > 
> >  > >I have taken a rather radical step with two of my high-baffle mpcs, a Beechler bellite alto and a Berg Larsen tenor. I put a small round diamond bit on my Dremel and cut a fairly deep groove immediately behind the tip rail. Both had a tendency to chirp, and now that is completely gone. It is
> >  not
> >  > > pretty at all, since it is next to impossible to cut the groove evenly without CNC, but that doesn't matter to me since no one but me is going to see it.
> >  > >
> >  > >I did this in response to an article I read, which is unfortunately no longer online. However it appears that some air space directly behind the tip rail is acoustically desirable for good reed response. 
> >  > >
> >  > >This does change the sound somewhat, but for the better--it gets rid of the high edgy sound that is at or near the frequency of the chirp, but it doesn't affect the projection or general timbre of the sound much, since the baffle is left pretty much intact.
> >  > >
> >  > >I did it first to the Beechler, since no matter how I refaced it there was always a tendency for it to chirp when pushed. It is still not my favorite mpc, but it is now behaving much better. Later I decided to try it also on the Berg, which is my main tenor mpc. This one wasn't bad, but it
> >  seems
> >  > > to be even better now; at least that is my impression after playing on it for a while.
> >  > >
> >  > >If any of you have mpcs that like to squeal, I do recommend trying this. You have to be very careful, of course, not to wipe out the tip rail, which is pretty easy if you are not careful with a power tool, but you are not going to be able to cut a groove with a file. You want a definite ledge
> >  just
> >  > > behind the tip rail: you don't want the baffle to blend into the tip rail. After I cut this groove (maybe about .5mm deep or a bit more) I carefully file the back edge off with a curved round needle file and then use some fine sandpaper on a soft backing (usually wrapped around the
> >  rubber-sleeved
> >  > > butt end of the file). Then a quick couple of swipes to redefine the tip rail, which often gets a bit rounded because it is so close to the working area. 
> >  > >
> >  > >Don't do this to your favorite piece (at least at first), but if you have a few old mpcs you can try this on to see the result it is worth the experimenting IMO.
> >  > >
> >  > >Toby
> >  > >
> >  > >Toby
> >  > >
> >  > >mattmarantz86 <mattmarantz86@> wrote:                                           Interesting subject! Good info to have. Matt Stohrer once mentioned to me that the area right behind the tip rail in the mouthpiece really has a lot to do with response. In my limited experience, I've also
> >  > > found that to be true. Studying a few a piece I have that really plays great that was finished by someone else, I've noticed that in addition to having a really nice facing curve and great tip work, the area right behind the baffle is super smooth. I was hanging out with a friend yesterday who
> >  > > happens to play on a Ted Klum Focustone Acoustimer. Ted's work, to me, is among the best, I just love his style and his precise work. Those are really interesting pieces. What I've noticed with his work is that a lot of his pieces have a bit of a roll over baffle, but the area right behind the
> >  > > tip rail is always super smooth. On some of them it looks as if he maybe even buffs the inside of the mouthpiece after he finishes them, they are so smooth. The Focustones, as well as a few other pieces I've seen that he's finished, seem to have a few things in common, a super-fine thin tip
> >  rail,
> >  > > moderately thin side rails, the area beneath the window is often undercut to lead more smoothly into the chamber, a very smooth area right behind the tip rail, and they often have a medium-length low but very visible baffle. Many of these mouthpieces have been among the best I've ever had the
> >  > > pleasure of trying. 
> >  > > However, on a couple of mouthpieces I've been experimenting with, I've filed down the baffle real low, especially right behind the tip rail. A tenor Link I was working on had a bit too much material in the baffle area after I'd opened it slightly, and after finishing the facing it still played
> >  > > really strangely and a little bit too brightly. I filed down the baffle to try and get it fairly smooth behind the tip rail, almost to the point of completely removing the baffle and just trying to create a smooth area leading to the rest of the floor (although I didn't necessarily want to
> >  make
> >  > > it concave, I was just going to evenness), and after smoothing this area out the response and sound improved on the mouthpiece  a lot. I found that even with the baffle smoothed out so that there's not really much roll-over baffle there at all, the piece still plays with plenty of projection
> >  and
> >  > > the response seems to be much better than before. I'm going to keep experimenting. Maybe next time I'll see how hard it is to try and make a short roll over baffle like Ted does a lot in his work, maybe by opening a mouthpiece slightly and then smoothing out the area right behind the tip rail
> >  but
> >  > > leaving the baffle material left behind that area (without removing it a smoothing it out) and rolling it over a little bit into the floor, leaving some material there for a bit of a bit of roll over baffle. I'm curious to see if this adds projection without sacrificing response and warmth,
> >  which
> >  > > to me are equally (if not more) important. 
> >  > > I don't know,  for me I guess it'll just take some more trail and error in the baffle department to find out how exactly different aspects of the baffle area affect the sound/response in different ways.
> >  > > 
> >  > > Matt
> >  > > 
> >  > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> >  > > >
> >  > > > That's correct, concavity itself has no special effect. It appears that the effect of the baffle is dependent on the volume of air under the reed as you travel down the bore. The same can be said about the bore itself. Within broad limits, the shape of the bore is not imporant: a square
> >  bore or
> >  > > >  oval bore of the same area volume plays the same as a round bore, although this changes the resonances of the wall material. This is why the material out of which square organ pipes are made can affect the sound.
> >  > > > 
> >  > > > Toby
> >  > > > 
> >  > > > artmutan <artmutan@> wrote:                                           Yes the concavity is only left to right.
> >  > > >  Both of the pieces were originally straight baffle with no roll over. I added a roll over to the M1 and got more shrill in as expected but still the overall sound is more meaty than my other high baffle pieces.
> >  > > >  I also noticed something funky in the original tip rail. The M1 was really suffering from the odd tip rail configuration so that it immediately improved by just polishing tip area of the facing.
> >  > > >  
> >  > > >  Anyway the conclusion seems to be the baffle concavity itself is not known to have any special effect.
> >  > > >  
> >  > > >  Thanks for both responders.
> >  > > >  
> >  > > >  -Arto
> >  > > >  
> >  > > >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> wrote:
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >  > I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the center of 
> >  > > >  > the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find�they have straight ramped 
> >  > > >  > baffles.� Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a straight baffle.� The 
> >  > > >  > Ponzol baffles�are concaved from left to right.� Ponzol tip rails are also a 
> >  > > >  > little concaved, which I think hurts response.� 
> >  > > >  > 
> >  > > >  > 
> >  > > >  > A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over baffles 
> >  > > >  > near the tip rail.� Perhaps these designs are easier to mass-produce.� In most 
> >  > > >  > cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the sound 
> >  > > >  > (less shrill) and response.� 
> >  > > >  > 
> >  > > >  > �
> >  > > >  > 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: artmutan <artmutan@>
> >  > > >  > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> >  > > >  > Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM
> >  > > >  > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle
> >  > > >  > 
> >  > > >  > � 
> >  > > >  > Hi all,
> >  > > >  > 
> >  > > >  > I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
> >  > > >  > I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces as well.
> >  > > >  > I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the Ponzols seem 
> >  > > >  > to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
> >  > > >  > I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have slightly 
> >  > > >  > concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
> >  > > >  > I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, it's the 
> >  > > >  > inside.
> >  > > >  > Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be slightly 
> >  > > >  > concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough the piece 
> >  > > >  > before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
> >  > > >  > Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the resistance.
> >  > > >  > It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I wanted it 
> >  > > >  > to happen.
> >  > > >  > 
> >  > > >  > So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
> >  > > >  > It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on average but 
> >  > > >  > is there any other magic in there for others?
> >  > > >  >
> >  > > >
> >  > >See a photographic example of a concave baffle at :-
> >     www.theowanne.com/mouthpieces101/baffle.php 
> >     
> >  
> >  > > 
> >  > >      
> >  > >                 
> >  > >                 
> >  > >
> >  >
> >
>

I'm not sure the groove near the tip rail has the same effect as the Lawton 
reflector baffle.  They possibly may be similar for chirp reduction, but not 
sound.  The Lawton reflector baffle seems like a more extreme version of the 
Berg "Lake".  In Bergs, the lake is usually a flat section near the tip rail but 
sometimes it is slightly concave.  But it does not drop off significantly near 
the tip rail.  It just wipes out any roll-over baffle.

Your LAW story reminded me of several phone conversations I had with Laurie 
Waldron while he was working on these mouthpieces for you.  He was disappointed 
that the baffle depression did not generate better results since it was very 
time consuming to make.  


