Someone has asked me to open up a hard rubber Link 10 to a "13 or 14".  
Here are some details and what I think I know about how to go about this.

- He claims his current favorite pieces are "12 or 12*".  I'd like to 
measure those first to get a real tip opening number.
- He's playing on bass clarinet reeds; just went from 1-1/2 to 2-1/2
- He wants "no baffle" (I know, there's always some baffle, but I'm sure 
he means low, short rollover).
- He wants bigger chamber volume also.  I'd imagine I'd have to increase 
chamber volume anyway since it's losing a significant amount of volume 
by opening it up this much.
- He's totally willing to sacrifice this mouthpiece as an experiment, so 
he won't be suing me if that .160 tip opening doesn't really play that well.
- This is obviously contingent on there being enough material at the tip 
to go from .130 to .160
- While, in the "normal" range, larger tip openings on tenor can benefit 
from slightly longer facings, I'm assuming that I don't want to get 
longer than about 26mm, since that would be getting too far back on the 
reed for it to bend effectively

So once again I come to you guys for advice.  Thanks!

Dan Torosian

Hi stimated Dan:
(please, sorry my poor english language, i only speak well spanish idiom.)
 
i have the presumption that many times the player not know to knowledge
what want or require; i will treat first to be believe to him that i had a retouche
to the mouthpiece and then that him prove it with different reeds possible.
 
To me this "placebo" produce results about some confuse player :)>
 
In the case of to have that retouche or facing, the best is become preparing
some solution to the non volume or flating toning can be one element how
the "enhanced neck" by Steve, because reduce the effective cubical volume
indoors the bore an have influence in the chamber. 
 
Dan, remember apply the theory of the "cone garble or cuted", whereby
the cubical volume of mouthpiece have to proportional to the cone missing.
Then, if we remov too much internal material, this can will found a inbalance or
toning inconsistencies.
 
I wait that you understand me.
 
Fraternally
 
Silverio
from Argentina Patagonian

Compare the bass clar reed vamp to tenor reed vamps.  If the BC is shorter, you 
may need to use a shorter facing the 26mm.  Some tenor reeds can work at 27mm.

Larger tip openings increase the effective chamber volume. So does lowering the 
baffle.  If you then also make the chamber larger, the mouthpiece will play flat 
unless you can push it in farther.  I would try to talk him out of making the 
chamber larger beyond lowering the baffle.

I think this will be a dark, tubby, buzzy, unfocused mouthpiece that will 
promote a biting embouchure.

 

________________________________
From: Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...>
To: Mouthpiece Work <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thu, April 21, 2011 6:33:29 PM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Very large tenor tip openings

  
Someone has asked me to open up a hard rubber Link 10 to a "13 or 14". 
Here are some details and what I think I know about how to go about this.

- He claims his current favorite pieces are "12 or 12*". I'd like to 
measure those first to get a real tip opening number.
- He's playing on bass clarinet reeds; just went from 1-1/2 to 2-1/2
- He wants "no baffle" (I know, there's always some baffle, but I'm sure 
he means low, short rollover).
- He wants bigger chamber volume also. I'd imagine I'd have to increase 
chamber volume anyway since it's losing a significant amount of volume 
by opening it up this much.
- He's totally willing to sacrifice this mouthpiece as an experiment, so 
he won't be suing me if that .160 tip opening doesn't really play that well.
- This is obviously contingent on there being enough material at the tip 
to go from .130 to .160
- While, in the "normal" range, larger tip openings on tenor can benefit 
from slightly longer facings, I'm assuming that I don't want to get 
longer than about 26mm, since that would be getting too far back on the 
reed for it to bend effectively

So once again I come to you guys for advice. Thanks!