The last post from Rohan made me think that the Metalite design is essentially a 
plain mouthpiece with a wedge added.  It does not have a baffle depression but 
it dows drop off significantly after the tip rail and then levels off at the 
baffle.  So I think the groover Toby has, the Lawton reflector baffle and the 
the Metalite design all have drop offs after the tip rail.  But they all 
differ in their downstream geometery.  I'm not sure of all the effects of these 
shapes because the reported results vary.  I have not been inspired enough yet 
to try a deep groove.  I have made many lakes and wedges in mouthpieces.   



________________________________
From: rhysonsax <rhysonsax@gmail.com>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 4:37:14 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle

  


My very favourite tenor mouthpiece is a Lawton 8*BR. The "R" stands for 
reflector baffle which was Geoff Lawton's experimental design with a depression 
machined into the baffle immediately behind the tip rail. Speaking to Geoff's 
son Jason, the idea was to take out the highest partials and reduce the risk of 
chirping/squeaking, but leave the power and edge of high baffle pieces.

I've got some pictures of my mouthpiece here: 
http://www.photobox.co.uk/my/album?album_id=491913035

You can see that the feature is similar to Toby's machined groove but this one 
extends further away from the tip rail.

The sound of this piece is really warm and rich but still with lots of edge and 
power. On MOJO's advice I tried temporarily filling the depression with Blu-Tak 
to hear what difference the depression makes. Then it just sounded like a decent 
high baffle piece, but lost its warmth.

I searched and searched and eventually found an alto Lawton with a similar 
feature in the baffle, but it wasn't so good, perhaps because the depression was 
smaller.

I also got Lawrie Waldron (LAW mouthpieces) to modfiy another Lawton alto piece 
by machining in a similar depression behind the tip rail. He did an absolutely 
superb job, but the effect wasn't quite what I had hoped for. Nice mouthpiece, 
but the sound was a bit "airy" rather than warm.

Then I had Lawrie make me a replica of my Lawton tenor piece - as close as he 
could get to all the same measurements of facing, baffle, chamber, throat. He 
sent it to me unplated and with no depression on the baffle, having persuaded me 
to try it out like that and saying he would add the depression later if I wasn't 
happy. Well, I was very impressed with the mouthpiece just as it was: it matched 
the Lawton really well and we decided not to risk losing that and so just plated 
the piece as it was, with no baffle depression. This just left me confused as to 
what it was about the original piece that is so great !

Rhys

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> I used my smallest diamond ball--2mm--to cut the groove, because I wanted a 
>clean drop-off from just behind the tip rail. And the groove itself is just over 
>2mm wide, since I did this by hand and so I had to approach the tip rail from a 
>bit farther back. After I cut the groove I went back with a
> 3mm ball and smoothed the edge where it joins the baffle so that there is not a 
>sharp ledge there. I was scared shitless at first that the drill would chatter 
>and tear up the tip rail, but I managed with only a few small slips (at the 
>corner of the tip and side rail), which were shallow enough to
> only need a couple of pulls across some 1200 grit paper to smooth out). It 
>ain't real even and it ain't real pretty, and it ain't too deep either, but it 
>seems to help. I should probably clean it up a bit, but it's difficult to find a 
>tool small enough that won't compromise the thin tip rail.
> 
> Here is a link to a pic:
> 
> http://s471.photobucket.com/albums/rr78/kymarto/?action=view¤t=mpc.jpg
> 
> Toby
> 
> Edward McLean <ed@...> wrote: 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@> wrote:
> >
> > How wide was the groove? That is, what diameter bit did you uuse? I'm 
>intrigued by this idea.
> > 
> > DT
> > 
> > Sent from my Samsung Interceptãä¡Ö
> > 
> > kymarto123@ wrote:
> > 
> > >I have taken a rather radical step with two of my high-baffle mpcs, a 
>Beechler bellite alto and a Berg Larsen tenor. I put a small round diamond bit 
>on my Dremel and cut a fairly deep groove immediately behind the tip rail. Both 
>had a tendency to chirp, and now that is completely gone. It is
> not
> > > pretty at all, since it is next to impossible to cut the groove evenly 
>without CNC, but that doesn't matter to me since no one but me is going to see 
>it.
> > >
> > >I did this in response to an article I read, which is unfortunately no 
>longer online. However it appears that some air space directly behind the tip 
>rail is acoustically desirable for good reed response. 
>
> > >
> > >This does change the sound somewhat, but for the better--it gets rid of the 
>high edgy sound that is at or near the frequency of the chirp, but it doesn't 
>affect the projection or general timbre of the sound much, since the baffle is 
>left pretty much intact.
> > >
> > >I did it first to the Beechler, since no matter how I refaced it there was 
>always a tendency for it to chirp when pushed. It is still not my favorite mpc, 
>but it is now behaving much better. Later I decided to try it also on the Berg, 
>which is my main tenor mpc. This one wasn't bad, but it
> seems
> > > to be even better now; at least that is my impression after playing on it 
>for a while.
> > >
> > >If any of you have mpcs that like to squeal, I do recommend trying this. You 
>have to be very careful, of course, not to wipe out the tip rail, which is 
>pretty easy if you are not careful with a power tool, but you are not going to 
>be able to cut a groove with a file. You want a definite ledge
> just
> > > behind the tip rail: you don't want the baffle to blend into the tip rail. 
>After I cut this groove (maybe about .5mm deep or a bit more) I carefully file 
>the back edge off with a curved round needle file and then use some fine 
>sandpaper on a soft backing (usually wrapped around the
> rubber-sleeved
> > > butt end of the file). Then a quick couple of swipes to redefine the tip 
>rail, which often gets a bit rounded because it is so close to the working area. 
>
> > >
> > >Don't do this to your favorite piece (at least at first), but if you have a 
>few old mpcs you can try this on to see the result it is worth the experimenting 
>IMO.
> > >
> > >Toby
> > >
> > >Toby
> > >
> > >mattmarantz86 <mattmarantz86@> wrote: Interesting subject! Good info to 
>have. Matt Stohrer once mentioned to me that the area right behind the tip rail 
>in the mouthpiece really has a lot to do with response. In my limited 
>experience, I've also
> > > found that to be true. Studying a few a piece I have that really plays 
>great that was finished by someone else, I've noticed that in addition to having 
>a really nice facing curve and great tip work, the area right behind the baffle 
>is super smooth. I was hanging out with a friend yesterday who
> > > happens to play on a Ted Klum Focustone Acoustimer. Ted's work, to me, is 
>among the best, I just love his style and his precise work. Those are really 
>interesting pieces. What I've noticed with his work is that a lot of his pieces 
>have a bit of a roll over baffle, but the area right behind the
> > > tip rail is always super smooth. On some of them it looks as if he maybe 
>even buffs the inside of the mouthpiece after he finishes them, they are so 
>smooth. The Focustones, as well as a few other pieces I've seen that he's 
>finished, seem to have a few things in common, a super-fine thin tip
> rail,
> > > moderately thin side rails, the area beneath the window is often undercut 
>to lead more smoothly into the chamber, a very smooth area right behind the tip 
>rail, and they often have a medium-length low but very visible baffle. Many of 
>these mouthpieces have been among the best I've ever had the
> > > pleasure of trying. 
> > > However, on a couple of mouthpieces I've been experimenting with, I've 
>filed down the baffle real low, especially right behind the tip rail. A tenor 
>Link I was working on had a bit too much material in the baffle area after I'd 
>opened it slightly, and after finishing the facing it still played
> > > really strangely and a little bit too brightly. I filed down the baffle to 
>try and get it fairly smooth behind the tip rail, almost to the point of 
>completely removing the baffle and just trying to create a smooth area leading 
>to the rest of the floor (although I didn't necessarily want to
> make
> > > it concave, I was just going to evenness), and after smoothing this area 
>out the response and sound improved on the mouthpiece a lot. I found that even 
>with the baffle smoothed out so that there's not really much roll-over baffle 
>there at all, the piece still plays with plenty of projection
> and
> > > the response seems to be much better than before. I'm going to keep 
>experimenting. Maybe next time I'll see how hard it is to try and make a short 
>roll over baffle like Ted does a lot in his work, maybe by opening a mouthpiece 
>slightly and then smoothing out the area right behind the tip rail
> but
> > > leaving the baffle material left behind that area (without removing it a 
>smoothing it out) and rolling it over a little bit into the floor, leaving some 
>material there for a bit of a bit of roll over baffle. I'm curious to see if 
>this adds projection without sacrificing response and warmth,
> which
> > > to me are equally (if not more) important. 
> > > I don't know, for me I guess it'll just take some more trail and error in 
>the baffle department to find out how exactly different aspects of the baffle 
>area affect the sound/response in different ways.
> > > 
> > > Matt
> > > 
> > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's correct, concavity itself has no special effect. It appears that 
>the effect of the baffle is dependent on the volume of air under the reed as you 
>travel down the bore. The same can be said about the bore itself. Within broad 
>limits, the shape of the bore is not imporant: a square
> bore or
> > > > oval bore of the same area volume plays the same as a round bore, 
>although this changes the resonances of the wall material. This is why the 
>material out of which square organ pipes are made can affect the sound.
> > > > 
> > > > Toby
> > > > 
> > > > artmutan <artmutan@> wrote: Yes the concavity is only left to right.
> > > > Both of the pieces were originally straight baffle with no roll over. I 
>added a roll over to the M1 and got more shrill in as expected but still the 
>overall sound is more meaty than my other high baffle pieces.
> > > > I also noticed something funky in the original tip rail. The M1 was 
>really suffering from the odd tip rail configuration so that it immediately 
>improved by just polishing tip area of the facing.
> > > > 
> > > > Anyway the conclusion seems to be the baffle concavity itself is not 
>known to have any special effect.
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks for both responders.
> > > > 
> > > > -Arto
> > > > 
> > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@> 
>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the 
>center of 
>
> > > > > the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find�they have 
>straight ramped 
>
> > > > > baffles.� Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a 
>straight baffle.� The 
>
> > > > > Ponzol baffles�are concaved from left to right.� Ponzol 
>tip rails are also a 
>
> > > > > little concaved, which I think hurts response.� 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over 
>baffles 
>
> > > > > near the tip rail.� Perhaps these designs are easier to 
>mass-produce.� In most 
>
> > > > > cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the 
>sound 
>
> > > > > (less shrill) and response.� 
> > > > > 
> > > > > �
> > > > > 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: artmutan <artmutan@>
> > > > > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM
> > > > > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle
> > > > > 
> > > > > � 
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
> > > > > I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces 
>as well.
> > > > > I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the 
>Ponzols seem 
>
> > > > > to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
> > > > > I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have 
>slightly 
>
> > > > > concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
> > > > > I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference, 
>it's the 
>
> > > > > inside.
> > > > > Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be 
>slightly 
>
> > > > > concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough 
>the piece 
>
> > > > > before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
> > > > > Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the 
>resistance.
> > > > > It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I 
>wanted it 
>
> > > > > to happen.
> > > > > 
> > > > > So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
> > > > > It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on 
>average but 
>
> > > > > is there any other magic in there for others?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >See a photographic example of a concave baffle at :-
> www.theowanne.com/mouthpieces101/baffle.php 
> 
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >
> >
>





      

Both the Metalite and the Graftonite mouthpieces have this somewhat steep
slope just behind the tip rail, which meets the baffle at a shallow angle. I
find these mouthpieces seem to respond a little better if that shallow angle
is filled in a little. I suspect that this design is weighted more towards
stability than responsiveness.

Regarding Rhys's post comparing a Lawton tenor to a Lawton alto, my own
experience is that what works for a player on a tenor isn't necessarily what
works on alto. I think there are non-scalable factors at work - at least one
set of non-scalable factors anyway, and those are the individual player's
embouchure and oral cavity.

> I'm not sure the groove near the tip rail has the same effect as the Lawton
> reflector baffle.  They possibly may be similar for chirp reduction, but not
> sound.  The Lawton reflector baffle seems like a more extreme version of the
> Berg "Lake".  In Bergs, the lake is usually a flat section near the tip rail
> but 
> sometimes it is slightly concave.  But it does not drop off significantly near
> the tip rail.  It just wipes out any roll-over baffle.
> 
> Your LAW story reminded me of several phone conversations I had with Laurie
> Waldron while he was working on these mouthpieces for you.  He was
> disappointed 
> that the baffle depression did not generate better results since it was very
> time consuming to make. 
> 
> 
> The last post from Rohan made me think that the Metalite design is essentially
> a 
> plain mouthpiece with a wedge added.  It does not have a baffle depression but
> it dows drop off significantly after the tip rail and then levels off at the
> baffle.  So I think the groover Toby has, the Lawton reflector baffle and the
> the Metalite design all have drop offs after the tip rail.  But they all
> differ in their downstream geometery.  I'm not sure of all the effects of
> these 
> shapes because the reported results vary.  I have not been inspired enough yet
> to try a deep groove.  I have made many lakes and wedges in mouthpieces.   
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: rhysonsax <rhysonsax@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 4:37:14 AM
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle
> 
>   
> 
> 
> My very favourite tenor mouthpiece is a Lawton 8*BR. The "R" stands for
> reflector baffle which was Geoff Lawton's experimental design with a
> depression 
> machined into the baffle immediately behind the tip rail. Speaking to Geoff's
> son Jason, the idea was to take out the highest partials and reduce the risk
> of 
> chirping/squeaking, but leave the power and edge of high baffle pieces.
> 
> I've got some pictures of my mouthpiece here:
> http://www.photobox.co.uk/my/album?album_id=491913035
> 
> You can see that the feature is similar to Toby's machined groove but this one
> extends further away from the tip rail.
> 
> The sound of this piece is really warm and rich but still with lots of edge
> and 
> power. On MOJO's advice I tried temporarily filling the depression with
> Blu-Tak 
> to hear what difference the depression makes. Then it just sounded like a
> decent 
> high baffle piece, but lost its warmth.
> 
> I searched and searched and eventually found an alto Lawton with a similar
> feature in the baffle, but it wasn't so good, perhaps because the depression
> was 
> smaller.
> 
> I also got Lawrie Waldron (LAW mouthpieces) to modfiy another Lawton alto
> piece 
> by machining in a similar depression behind the tip rail. He did an absolutely
> superb job, but the effect wasn't quite what I had hoped for. Nice mouthpiece,
> but the sound was a bit "airy" rather than warm.
> 
> Then I had Lawrie make me a replica of my Lawton tenor piece - as close as he
> could get to all the same measurements of facing, baffle, chamber, throat. He
> sent it to me unplated and with no depression on the baffle, having persuaded
> me 
> to try it out like that and saying he would add the depression later if I
> wasn't 
> happy. Well, I was very impressed with the mouthpiece just as it was: it
> matched 
> the Lawton really well and we decided not to risk losing that and so just
> plated 
> the piece as it was, with no baffle depression. This just left me confused as
> to 
> what it was about the original piece that is so great !
> 
> Rhys
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>> 
>> I used my smallest diamond ball--2mm--to cut the groove, because I wanted a
>> clean drop-off from just behind the tip rail. And the groove itself is just
>> over 
>> 2mm wide, since I did this by hand and so I had to approach the tip rail from
>> a 
>> bit farther back. After I cut the groove I went back with a
>> 3mm ball and smoothed the edge where it joins the baffle so that there is not
>> a 
>> sharp ledge there. I was scared shitless at first that the drill would
>> chatter 
>> and tear up the tip rail, but I managed with only a few small slips (at the
>> corner of the tip and side rail), which were shallow enough to
>> only need a couple of pulls across some 1200 grit paper to smooth out). It
>> ain't real even and it ain't real pretty, and it ain't too deep either, but
>> it 
>> seems to help. I should probably clean it up a bit, but it's difficult to
>> find a 
>> tool small enough that won't compromise the thin tip rail.
>> 
>> Here is a link to a pic:
>> 
>> http://s471.photobucket.com/albums/rr78/kymarto/?action=view¤t=mpc.jpg
>> 
>> Toby
>> 
>> Edward McLean <ed@...> wrote:
>> 
>> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@> wrote:
>>> 
>>> How wide was the groove? That is, what diameter bit did you uuse? I'm
>> intrigued by this idea.
>>> 
>>> DT
>>> 
>>> Sent from my Samsung Interceptãä¡Ö
>>> 
>>> kymarto123@ wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have taken a rather radical step with two of my high-baffle mpcs, a
>> Beechler bellite alto and a Berg Larsen tenor. I put a small round diamond
>> bit 
>> on my Dremel and cut a fairly deep groove immediately behind the tip rail.
>> Both 
>> had a tendency to chirp, and now that is completely gone. It is
>> not
>>>> pretty at all, since it is next to impossible to cut the groove evenly
>> without CNC, but that doesn't matter to me since no one but me is going to
>> see 
>> it.
>>>> 
>>>> I did this in response to an article I read, which is unfortunately no
>> longer online. However it appears that some air space directly behind the tip
>> rail is acoustically desirable for good reed response.
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> This does change the sound somewhat, but for the better--it gets rid of the
>> high edgy sound that is at or near the frequency of the chirp, but it doesn't
>> affect the projection or general timbre of the sound much, since the baffle
>> is 
>> left pretty much intact.
>>>> 
>>>> I did it first to the Beechler, since no matter how I refaced it there was
>> always a tendency for it to chirp when pushed. It is still not my favorite
>> mpc, 
>> but it is now behaving much better. Later I decided to try it also on the
>> Berg, 
>> which is my main tenor mpc. This one wasn't bad, but it
>> seems
>>>> to be even better now; at least that is my impression after playing on it
>> for a while.
>>>> 
>>>> If any of you have mpcs that like to squeal, I do recommend trying this.
>>>> You 
>> have to be very careful, of course, not to wipe out the tip rail, which is
>> pretty easy if you are not careful with a power tool, but you are not going
>> to 
>> be able to cut a groove with a file. You want a definite ledge
>> just
>>>> behind the tip rail: you don't want the baffle to blend into the tip rail.
>> After I cut this groove (maybe about .5mm deep or a bit more) I carefully
>> file 
>> the back edge off with a curved round needle file and then use some fine
>> sandpaper on a soft backing (usually wrapped around the
>> rubber-sleeved
>>>> butt end of the file). Then a quick couple of swipes to redefine the tip
>> rail, which often gets a bit rounded because it is so close to the working
>> area. 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Don't do this to your favorite piece (at least at first), but if you have a
>> few old mpcs you can try this on to see the result it is worth the
>> experimenting 
>> IMO.
>>>> 
>>>> Toby
>>>> 
>>>> Toby
>>>> 
>>>> mattmarantz86 <mattmarantz86@> wrote: Interesting subject! Good info to
>> have. Matt Stohrer once mentioned to me that the area right behind the tip
>> rail 