Dan Torosian

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:
>
> Someone has asked me to open up a hard rubber Link 10 to a "13 or 14".  
> Here are some details and what I think I know about how to go about this.
> 
> - He claims his current favorite pieces are "12 or 12*".  I'd like to 
> measure those first to get a real tip opening number.
> - He's playing on bass clarinet reeds; just went from 1-1/2 to 2-1/2
> - He wants "no baffle" (I know, there's always some baffle, but I'm sure 
> he means low, short rollover).
> - He wants bigger chamber volume also.  I'd imagine I'd have to increase 
> chamber volume anyway since it's losing a significant amount of volume 
> by opening it up this much.
> - He's totally willing to sacrifice this mouthpiece as an experiment, so 
> he won't be suing me if that .160 tip opening doesn't really play that well.
> - This is obviously contingent on there being enough material at the tip 
> to go from .130 to .160
> - While, in the "normal" range, larger tip openings on tenor can benefit 
> from slightly longer facings, I'm assuming that I don't want to get 
> longer than about 26mm, since that would be getting too far back on the 
> reed for it to bend effectively
> 
> So once again I come to you guys for advice.  Thanks!
> 
> Dan Torosian
>

It is a common fallacy that a bigger changer is louder.  It is not.  What it is, it is out of tune and tubby sounding, no "focus" to the tone.

And yes, the real limit is the thickness of the tip.

Paul C.

You still have to do the missing cone math if you expect it to play correctly and in tune on a given instrument. The laws of physics always apply, no exceptions.

Sent from my iPad

STEVE  GOODSON
Saxophone Guru and Visionary
New Orleans
www.nationofmusic.com



On Apr 22, 2011, at 8:43 AM, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:
> >
> > Someone has asked me to open up a hard rubber Link 10 to a "13 or 14". 
> > Here are some details and what I think I know about how to go about this.
> > 
> > - He claims his current favorite pieces are "12 or 12*". I'd like to 
> > measure those first to get a real tip opening number.
> > - He's playing on bass clarinet reeds; just went from 1-1/2 to 2-1/2
> > - He wants "no baffle" (I know, there's always some baffle, but I'm sure 
> > he means low, short rollover).
> > - He wants bigger chamber volume also. I'd imagine I'd have to increase 
> > chamber volume anyway since it's losing a significant amount of volume 
> > by opening it up this much.
> > - He's totally willing to sacrifice this mouthpiece as an experiment, so 
> > he won't be suing me if that .160 tip opening doesn't really play that well.
> > - This is obviously contingent on there being enough material at the tip 
> > to go from .130 to .160
> > - While, in the "normal" range, larger tip openings on tenor can benefit 
> > from slightly longer facings, I'm assuming that I don't want to get 
> > longer than about 26mm, since that would be getting too far back on the 
> > reed for it to bend effectively
> > 
> > So once again I come to you guys for advice. Thanks!
> > 
> > Dan Torosian
> >
> 
> It is a common fallacy that a bigger changer is louder. It is not. What it is, it is out of tune and tubby sounding, no "focus" to the tone.
> 
> And yes, the real limit is the thickness of the tip.
> 
> Paul C.
> 
> 

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Ah - I forgot about the "effective chamber volume" idea. So the physical
chamber volume decreases when you open the tip but, in the real world, part of
that "reed travel" region contributes to additional chamber volume.  
  
I agree with you and Paul and Silverio that there are often client
misperceptions about what the different parameters of the mouthpiece will do.
(e.g., lots of players come in with "I need a bigger tip opening because my
mouthpiece is too resistant - I need to move more air through it") This guy is
a serious player with very individual ideas about how to do things (like using
a 12* with bass clarinet reeds for a starter), so I'm trying to translate what
he's saying into a design that will work for him. If I did exactly what he's
asking for (.170 tip, no baffle, huge chamber), I have no doubt that we'd wind
up with an unfocused, resistant, tubby doorstop.  
  
I think a lot hinges on the exact plan and execution of the facing curve ("No
- really?") which is invisible to the player. So they ask us to change the
visible or easily understandable stuff like tip opening, baffle height/shape
and chamber.  
  
If he goes through with this, I'm thinking "Plan A" will be: measure his
current piece first, then do a radial facing (at about the same tip or a
little larger) and a 26mm facing length (depending on what the bass clarinet
reeds look like). Probably take down the baffle, depending on how high it is
after opening the tip.  
  
Thanks again for all your help, guys. Keep the advice coming - I'll let you
know if this project goes forward.  
  