>> in the mouthpiece really has a lot to do with response. In my limited
>> experience, I've also
>>>> found that to be true. Studying a few a piece I have that really plays
>> great that was finished by someone else, I've noticed that in addition to
>> having 
>> a really nice facing curve and great tip work, the area right behind the
>> baffle 
>> is super smooth. I was hanging out with a friend yesterday who
>>>> happens to play on a Ted Klum Focustone Acoustimer. Ted's work, to me, is
>> among the best, I just love his style and his precise work. Those are really
>> interesting pieces. What I've noticed with his work is that a lot of his
>> pieces 
>> have a bit of a roll over baffle, but the area right behind the
>>>> tip rail is always super smooth. On some of them it looks as if he maybe
>> even buffs the inside of the mouthpiece after he finishes them, they are so
>> smooth. The Focustones, as well as a few other pieces I've seen that he's
>> finished, seem to have a few things in common, a super-fine thin tip
>> rail,
>>>> moderately thin side rails, the area beneath the window is often undercut
>> to lead more smoothly into the chamber, a very smooth area right behind the
>> tip 
>> rail, and they often have a medium-length low but very visible baffle. Many
>> of 
>> these mouthpieces have been among the best I've ever had the
>>>> pleasure of trying.
>>>> However, on a couple of mouthpieces I've been experimenting with, I've
>> filed down the baffle real low, especially right behind the tip rail. A tenor
>> Link I was working on had a bit too much material in the baffle area after
>> I'd 
>> opened it slightly, and after finishing the facing it still played
>>>> really strangely and a little bit too brightly. I filed down the baffle to
>> try and get it fairly smooth behind the tip rail, almost to the point of
>> completely removing the baffle and just trying to create a smooth area
>> leading 
>> to the rest of the floor (although I didn't necessarily want to
>> make
>>>> it concave, I was just going to evenness), and after smoothing this area
>> out the response and sound improved on the mouthpiece a lot. I found that
>> even 
>> with the baffle smoothed out so that there's not really much roll-over baffle
>> there at all, the piece still plays with plenty of projection
>> and
>>>> the response seems to be much better than before. I'm going to keep
>> experimenting. Maybe next time I'll see how hard it is to try and make a
>> short 
>> roll over baffle like Ted does a lot in his work, maybe by opening a
>> mouthpiece 
>> slightly and then smoothing out the area right behind the tip rail
>> but
>>>> leaving the baffle material left behind that area (without removing it a
>> smoothing it out) and rolling it over a little bit into the floor, leaving
>> some 
>> material there for a bit of a bit of roll over baffle. I'm curious to see if
>> this adds projection without sacrificing response and warmth,
>> which
>>>> to me are equally (if not more) important.
>>>> I don't know, for me I guess it'll just take some more trail and error in
>> the baffle department to find out how exactly different aspects of the baffle
>> area affect the sound/response in different ways.
>>>> 
>>>> Matt
>>>> 
>>>> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> That's correct, concavity itself has no special effect. It appears that
>> the effect of the baffle is dependent on the volume of air under the reed as
>> you 
>> travel down the bore. The same can be said about the bore itself. Within
>> broad 
>> limits, the shape of the bore is not imporant: a square
>> bore or
>>>>> oval bore of the same area volume plays the same as a round bore,
>> although this changes the resonances of the wall material. This is why the
>> material out of which square organ pipes are made can affect the sound.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Toby
>>>>> 
>>>>> artmutan <artmutan@> wrote: Yes the concavity is only left to right.
>>>>> Both of the pieces were originally straight baffle with no roll over. I
>> added a roll over to the M1 and got more shrill in as expected but still the
>> overall sound is more meaty than my other high baffle pieces.
>>>>> I also noticed something funky in the original tip rail. The M1 was
>> really suffering from the odd tip rail configuration so that it immediately
>> improved by just polishing tip area of the facing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Anyway the conclusion seems to be the baffle concavity itself is not
>> known to have any special effect.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks for both responders.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Arto
>>>>> 
>>>>> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think if you lay a straight edge along your Ponzol baffles, from the
>> center of 
>> 
>>>>>> the tip rail into the chamber throat, you will find�they have
>> straight ramped 
>> 
>>>>>> baffles.� Based on Theo's classifications, he calls this a
>> straight baffle.� The
>> 
>>>>>> Ponzol baffles�are concaved from left to right.� Ponzol
>> tip rails are also a
>> 
>>>>>> little concaved, which I think hurts response.�
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> A lot of medium and high baffle baffle mouthpieces also have roll-over
>> baffles 
>> 
>>>>>> near the tip rail.� Perhaps these designs are easier to
>> mass-produce.� In most
>> 
>>>>>> cases, I find lowering or eliminating the roll-over baffle improves the
>> sound 
>> 
>>>>>> (less shrill) and response.�
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> �
>>>>>> 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: artmutan <artmutan@>
>>>>>> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
>>>>>> Sent: Thu, August 26, 2010 6:52:15 AM
>>>>>> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Concave baffle
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> � 
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm currently into high baffle pieces for alto.
>>>>>> I have been refacing some pieces for myself and examining stock pieces
>> as well.
>>>>>> I have found that out of my (quite small) selection of pieces the
>> Ponzols seem 
>> 
>>>>>> to have the best mix of edge, tone depth and response.
>>>>>> I have also noticed that the Ponzols are the only ones that have
>> slightly 
>> 
>>>>>> concave baffle. My high baffle Ponzols are M1 and Custom.
>>>>>> I have refaced them both myself so the facing is not the difference,
>> it's the 
>> 
>>>>>> inside.
>>>>>> Today I made an experiment where I sanded the baffle of a HR berg to be
>> slightly 
>> 
>>>>>> concave as well and it seemed to help. I can now push more air trough
>> the piece 
>> 
>>>>>> before it starts speaking and the sound is clearer.
>>>>>> Bit (but not quite) the same as larger facing but without adding the
>> resistance.
>>>>>> It's also possible that I'm just imagining the improvement because I
>> wanted it 
>> 
>>>>>> to happen.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So does anyone else have any comments about baffle concavity?
>>>>>> It obviously makes the chamber a bil larger and lowers the baffle on
>> average but 
>> 
>>>>>> is there any other magic in there for others?
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> See a photographic example of a concave baffle at :-
>> www.theowanne.com/mouthpieces101/baffle.php
>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

I think this is a profound observation.  Many mouthpiece concepts work from alto 
to tenor, etc, but some do not so well.  Meyer-like designs are preferred on 
alto, Links on tenor, squeeze chambers on soprano.  There are many exceptions 
but also some general trends.



________________________________
From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 10:55:21 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle



Regarding Rhys's post comparing a Lawton tenor to a Lawton alto, my own
experience is that what works for a player on a tenor isn't necessarily what
works on alto. I think there are non-scalable factors at work - at least one
set of non-scalable factors anyway, and those are the individual player's
embouchure and oral cavity.


      

A lot depends on what happens just behind the tip rail. If
the "drop off" just behind the tip rail is the same then
it would be similar. I cut just the groove rather than
taking material off further back as well because I wanted
better response without changing the higher partials.

Toby

--- rohanlawlor <lawlormail@...> wrote:

> 
> 
> Looking at that particular example, it seems to me
> that the effect gained by removing baffle material
> behind the tip (in high baffle pieces)is the same as
> adding a wedge baffle to a mpc with a lower baffle
> to begin with. Less messing around, no?
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "rhysonsax"
> <rhysonsax@...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > My very favourite tenor mouthpiece is a Lawton
> 8*BR.  The "R" stands for reflector baffle which was
> Geoff Lawton's experimental design with a depression
> machined into the baffle immediately behind the tip
> rail.  Speaking to Geoff's son Jason, the idea was
> to take out the highest partials and reduce the risk
> of chirping/squeaking, but leave the power and edge
> of high baffle pieces.
> > 
> > I've got some pictures of my mouthpiece here:
> http://www.photobox.co.uk/my/album?album_idI1913035
> > 
> > You can see that the feature is similar to Toby's
> machined groove but this one extends further away
> from the tip rail.
> > 
> > The sound of this piece is really warm and rich
> but still with lots of edge and power.  On MOJO's
> advice I tried temporarily filling the depression
> with Blu-Tak to hear what difference the depression
> makes.  Then it just sounded like a decent high
> baffle piece, but lost its warmth.
> > 
> > I searched and searched and eventually found an
> alto Lawton with a similar feature in the baffle,
> but it wasn't so good, perhaps because the
> depression was smaller.
> > 
> > I also got Lawrie Waldron (LAW mouthpieces) to
> modfiy another Lawton alto piece by machining in a
> similar depression behind the tip rail.  He did an
> absolutely superb job, but the effect wasn't quite
> what I had hoped for.  Nice mouthpiece, but the
> sound was a bit "airy" rather than warm.
> > 
> > Then I had Lawrie make me a replica of my Lawton
> tenor piece - as close as he could get to all the
> same measurements of facing, baffle, chamber,
> throat.  He sent it to me unplated and with no
> depression on the baffle, having persuaded me to try
> it out like that and saying he would add the
> depression later if I wasn't happy.  Well, I was
> very impressed with the mouthpiece just as it was:
> it matched the Lawton really well and we decided not
> to risk losing that and so just plated the piece as
> it was, with no baffle depression.  This just left
> me confused as to what it was about the original
> piece that is so great !
> > 
> > Rhys
> > 
> > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com,
> <kymarto123@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I used my smallest diamond ball--2mm--to cut the
> groove, because I wanted a clean drop-off from just
> behind the tip rail. And the groove itself is just
> over 2mm wide, since I did this by hand and so I had
> to approach the tip rail from a bit farther back.
> After I cut the groove I went back with a
> > >  3mm ball and smoothed the edge where it joins
> the baffle so that there is not a sharp ledge there.
> I was scared shitless at first that the drill would
> chatter and tear up the tip rail, but I managed with
> only a few small slips (at the corner of the tip and
> side rail), which were shallow enough to
> > >  only need a couple of pulls across some 1200
> grit paper to smooth out). It ain't real even and it
> ain't real pretty, and it ain't too deep either, but
> it seems to help. I should probably clean it up a
> bit, but it's difficult to find a tool small enough
> that won't compromise the thin tip rail.
> > > 
> > > Here is a link to a pic:
> > > 
> > >
>
http://s471.photobucket.com/albums/rr78/kymarto/?action=view¤t=mpc.jpg
> > > 
> > > Toby
> > > 
> > > Edward McLean <ed@> wrote:                      
>                     
> > >  
> > >  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Dan
> Torosian <dtorosian@> wrote:
> > >  >
> > >  > How wide was the groove?  That is, what
> diameter bit did you uuse?  I'm intrigued by this
> idea.
> > >  > 
> > >  > DT
> > >  > 
> > >  > Sent from my Samsung Intercept$B>-%'>-!W>$%D>,%b(B
> > >  > 
> > >  > kymarto123@ wrote:
> > >  > 
> > >  > >I have taken a rather radical step with two
> of my high-baffle mpcs, a Beechler bellite alto and
> a Berg Larsen tenor. I put a small round diamond bit
> on my Dremel and cut a fairly deep groove
> immediately behind the tip rail. Both had a tendency
> to chirp, and now that is completely gone. It is
> > >  not
> > >  > > pretty at all, since it is next to
> impossible to cut the groove evenly without CNC, but
> that doesn't matter to me since no one but me is
> going to see it.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >I did this in response to an article I read,
> which is unfortunately no longer online. However it
> appears that some air space directly behind the tip
> rail is acoustically desirable for good reed
> response. 
> > >  > >
> > >  > >This does change the sound somewhat, but for
> the better--it gets rid of the high edgy sound that
> is at or near the frequency of the chirp, but it
> doesn't affect the projection or general timbre of
> the sound much, since the baffle is left pretty much
> intact.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >I did it first to the Beechler, since no
> matter how I refaced it there was always a tendency
> for it to chirp when pushed. It is still not my
> favorite mpc, but it is now behaving much better.
> Later I decided to try it also on the Berg, which is
> my main tenor mpc. This one wasn't bad, but it
> > >  seems
> > >  > > to be even better now; at least that is my
> impression after playing on it for a while.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >If any of you have mpcs that like to squeal,
> I do recommend trying this. You have to be very
> careful, of course, not to wipe out the tip rail,
> which is pretty easy if you are not careful with a
> power tool, but you are not going to be able to cut
> a groove with a file. You want a definite ledge
> > >  just
> > >  > > behind the tip rail: you don't want the
> baffle to blend into the tip rail. After I cut this
> groove (maybe about .5mm deep or a bit more) I
> carefully file the back edge off with a curved round
> needle file and then use some fine sandpaper on a
> soft backing (usually wrapped around the
> > >  rubber-sleeved
> > >  > > butt end of the file). Then a quick couple
> of swipes to redefine the tip rail, which often gets
> a bit rounded because it is so close to the working
> area. 
> > >  > >
> > >  > >Don't do this to your favorite piece (at
> least at first), but if you have a few old mpcs you
> can try this on to see the result it is worth the
> experimenting IMO.
> > >  > >
> > >  > >Toby
> > >  > >
> > >  > >Toby
> > >  > >
> > >  > >mattmarantz86 <mattmarantz86@> wrote:       
>                                    Interesting
> subject! Good info to have. Matt Stohrer once
> mentioned to me that the area right behind the tip
> rail in the mouthpiece really has a lot to do with
> response. In my limited experience, I've also
> > >  > > found that to be true. Studying a few a
> piece I have that really plays great that was
> finished by someone else, I've noticed that in
> addition to having a really nice facing curve and
> great tip work, the area right behind the baffle is
> super smooth. I was hanging out with a friend
> yesterday who
> > >  > > happens to play on a Ted Klum Focustone
> Acoustimer. Ted's work, to me, is among the best, I
> just love his style and his precise work. Those are
> really interesting pieces. What I've noticed with
> his work is that a lot of his pieces have a bit of a
> roll over baffle, but the area right behind the
> > >  > > tip rail is always super smooth. On some of
> them it looks as if he maybe even buffs the inside
> of the mouthpiece after he finishes them, they are
> so smooth. The Focustones, as well as a few other
> pieces I've seen that he's finished, seem to have a
> few things in common, a super-fine thin tip
> > >  rail,
> > >  > > moderately thin side rails, the area
> beneath the window is often undercut to lead more
> smoothly into the chamber, a very smooth area right
> behind 
=$B!<%O%$%7!"%[!%b'%F!%%5!#%7!%%/!"%^%;%O%[%c!"%*!"(B�
$B!+!"%-!"%=(B =

The cone tapers are different between the different sax sizes, and the bore diameters are not proportional - a soprano is not half the diameter of a tenor, nor is an alto half the diameter of a bari, at their truncated ends, so naturally, one would not expect the mouthpieces to all be of the same design for optimal results.

--- On Mon, 9/20/10, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, September 20, 2010, 3:25 PM







 



  


    
      
      
      



I think this is a profound observation.  Many mouthpiece concepts work from alto to tenor, etc, but some do not so well.  Meyer-like designs are preferred on alto, Links on tenor, squeeze chambers on soprano.  There are many exceptions but also some general trends.




From: Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 10:55:21 AM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle






Regarding Rhys's post comparing a Lawton tenor to a Lawton alto, my own
experience is that what works for a player on a tenor isn't necessarily what
works on alto. I think there are non-scalable factors at work - at least one
set of non-scalable factors anyway, and those are the individual player's
embouchure and oral cavity.




      

    
     

    
    


 



  






      

I'm glad to see the Graftonite / Metalite mouthpieces mentioned as an example.