Dan T  
  
On 4/21/2011 8:20 PM, Keith Bradbury wrote:

> Compare the bass clar reed vamp to tenor reed vamps. If the BC is shorter,
> you may need to use a shorter facing the 26mm. Some tenor reeds can work at
> 27mm.
>
> Larger tip openings increase the effective chamber volume. So does lowering
> the baffle. If you then also make the chamber larger, the mouthpiece will
> play flat unless you can push it in farther. I would try to talk him out of
> making the chamber larger beyond lowering the baffle.
>
> I think this will be a dark, tubby, buzzy, unfocused mouthpiece that will
> promote a biting embouchure.
>
>  
>
>
> * * *
>
> **From:** Dan Torosian [](mailto:dtorosian@...)  
>  **To:** Mouthpiece Work [](mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com)  
>  **Sent:** Thu, April 21, 2011 6:33:29 PM  
>  **Subject:** [MouthpieceWork] Very large tenor tip openings  
>  
>
>
> Someone has asked me to open up a hard rubber Link 10 to a "13 or 14".  
>  Here are some details and what I think I know about how to go about this.  
>  
>  \\- He claims his current favorite pieces are "12 or 12*". I'd like to  
>  measure those first to get a real tip opening number.  
>  \\- He's playing on bass clarinet reeds; just went from 1-1/2 to 2-1/2  
>  \\- He wants "no baffle" (I know, there's always some baffle, but I'm sure  
>  he means low, short rollover).  
>  \\- He wants bigger chamber volume also. I'd imagine I'd have to increase  
>  chamber volume anyway since it's losing a significant amount of volume  
>  by opening it up this much.  
>  \\- He's totally willing to sacrifice this mouthpiece as an experiment, so  
>  he won't be suing me if that .160 tip opening doesn't really play that
> well.  
>  \\- This is obviously contingent on there being enough material at the tip  
>  to go from .130 to .160  
>  \\- While, in the "normal" range, larger tip openings on tenor can benefit  
>  from slightly longer facings, I'm assuming that I don't want to get  
>  longer than about 26mm, since that would be getting too far back on the  
>  reed for it to bend effectively  
>  
>  So once again I come to you guys for advice. Thanks!  
>  
>  Dan Torosian  
>

You can't fix stupid.....

Sent from my iPad

STEVE  GOODSON
Saxophone Guru and Visionary
New Orleans
www.nationofmusic.com



On Apr 22, 2011, at 9:54 AM, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:

> Ah - I forgot about the "effective chamber volume" idea. So the physical chamber volume decreases when you open the tip but, in the real world, part of that "reed travel" region contributes to additional chamber volume.
> 
> I agree with you and Paul and Silverio that there are often client misperceptions about what the different parameters of the mouthpiece will do.  (e.g., lots of players come in with "I need a bigger tip opening because my mouthpiece is too resistant - I need to move more air through it")  This guy is a serious player with very individual ideas about how to do things (like using a 12* with bass clarinet

One of the risks of extreme spec jobs is that when they do not turn out all 
right, the client can blame it on your craftsmanship and not on the plan.   It 
is an art to deal with some clients.

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

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------> \\- He's playing on bass clarinet reeds; just went from 1-1/2 to 2-1/2  
He's playing on bass clarinet reeds because his facing is not too good. A bass
clarinet facing is flatter than a tenor facing.

KenL  
  
Apr 22, 2011 09:53:26 AM, MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com wrote:  

> You still have to do the missing cone math if you expect it to play
> correctly and in tune on a given instrument. The laws of physics always
> apply, no exceptions.  
>  
> Sent from my iPad
>
>  
>
>
> STEVE GOODSON
>
> Saxophone Guru and Visionary
>
> New Orleans
>
> [www.nationofmusic.com](http://www.nationofmusic.com)
>
>  
>
>
>  
>
>
>  
> On Apr 22, 2011, at 8:43 AM, "tenorman1952" <[tenorman1952@...]()> wrote:  
>  
>
>