And as mentioned by others, my experience with the concave baffle is that it adds resistance and reduces edge... while giving the mouthpiece sluggish response.

Without going all the way to a concave baffle, removing some of the rollover will reduce the tendency to chirp or squeak.  

Paul C.

I don't think it's the same thing - the improvements gained by adjusting
just behind the tip rail don't feel quite the same as those gained by a
wedge baffle. The area just behind the tip rail seems to be a very sensitive
spot - not surprisingly, because it partakes in setting initial conditions
for air flow & turbulence.

Moreover, I think it's hard to adjust this zone to some kind of specs, if
one wanted to shoot for reproducibility.  I haven't seen a system for doing
this, eg. comparable to using feeler gauges for setting facing curves. I
suppose one could try to mark off distances from the tip, and then measure
the depth.  But it's over a much smaller distance.  One needs very good eyes
or magnifying lenses, and nice sharp markers.  I've tried using a profile
gauge; helpful, if a little coarse.

Barry
> 
> --- rohanlawlor <lawlormail@...
> <mailto:lawlormail%40optusnet.com.au> > wrote:
>> > 
>> > Looking at that particular example, it seems to me
>> > that the effect gained by removing baffle material
>> > behind the tip (in high baffle pieces)is the same as
>> > adding a wedge baffle to a mpc with a lower baffle
>> > to begin with. Less messing around, no?
> 

That was the idea of the groove: reduce the tendency to
chirp without making the mpc significantly more sluggish
or dull. It seems to work for me, but I have no
comparison. If someone has two identical mpcs and cuts a
groove in one while leaving the other unchanged it should
make a much better experiment. BTW I looked at the groove
I cut in the Beechler alto piece and it was significantly
deeper than the Berg of which I posted the pic. The
Beechler has the sound of a circular saw cutting through
tin sheeting, and it hasn't lost that with the groove, but
it *seems* much better behaved than previously. I hate it
but it is good for playing in loud jams.

Toby

--- tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> 
> I'm glad to see the Graftonite / Metalite
> mouthpieces mentioned as an example.
> 
> And as mentioned by others, my experience with the
> concave baffle is that it adds resistance and
> reduces edge... while giving the mouthpiece sluggish
> response.
> 
> Without going all the way to a concave baffle,
> removing some of the rollover will reduce the
> tendency to chirp or squeak.  
> 
> Paul C.
> 
> 

Benade did a study and found that the major effect of the
baffle has to do with altering the Bernoulli effect just
before the reed closes at the end of the cycle. As the
reed closes, the Bernoulli effect creates more and more
pressure differential the smaller the reed slit. A high
baffle causes it to increase more rapidly as the slit gets
smaller, and so it "snaps" shut more quickly. But if there
is a bit of space just behind the tip rail (IIRC--I wish
the article were still online) it reduces backforce that
tends to not let the reed close (since you have a small
cushion of compliant air that can compress). 

The author of the article (might have been Dalmont)
strongly suggested that for optimum performance there be a
small groove behind the tip rail. Damn. I should have
saved that article as a text file, but I did not expect it
to be taken offline.

Toby

--- Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:

> I don't think it's the same thing - the improvements
> gained by adjusting
> just behind the tip rail don't feel quite the same
> as those gained by a
> wedge baffle. The area just behind the tip rail
> seems to be a very sensitive
> spot - not surprisingly, because it partakes in
> setting initial conditions
> for air flow & turbulence.
> 
> Moreover, I think it's hard to adjust this zone to
> some kind of specs, if
> one wanted to shoot for reproducibility.  I haven't
> seen a system for doing
> this, eg. comparable to using feeler gauges for
> setting facing curves. I
> suppose one could try to mark off distances from the
> tip, and then measure
> the depth.  But it's over a much smaller distance. 
> One needs very good eyes
> or magnifying lenses, and nice sharp markers.  I've
> tried using a profile
> gauge; helpful, if a little coarse.
> 
> Barry
> > 
> > --- rohanlawlor <lawlormail@...
> > <mailto:lawlormail%40optusnet.com.au> > wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > Looking at that particular example, it seems to
> me
> >> > that the effect gained by removing baffle
> material
> >> > behind the tip (in high baffle pieces)is the
> same as
> >> > adding a wedge baffle to a mpc with a lower
> baffle
> >> > to begin with. Less messing around, no?
> > 
> 
> 

With all this about 'tip groove.  I bought a Laser trimmed Brecker II . for a specific gig.  Since I know how to [play altissimo  and want my to not sound like a laser . After the tour I cut out more then 50% of the baffle as Keith showed us.  It still had a chirpy sizzely thing I hated even thought I felt the baffle decrease and subsequent chamber increase.  I then put it under my magnifier and carefully "hand engraved" a groove parallel to the tip rail and It is a very nice balanced piece when you need all that power.  Thanks to the group for this discussion.  JZ
On Sep 21, 2010, at 4:39 PM, <kymarto123@...> <kymarto123@...> wrote:

> Benade did a study and found that the major effect of the
> baffle has to do with altering the Bernoulli effect just
> before the reed closes at the end of the cycle. As the
> reed closes, the Bernoulli effect creates more and more
> pressure differential the smaller the reed slit. A high
> baffle causes it to increase more rapidly as the slit gets
> smaller, and so it "snaps" shut more quickly. But if there
> is a bit of space just behind the tip rail (IIRC--I wish
> the article were still online) it reduces backforce that
> tends to not let the reed close (since you have a small
> cushion of compliant air that can compress). 
> 
> The author of the article (might have been Dalmont)
> strongly suggested that for optimum performance there be a
> small groove behind the tip rail. Damn. I should have
> saved that article as a text file, but I did not expect it
> to be taken offline.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
> 
> > I don't think it's the same thing - the improvements
> > gained by adjusting
> > just behind the tip rail don't feel quite the same
> > as those gained by a
> > wedge baffle. The area just behind the tip rail
> > seems to be a very sensitive
> > spot - not surprisingly, because it partakes in
> > setting initial conditions
> > for air flow & turbulence.
> > 
> > Moreover, I think it's hard to adjust this zone to
> > some kind of specs, if
> > one wanted to shoot for reproducibility. I haven't
> > seen a system for doing
> > this, eg. comparable to using feeler gauges for
> > setting facing curves. I
> > suppose one could try to mark off distances from the
> > tip, and then measure
> > the depth. But it's over a much smaller distance. 
> > One needs very good eyes
> > or magnifying lenses, and nice sharp markers. I've
> > tried using a profile
> > gauge; helpful, if a little coarse.
> > 
> > Barry
> > > 
> > > --- rohanlawlor <lawlormail@...
> > > <mailto:lawlormail%40optusnet.com.au> > wrote:
> > >> > 
> > >> > Looking at that particular example, it seems to
> > me
> > >> > that the effect gained by removing baffle
> > material
> > >> > behind the tip (in high baffle pieces)is the
> > same as
> > >> > adding a wedge baffle to a mpc with a lower
> > baffle
> > >> > to begin with. Less messing around, no?
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

Is the missing paper titled "Musical aero-acoustics of the clarinet" by 
Hirshberg, et al?  It mentions a private conversation with a D. Bechet in 1992 
on the sharp edged "ditch" carved near the tip rail in a clarinet mouthpiece and 
shows an illustration.  I printed a copy and may be able to scan it for you.  
I'm sure a copy can be purchased through a service.




________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 10:39:01 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle

  
Benade did a study and found that the major effect of the
baffle has to do with altering the Bernoulli effect just
before the reed closes at the end of the cycle. As the
reed closes, the Bernoulli effect creates more and more
pressure differential the smaller the reed slit. A high
baffle causes it to increase more rapidly as the slit gets
smaller, and so it "snaps" shut more quickly. But if there
is a bit of space just behind the tip rail (IIRC--I wish
the article were still online) it reduces backforce that
tends to not let the reed close (since you have a small
cushion of compliant air that can compress). 

The author of the article (might have been Dalmont)
strongly suggested that for optimum performance there be a
small groove behind the tip rail. Damn. I should have
saved that article as a text file, but I did not expect it
to be taken offline.