>>  
>  
> \\--- In [[MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](), Dan Torosian wrote:  
> >  
> > Someone has asked me to open up a hard rubber Link 10 to a "13 or 14".  
> > Here are some details and what I think I know about how to go about this.  
> >  
> > \\- He claims his current favorite pieces are "12 or 12*". I'd like to  
> > measure those first to get a real tip opening number.  
> > \\- He's playing on bass clarinet reeds; just went from 1-1/2 to 2-1/2  
> > \\- He wants "no baffle" (I know, there's always some baffle, but I'm sure  
> > he means low, short rollover).  
> > \\- He wants bigger chamber volume also. I'd imagine I'd have to increase  
> > chamber volume anyway since it's losing a significant amount of volume  
> > by opening it up this much.  
> > \\- He's totally willing to sacrifice this mouthpiece as an experiment, so  
> > he won't be suing me if that .160 tip opening doesn't really play that
> well.  
> > \\- This is obviously contingent on there being enough material at the tip  
> > to go from .130 to .160  
> > \\- While, in the "normal" range, larger tip openings on tenor can benefit  
> > from slightly longer facings, I'm assuming that I don't want to get  
> > longer than about 26mm, since that would be getting too far back on the  
> > reed for it to bend effectively  
> >  
> > So once again I come to you guys for advice. Thanks!  
> >  
> > Dan Torosian  
> >  
>  
> It is a common fallacy that a bigger changer is louder. It is not. What it
> is, it is out of tune and tubby sounding, no "focus" to the tone.  
>  
> And yes, the real limit is the thickness of the tip.  
>  
> Paul C.  
>  
>

 The only  person  I know of who makes  successful very open mouthpieces is Ron Coelho on his  RPCs.  The couple of large RPCs I have tried always play great and feel easy to play despite their  actual size.
   Perhaps copying what he does may be  the way to go, though I don't know if even RPCs  get a s open as a 160.   Peter

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------I was thinking the same thing. Lots of local guys here play RPCs and love them
(and sound great). But, yes, we're talking more like alto pieces at .090,
tenor pieces at .120, & bari pieces at .130. These tip openings are still on
the bell curve.  
  
DT  
  
On 4/22/2011 10:52 AM, Peter Deley wrote:

> The only person I know of who makes successful very open mouthpieces is Ron
> Coelho on his RPCs.  The couple of large RPCs I have tried always play great
> and feel easy to play despite their actual size.  
>  Perhaps copying what he does may be the way to go, though I don't know if
> even RPCs get a s open as a 160. Peter  
> ---

Part of your job is to try to talk some sense into what is basically a person who is pipe dreaming.  This impractical foray into lala land is a waste of your time and his money. The only succesful extreme tip openings in my experience have had smaller chambers.  

after 40 years in this business, I have finally learned the importance  
of turning down work from fools.....



On Apr 22, 2011, at 5:09 PM, gregwier wrote:

>
> Part of your job is to try to talk some sense into what is basically  
> a person who is pipe dreaming. This impractical foray into lala land  
> is a waste of your time and his money. The only succesful extreme  
> tip openings in my experience have had smaller chambers.
>
> 

I'm about to take a job from known artist who wants a tenor piece with
extremely large chamber- like old Master Links, very high long baffle and
tip opening of .070. All that with very short facing like on alto. Those
things together doesn't make any sense to me and I don't know how to
proceed.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:32 PM, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...> wrote:

>
>
> after 40 years in this business, I have finally learned the importance of
> turning down work from fools.....
>
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2011, at 5:09 PM, gregwier wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Part of your job is to try to talk some sense into what is basically a
> person who is pipe dreaming. This impractical foray into lala land is a
> waste of your time and his money. The only succesful extreme tip openings in
> my experience have had smaller chambers.
>
>
>  
>



-- 
Sakshama

www. sakshamamouthpieces.com

run the other way......the customer will never be happy and will blame  
you.......


On Apr 22, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Sakshama Koloski wrote:

> I'm about to take a job from known artist who wants a tenor piece  
> with extremely large chamber- like old Master Links, very high long  
> baffle and tip opening of .070. All that with very short facing like  
> on alto. Those things together doesn't make any sense to me and I  
> don't know how to proceed.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:32 PM, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...t>  
> wrote:
>
> after 40 years in this business, I have finally learned the  
> importance of turning down work from fools.....
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2011, at 5:09 PM, gregwier wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Part of your job is to try to talk some sense into what is  
>> basically a person who is pipe dreaming. This impractical foray  
>> into lala land is a waste of your time and his money. The only  
>> succesful extreme tip openings in my experience have had smaller  
>> chambers.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Sakshama
>
> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>
>
>
> 

Hi all,
I'm not a refacer, but a player who happens to have a lot of big tip mouthpieces. Some examples of my pieces with a big chamber and big tip that play quite easily are a Florida no USA 10*, STM NY 11, Florida USA 11* (all measure the correct tip size) and a modern metal Berg Larsen 150/2 (this one has a slightly smaller chamber then the Links). I also have a HR Tone Edge 10* and a metal new Vintage Tone Master 10* that are a bit dead in the upper register compared to the ones I mentioned earlier, but still they play not too bad.
So I don't agree with the general statement that extreme tips don't play well in combination with a big chamber. Ofcourse I agree that the request discussed in this thread doesn't seem very wise, but as refacer you can not do more then explain your concerns to the requester and let him decide if he want's to pay for a foolish request yes or no.
That sad I would like to thank the members of this group for the many very interesting and informative information I have seen coming along since I joined this group.
Peter.

To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
From: gregwier@netscape.com
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:09:47 +0000
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Very large tenor tip openings


















 



  


    
      
      
      

Part of your job is to try to talk some sense into what is basically a person who is pipe dreaming.  This impractical foray into lala land is a waste of your time and his money. The only succesful extreme tip openings in my experience have had smaller chambers.  





    
     

    
    






   		 	   		  

I'm not sure how much I really agree with this.  I know a few very good players who like very large Link-type pieces, I play on a 125 in small group settings a not insignificant portion of the time.  Sometimes, sure, a client can have unrealistic ideas about what will do what to a piece.  That's why I almost always work it the other way around.  Find out what they want w/r/t sound and feel and what kind of a player they are and proceed from there.  But other times a guy knows what he wants and why.  Yeah, sometimes it's idiosyncratic but if it's what lets him get his voice comfortably who am I to judge.  Making good pieces out of unusual specs is a bit more challenging but no less enjoyable for me.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "gregwier" <gregwier@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Part of your job is to try to talk some sense into what is basically a person who is pipe dreaming.  This impractical foray into lala land is a waste of your time and his money. The only succesful extreme tip openings in my experience have had smaller chambers.
>

I would get the biggest one you can but you'll probably end up having to bias cut the butt anyway to make it that big. Open as much as you can by sanding open the tip as well, you'll want the baffle.  I don't do bass clarinet reed facings on tenor pieces, but I have had good results with a standard Link curve with standard length (absolute length, not as measured from the last feeler) all the way up to .135".  Maybe start a little short of that and test with a bass clt reed.  With this idiosyncratic reed choice you'll probably have to finish the curve with your chops rather than with your eyes.  Or maybe talk him into using a reed designed for the instrument he's playing.  Don't mess with the chamber yet, unless when the client tests the piece it sounds like it needs opening.  With all that reed travel it's going to be too big anyway.

HTH,
Morgan

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Dan Torosian <dtorosian@...> wrote:
>
> Someone has asked me to open up a hard rubber Link 10 to a "13 or 14".  
> Here are some details and what I think I know about how to go about this.
> 
> - He claims his current favorite pieces are "12 or 12*".  I'd like to 
> measure those first to get a real tip opening number.
> - He's playing on bass clarinet reeds; just went from 1-1/2 to 2-1/2
> - He wants "no baffle" (I know, there's always some baffle, but I'm sure 
> he means low, short rollover).
> - He wants bigger chamber volume also.  I'd imagine I'd have to increase 
> chamber volume anyway since it's losing a significant amount of volume 
> by opening it up this much.
> - He's totally willing to sacrifice this mouthpiece as an experiment, so 
> he won't be suing me if that .160 tip opening doesn't really play that well.
> - This is obviously contingent on there being enough material at the tip 
> to go from .130 to .160
> - While, in the "normal" range, larger tip openings on tenor can benefit 
> from slightly longer facings, I'm assuming that I don't want to get 
> longer than about 26mm, since that would be getting too far back on the 
> reed for it to bend effectively
> 
> So once again I come to you guys for advice.  Thanks!
> 
> Dan Torosian
>

 
Maybe this is why there do not seem to be many opened up large chambered Goldbecks?
 