Toby

--- Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:

> I don't think it's the same thing - the improvements
> gained by adjusting
> just behind the tip rail don't feel quite the same
> as those gained by a
> wedge baffle. The area just behind the tip rail
> seems to be a very sensitive
> spot - not surprisingly, because it partakes in
> setting initial conditions
> for air flow & turbulence.
> 
> Moreover, I think it's hard to adjust this zone to
> some kind of specs, if
> one wanted to shoot for reproducibility. I haven't
> seen a system for doing
> this, eg. comparable to using feeler gauges for
> setting facing curves. I
> suppose one could try to mark off distances from the
> tip, and then measure
> the depth. But it's over a much smaller distance. 
> One needs very good eyes
> or magnifying lenses, and nice sharp markers. I've
> tried using a profile
> gauge; helpful, if a little coarse.
> 
> Barry
> > 
> > --- rohanlawlor <lawlormail@...
> > <mailto:lawlormail%40optusnet.com.au> > wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > Looking at that particular example, it seems to
> me
> >> > that the effect gained by removing baffle
> material
> >> > behind the tip (in high baffle pieces)is the
> same as
> >> > adding a wedge baffle to a mpc with a lower
> baffle
> >> > to begin with. Less messing around, no?
> > 
> 
> 





      

Hi Keith,

That paper is available online. I don't think it is that
one but let me read it and I will let you know if that was
what I was thinking of.

Toby

--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> Is the missing paper�titled "Musical
aero-acoustics
> of the clarinet" by 
> Hirshberg, et al?� It mentions a private
> conversation with a D. Bechet in 1992 
> on the sharp edged "ditch" carved near the tip rail
> in a clarinet mouthpiece and 
> shows an illustration.� I printed a copy and may
be
> able to scan it for you.� 
> I'm sure a copy can be purchased through a service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 10:39:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle
> 
> � 
> Benade did a study and found that the major effect
> of the
> baffle has to do with altering the Bernoulli effect
> just
> before the reed closes at the end of the cycle. As
> the
> reed closes, the Bernoulli effect creates more and
> more
> pressure differential the smaller the reed slit. A
> high
> baffle causes it to increase more rapidly as the
> slit gets
> smaller, and so it "snaps" shut more quickly. But if
> there
> is a bit of space just behind the tip rail (IIRC--I
> wish
> the article were still online) it reduces backforce
> that
> tends to not let the reed close (since you have a
> small
> cushion of compliant air that can compress). 
> 
> The author of the article (might have been Dalmont)
> strongly suggested that for optimum performance
> there be a
> small groove behind the tip rail. Damn. I should
> have
> saved that article as a text file, but I did not
> expect it
> to be taken offline.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
> wrote:
> 
> > I don't think it's the same thing - the
> improvements
> > gained by adjusting
> > just behind the tip rail don't feel quite the same
> > as those gained by a
> > wedge baffle. The area just behind the tip rail
> > seems to be a very sensitive
> > spot - not surprisingly, because it partakes in
> > setting initial conditions
> > for air flow & turbulence.
> > 
> > Moreover, I think it's hard to adjust this zone to
> > some kind of specs, if
> > one wanted to shoot for reproducibility. I haven't
> > seen a system for doing
> > this, eg. comparable to using feeler gauges for
> > setting facing curves. I
> > suppose one could try to mark off distances from
> the
> > tip, and then measure
> > the depth. But it's over a much smaller distance. 
> > One needs very good eyes
> > or magnifying lenses, and nice sharp markers. I've
> > tried using a profile
> > gauge; helpful, if a little coarse.
> > 
> > Barry
> > > 
> > > --- rohanlawlor <lawlormail@...
> > > <mailto:lawlormail%40optusnet.com.au> > wrote:
> > >> > 
> > >> > Looking at that particular example, it seems
> to
> > me
> > >> > that the effect gained by removing baffle
> > material
> > >> > behind the tip (in high baffle pieces)is the
> > same as
> > >> > adding a wedge baffle to a mpc with a lower
> > baffle
> > >> > to begin with. Less messing around, no?
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>       

Keith,
 
Here is the link to the paper, in PDF format. The page in question is page 4 of the PDF, "C5-562" in the paper.
 
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/96/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf
 
Regards,
 
Joseph Lopez



--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, <kymarto123@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Keith,
> 
> That paper is available online. I don't think it is that
> one but let me read it and I will let you know if that was
> what I was thinking of.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
> 
> > Is the missing paper�titled "Musical
> aero-acoustics
> > of the clarinet" by 
> > Hirshberg, et al?� It mentions a private
> > conversation with a D. Bechet in 1992 
> > on the sharp edged "ditch" carved near the tip rail
> > in a clarinet mouthpiece and 
> > shows an illustration.� I printed a copy and may
> be
> > able to scan it for you.� 
> > I'm sure a copy can be purchased through a service.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ________________________________
> > From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
> > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 10:39:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle
> > 
> > � 
> > Benade did a study and found that the major effect
> > of the
> > baffle has to do with altering the Bernoulli effect
> > just
> > before the reed closes at the end of the cycle. As
> > the
> > reed closes, the Bernoulli effect creates more and
> > more
> > pressure differential the smaller the reed slit. A
> > high
> > baffle causes it to increase more rapidly as the
> > slit gets
> > smaller, and so it "snaps" shut more quickly. But if
> > there
> > is a bit of space just behind the tip rail (IIRC--I
> > wish
> > the article were still online) it reduces backforce
> > that
> > tends to not let the reed close (since you have a
> > small
> > cushion of compliant air that can compress). 
> > 
> > The author of the article (might have been Dalmont)
> > strongly suggested that for optimum performance
> > there be a
> > small groove behind the tip rail. Damn. I should
> > have
> > saved that article as a text file, but I did not
> > expect it
> > to be taken offline.
> > 
> > Toby
> > 
> > --- Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't think it's the same thing - the
> > improvements
> > > gained by adjusting
> > > just behind the tip rail don't feel quite the same
> > > as those gained by a
> > > wedge baffle. The area just behind the tip rail
> > > seems to be a very sensitive
> > > spot - not surprisingly, because it partakes in
> > > setting initial conditions
> > > for air flow & turbulence.
> > > 
> > > Moreover, I think it's hard to adjust this zone to
> > > some kind of specs, if
> > > one wanted to shoot for reproducibility. I haven't
> > > seen a system for doing
> > > this, eg. comparable to using feeler gauges for
> > > setting facing curves. I
> > > suppose one could try to mark off distances from
> > the
> > > tip, and then measure
> > > the depth. But it's over a much smaller distance. 
> > > One needs very good eyes
> > > or magnifying lenses, and nice sharp markers. I've
> > > tried using a profile
> > > gauge; helpful, if a little coarse.
> > > 
> > > Barry
> > > > 
> > > > --- rohanlawlor <lawlormail@...
> > > > <mailto:lawlormail%40optusnet.com.au> > wrote:
> > > >> > 
> > > >> > Looking at that particular example, it seems
> > to
> > > me
> > > >> > that the effect gained by removing baffle
> > > material
> > > >> > behind the tip (in high baffle pieces)is the
> > > same as
> > > >> > adding a wedge baffle to a mpc with a lower
> > > baffle
> > > >> > to begin with. Less messing around, no?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
>   Ponzol tip rails are also a 
> little concaved, which I think hurts response

###

What do you all think is an acceptable range for this?  Obviously, tip opening measurements where the tip rail meets the side rails will be smaller than at the center of the tip rail, yes?

I recently worked on an old alto Tonemaster and a steel tenor Link RG both with a difference of nearly .005".

Thanks

Matt

I have never tried to gage this so I do not know what is typical.  Yo can 
measure mouthpieces you have on hand to get a feel for it.

I just notice it is too much when I lightly face the tip rail and the corners 
clean up before the tip does.




________________________________
From: Matthew <matthew.voss@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, September 28, 2010 1:35:34 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle

  


--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> Ponzol tip rails are also a 
> little concaved, which I think hurts response

###

What do you all think is an acceptable range for this? Obviously, tip opening 
measurements where the tip rail meets the side rails will be smaller than at the 
center of the tip rail, yes?

I recently worked on an old alto Tonemaster and a steel tenor Link RG both with 
a difference of nearly .005".

Thanks

Matt





      

Keith,

Here is the link to the paper, in PDF format. The page in question is page 4 of 
the PDF, "C5-562" in the paper.

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/96/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf

Regards,

Joseph Lopez




________________________________
From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, September 22, 2010 9:57:31 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle

  
Hi Keith,

That paper is available online. I don't think it is that
one but let me read it and I will let you know if that was
what I was thinking of.