To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
From: frymorgan@...m
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:10:52 +0000
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Very large tenor tip openings


  



I'm not sure how much I really agree with this. I know a few very good players who like very large Link-type pieces, I play on a 125 in small group settings a not insignificant portion of the time. Sometimes, sure, a client can have unrealistic ideas about what will do what to a piece. That's why I almost always work it the other way around. Find out what they want w/r/t sound and feel and what kind of a player they are and proceed from there. But other times a guy knows what he wants and why. Yeah, sometimes it's idiosyncratic but if it's what lets him get his voice comfortably who am I to judge. Making good pieces out of unusual specs is a bit more challenging but no less enjoyable for me.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "gregwier" <gregwier@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Part of your job is to try to talk some sense into what is basically a person who is pipe dreaming. This impractical foray into lala land is a waste of your time and his money. The only succesful extreme tip openings in my experience have had smaller chambers.
>



 		 	   		  

This guy just wants a bulbous chamber with an open facing, and no baffle.  That's easy if you keep tabs on the mouthpiece's two  requirements at all times.  You don't have to do any missing cone measurements or calculations.  

1. Correct Volume:  Regardless of the pitch center (in relation to A=440), mouthpiece placement providing the longest overblown tube's (D1/D2 - just flick the register key) perfect octave indicates correct volume.  This is the starting point for play testing after each alteration (refacing, scraping, boring, filling, etc.), and must be maintained throughout.

2. Correct Mouthpiece Pitch (frs):  With #1 satisfied, the relationship of the shortest overblown tube's octave (C#2/C#3) indicates the mouthpiece's resonant frequency, which determines the upper register octave relationships and the overall pitch center.  Maintaining correct volume, one adjusts the mouthpiece frequency by manipulating the chamber shape - width/length.  

With an enlarged, bulbous chamber/open facing, you will need to play with the diameter of the mouthpiece throat and/or height of the baffle to get the right frequency - the perfect C#2/C#3 octave.  Changes in chamber length affect the pitch of the upper register about 6x more than the lower.  Changes in baffle height, even more than that.  Between the two, the correct upper register octave relationship and overall pitch center can be attained......for that particular saxophone/player.







--- On Sat, 4/23/11, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:

From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Very large tenor tip openings
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 7:10 PM







 



  


    
      
      
      I'm not sure how much I really agree with this.  I know a few very good players who like very large Link-type pieces, I play on a 125 in small group settings a not insignificant portion of the time.  Sometimes, sure, a client can have unrealistic ideas about what will do what to a piece.  That's why I almost always work it the other way around.  Find out what they want w/r/t sound and feel and what kind of a player they are and proceed from there.  But other times a guy knows what he wants and why.  Yeah, sometimes it's idiosyncratic but if it's what lets him get his voice comfortably who am I to judge.  Making good pieces out of unusual specs is a bit more challenging but no less enjoyable for me.



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

>

> 

> Part of your job is to try to talk some sense into what is basically a person who is pipe dreaming.  This impractical foray into lala land is a waste of your time and his money. The only succesful extreme tip openings in my experience have had smaller chambers.

>





    
     

    
    


 



  

by universal agreement among saxophone designers, C# is the "wolf  
tone".....worst note on the horn.....maybe a poor choice for a  
reference note?


On Apr 23, 2011, at 5:40 PM, MartinMods wrote:

>
> This guy just wants a bulbous chamber with an open facing, and no  
> baffle.  That's easy if you keep tabs on the mouthpiece's two  
> requirements at all times.  You don't have to do any missing cone  
> measurements or calculations.
>
> 1. Correct Volume:  Regardless of the pitch center (in relation to  
> AD0), mouthpiece placement providing the longest overblown tube's  
> (D1/D2 - just flick the register key) perfect octave indicates  
> correct volume.  This is the starting point for play testing after  
> each alteration (refacing, scraping, boring, filling, etc.), and  
> must be maintained throughout.
>
> 2. Correct Mouthpiece Pitch (frs):  With #1 satisfied, the  
> relationship of the shortest overblown tube's octave (C#2/C#3)  
> indicates the mouthpiece's resonant frequency, which determines the  
> upper register octave relationships and the overall pitch center.   
> Maintaining correct volume, one adjusts the mouthpiece frequency by  
> manipulating the chamber shape - width/length.
>
> With an enlarged, bulbous chamber/open facing, you will need to play  
> with the diameter of the mouthpiece throat and/or height of the  
> baffle to get the right frequency - the perfect C#2/C#3 octave.   
> Changes in chamber length affect the pitch of the upper register  
> about 6x more than the lower.  Changes in baffle height, even more  
> than that.  Between the two, the correct upper register octave  
> relationship and overall pitch center can be attained......for that  
> particular saxophone/player.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Sat, 4/23/11, Morgan <frymorgan@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Very large tenor tip openings
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 7:10 PM
>
>
> I'm not sure how much I really agree with this. I know a few very  
> good players who like very large Link-type pieces, I play on a 125  
> in small group settings a not insignificant portion of the time.  
> Sometimes, sure, a client can have unrealistic ideas about what will  
> do what to a piece. That's why I almost always work it the other way  
> around. Find out what they want w/r/t sound and feel and what kind  
> of a player they are and proceed from there. But other times a guy  
> knows what he wants and why. Yeah, sometimes it's idiosyncratic but  
> if it's what lets him get his voice comfortably who am I to judge.  
> Making good pieces out of unusual specs is a bit more challenging  
> but no less enjoyable for me.
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "gregwier" <gregwier@...>  
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Part of your job is to try to talk some sense into what is  
> basically a person who is pipe dreaming. This impractical foray into  
> lala land is a waste of your time and his money. The only succesful  
> extreme tip openings in my experience have had smaller chambers.
> >
>
>
>
> 

C#, the shortest overblown tube, is the note most affected by the resonance mode misalignment caused by incorrect mouthpiece volume,  which explains it's reputation.  It is also the most improved by correct mouthpiece matching.   The mouthpiece having too much or too little volume, at the player's normal embouchure, while still being playable, will often cause C# to be uncentered, unresponsive, and variable in pitch.

B2/B3 is more stable.  I use the B's as the primary indicator, and then fine tune the piece using C#'s.

--- On Sat, 4/23/11, STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...t> wrote:

From: STEVE GOODSON <saxgourmet@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Very large tenor tip openings
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 10:54 PM







 



  


    
      
      
      by universal agreement among saxophone designers, C# is the "wolf tone".....worst note on the horn.....maybe a poor choice for a reference note?

On Apr 23, 2011, at 5:40 PM, MartinMods wrote:

This guy just wants a bulbous chamber with an open facing, and no baffle.  That's easy if you keep tabs on the mouthpiece's two requirements at all times.  You don't have to do any missing cone measurements or calculations.  

1. Correct Volume:  Regardless of the pitch center (in relation to A=440), mouthpiece placement providing the longest overblown tube's (D1/D2 - just flick the register key) perfect octave indicates correct volume.  This is the starting point for play testing after each alteration (refacing, scraping, boring, filling, etc.), and must be maintained throughout.

2. Correct Mouthpiece Pitch (frs):  With #1 satisfied, the relationship of the shortest overblown tube's octave (C#2/C#3) indicates the mouthpiece's resonant frequency, which determines the upper register octave relationships and the overall pitch center.  Maintaining correct volume, one adjusts the mouthpiece frequency by manipulating the chamber shape - width/length.  

With an enlarged, bulbous chamber/open facing, you will need to play with the diameter of the mouthpiece throat and/or height of the baffle to get the right frequency - the perfect C#2/C#3 octave.  Changes in chamber length affect the pitch of the upper register about 6x more than the lower.  Changes in baffle height, even more than that.  Between the two, the correct upper register octave relationship and overall pitch center can be attained......for that particular saxophone/player.







--- On Sat, 4/23/11, Morgan <frymorgan@...> wrote:

From: Morgan <frymorgan@...>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Very large tenor tip openings
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Saturday, April 23, 2011, 7:10 PM

 I'm not sure how much I really agree with this. I know a few very good players who like very large Link-type pieces, I play on a 125 in small group settings a not insignificant portion of the time. Sometimes, sure, a client can have unrealistic ideas about what will do what to a piece. That's why I almost always work it the other way around. Find out what they want w/r/t sound and feel and what kind of a player they are and proceed from there. But other times a guy knows what he wants and why. Yeah, sometimes it's idiosyncratic but if it's what lets him get his voice comfortably who am I to judge. Making good pieces out of unusual specs is a bit more challenging but no less enjoyable for me.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "gregwier" <gregwier@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Part of your job is to try to talk some sense into what is basically a person who is pipe dreaming. This impractical foray into lala land is a waste of your time and his money. The only succesful extreme tip openings in my experience have had smaller chambers.
>