Toby

--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> Is the missing paper�titled "Musical
aero-acoustics
> of the clarinet" by 
> Hirshberg, et al?� It mentions a private
> conversation with a D. Bechet in 1992 
> on the sharp edged "ditch" carved near the tip rail
> in a clarinet mouthpiece and 
> shows an illustration.� I printed a copy and may
be
> able to scan it for you.� 
> I'm sure a copy can be purchased through a service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 10:39:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle
> 
> � 
> Benade did a study and found that the major effect
> of the
> baffle has to do with altering the Bernoulli effect
> just
> before the reed closes at the end of the cycle. As
> the
> reed closes, the Bernoulli effect creates more and
> more
> pressure differential the smaller the reed slit. A
> high
> baffle causes it to increase more rapidly as the
> slit gets
> smaller, and so it "snaps" shut more quickly. But if
> there
> is a bit of space just behind the tip rail (IIRC--I
> wish
> the article were still online) it reduces backforce
> that
> tends to not let the reed close (since you have a
> small
> cushion of compliant air that can compress). 
> 
> The author of the article (might have been Dalmont)
> strongly suggested that for optimum performance
> there be a
> small groove behind the tip rail. Damn. I should
> have
> saved that article as a text file, but I did not
> expect it
> to be taken offline.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
> wrote:
> 
> > I don't think it's the same thing - the
> improvements
> > gained by adjusting
> > just behind the tip rail don't feel quite the same
> > as those gained by a
> > wedge baffle. The area just behind the tip rail
> > seems to be a very sensitive
> > spot - not surprisingly, because it partakes in
> > setting initial conditions
> > for air flow & turbulence.
> > 
> > Moreover, I think it's hard to adjust this zone to
> > some kind of specs, if
> > one wanted to shoot for reproducibility. I haven't
> > seen a system for doing
> > this, eg. comparable to using feeler gauges for
> > setting facing curves. I
> > suppose one could try to mark off distances from
> the
> > tip, and then measure
> > the depth. But it's over a much smaller distance. 
> > One needs very good eyes
> > or magnifying lenses, and nice sharp markers. I've
> > tried using a profile
> > gauge; helpful, if a little coarse.
> > 
> > Barry
> > > 
> > > --- rohanlawlor <lawlormail@...
> > > <mailto:lawlormail%40optusnet.com.au> > wrote:
> > >> > 
> > >> > Looking at that particular example, it seems
> to
> > me
> > >> > that the effect gained by removing baffle
> > material
> > >> > behind the tip (in high baffle pieces)is the
> > same as
> > >> > adding a wedge baffle to a mpc with a lower
> > baffle
> > >> > to begin with. Less messing around, no?
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 





      

The other paper was on hal as well, but was taken offline about three years ago. 

Toby

Joseph Lopez <jocinlo@...> wrote:                                           
Keith,
  
 Here is the link to the paper, in PDF format. The page in question is page 4 of the PDF, "C5-562" in the paper.
  
 http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/96/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf
  
 Regards,
  
 Joseph Lopez

 
  
---------------------------------
 From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, September 22, 2010 9:57:31 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle

    Hi Keith,

That paper is available online. I don't think it is that
one but let me read it and I will let you know if that was
what I was thinking of.

Toby

--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> Is the missing paper�titled "Musical
aero-acoustics
> of the clarinet" by 
> Hirshberg, et al?� It mentions a private
> conversation with a D. Bechet in 1992 
> on the sharp edged "ditch" carved near the tip rail
> in a clarinet mouthpiece and 
> shows an illustration.� I printed a copy and may
be
> able to scan it for you.� 
> I'm sure a copy can be purchased through a service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 10:39:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle
> 
> � 
> Benade did a study and found that the major effect
> of the
> baffle has to do with altering the Bernoulli effect
> just
> before the reed closes at the end of the cycle. As
> the
> reed closes, the Bernoulli effect creates more and
> more
> pressure differential the smaller the reed slit. A
> high
> baffle causes  it to increase more rapidly as the
> slit gets
> smaller, and so it "snaps" shut more quickly. But if
> there
> is a bit of space just behind the tip rail (IIRC--I
> wish
> the article were still online) it reduces backforce
> that
> tends to not let the reed close (since you have a
> small
> cushion of compliant air that can compress). 
> 
> The author of the article (might have been Dalmont)
> strongly suggested that for optimum performance
> there be a
> small groove behind the tip rail. Damn. I should
> have
> saved that article as a text file, but I did not
> expect it
> to be taken offline.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
> wrote:
>  
> > I don't think it's the same thing - the
> improvements
> > gained by adjusting
> > just behind the tip rail don't feel quite the same
> > as those gained by a
> > wedge baffle. The area just behind the tip rail
> > seems to be a very sensitive
> > spot - not surprisingly, because it partakes in
> > setting initial conditions
> > for air flow & turbulence.
> > 
> > Moreover, I think it's hard to adjust this zone to
> > some kind of specs, if
> > one wanted to shoot for reproducibility. I haven't
> > seen a system for doing
> > this, eg. comparable to using feeler gauges for
> > setting facing curves. I
> > suppose one could try to mark off distances from
> the
> > tip, and then measure
> > the depth. But it's over a much smaller distance. 
> > One needs  very good eyes
> > or magnifying lenses, and nice sharp markers. I've
> > tried using a profile
> > gauge; helpful, if a little coarse.
> > 
> > Barry
> > > 
> > > --- rohanlawlor <lawlormail@...
> > > <mailto:lawlormail%40optusnet.com.au> > wrote:
> > >> > 
> > >> > Looking at that particular example, it seems
> to
> > me
> > >> > that the effect gained by removing baffle
> > material
> > >> > behind the tip (in high baffle pieces)is the
> > same as
> > >> > adding a wedge baffle to a mpc with a lower
> > baffle
> > >> > to begin with. Less messing around, no?
> > >  
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 



  



              
      
                 
                 
 

Ah, but at least this paper also contains the essential point. IIRC the earlier paper went into more detail, but I may be misremembering.

Toby

Joseph Lopez <jocinlo@...> wrote:                                           
Keith,
  
 Here is the link to the paper, in PDF format. The page in question is page 4 of the PDF, "C5-562" in the paper.
  
 http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/docs/00/25/27/96/PDF/ajp-jp4199404C5120.pdf
  
 Regards,
  
 Joseph Lopez

 
  
---------------------------------
 From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, September 22, 2010 9:57:31 PM
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle

    Hi Keith,

That paper is available online. I don't think it is that
one but let me read it and I will let you know if that was
what I was thinking of.

Toby

--- Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

> Is the missing paper�titled "Musical
aero-acoustics
> of the clarinet" by 
> Hirshberg, et al?� It mentions a private
> conversation with a D. Bechet in 1992 
> on the sharp edged "ditch" carved near the tip rail
> in a clarinet mouthpiece and 
> shows an illustration.� I printed a copy and may
be
> able to scan it for you.� 
> I'm sure a copy can be purchased through a service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "kymarto123@..." <kymarto123@...>
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 10:39:01 PM
> Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Concave baffle
> 
> � 
> Benade did a study and found that the major effect
> of the
> baffle has to do with altering the Bernoulli effect
> just
> before the reed closes at the end of the cycle. As
> the
> reed closes, the Bernoulli effect creates more and
> more
> pressure differential the smaller the reed slit. A
> high
> baffle causes  it to increase more rapidly as the
> slit gets
> smaller, and so it "snaps" shut more quickly. But if
> there
> is a bit of space just behind the tip rail (IIRC--I
> wish
> the article were still online) it reduces backforce
> that
> tends to not let the reed close (since you have a
> small
> cushion of compliant air that can compress). 
> 
> The author of the article (might have been Dalmont)
> strongly suggested that for optimum performance
> there be a
> small groove behind the tip rail. Damn. I should
> have
> saved that article as a text file, but I did not
> expect it
> to be taken offline.
> 
> Toby
> 
> --- Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
> wrote:
>  
> > I don't think it's the same thing - the
> improvements
> > gained by adjusting
> > just behind the tip rail don't feel quite the same
> > as those gained by a
> > wedge baffle. The area just behind the tip rail
> > seems to be a very sensitive
> > spot - not surprisingly, because it partakes in
> > setting initial conditions
> > for air flow & turbulence.
> > 
> > Moreover, I think it's hard to adjust this zone to
> > some kind of specs, if
> > one wanted to shoot for reproducibility. I haven't
> > seen a system for doing
> > this, eg. comparable to using feeler gauges for
> > setting facing curves. I
> > suppose one could try to mark off distances from
> the
> > tip, and then measure
> > the depth. But it's over a much smaller distance. 
> > One needs  very good eyes
> > or magnifying lenses, and nice sharp markers. I've
> > tried using a profile
> > gauge; helpful, if a little coarse.
> > 
> > Barry
> > > 
> > > --- rohanlawlor <lawlormail@...
> > > <mailto:lawlormail%40optusnet.com.au> > wrote:
> > >> > 
> > >> > Looking at that particular example, it seems
> to
> > me
> > >> > that the effect gained by removing baffle
> > material
> > >> > behind the tip (in high baffle pieces)is the
> > same as
> > >> > adding a wedge baffle to a mpc with a lower
> > baffle
> > >> > to begin with. Less messing around, no?
> > >  
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>