Mouthpiece Work / Vintage Link
FROM: danielmarsteller (dandjmars@...)
SUBJECT: Vintage Link
Last summer I got an old (@1948?) metal Link in a trade. Now it has become my favorite and I use it for everything. It is pretty much down to bare brass (a few touches of silver remain here and there). My question for the group is: Since I don't want to wear out the facing or tip or anything else, should I have the piece plated? If so, with what? Just silver? Also gold? Will plating alter the dimensions (internally or externally) in a negative way? I want to do my best to preserve this old treasure--and I don't want ruin it. Thanks for the advice, Dan Marsteller
FROM: sakshama2 (Sakshama Koloski)
SUBJECT: Re: Vintage Link
Speak to Doc Frazier at: http://www.jandjwoodwinds.com/ I have sent mouthpieces for plating to him and they came back with the exact facing specifications I sent them with. On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 8:42 PM, <dandjmars@...m> wrote: > ** > > > ** > Last summer I got an old (@1948?) metal Link in a trade. Now it has > become my favorite and I use it for everything. It is pretty much down to > bare brass (a few touches of silver remain here and there). > > My question for the group is: Since I don't want to wear out the facing > or tip or anything else, should I have the piece plated? If so, with > what? Just silver? Also gold? > > Will plating alter the dimensions (internally or externally) in a negative > way? > > I want to do my best to preserve this old treasure--and I don't want ruin > it. > > Thanks for the advice, > Dan Marsteller > > > -- Sakshama www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
FROM: kwbradbury (MojoBari)
SUBJECT: Re: Vintage Link
I'm a fan of Doc's work too. --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...> wrote: > > Speak to Doc Frazier at: http://www.jandjwoodwinds.com/ > I have sent mouthpieces for plating to him and they came back with the > exact facing specifications I sent them with. > > > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 8:42 PM, <dandjmars@...> wrote: > > > ** > > > > > > ** > > Last summer I got an old (@1948?) metal Link in a trade. Now it has > > become my favorite and I use it for everything. It is pretty much down to > > bare brass (a few touches of silver remain here and there). > > > > My question for the group is: Since I don't want to wear out the facing > > or tip or anything else, should I have the piece plated? If so, with > > what? Just silver? Also gold? > > > > Will plating alter the dimensions (internally or externally) in a negative > > way? > > > > I want to do my best to preserve this old treasure--and I don't want ruin > > it. > > > > Thanks for the advice, > > Dan Marsteller > > > > > > > > > > -- > Sakshama > > www. sakshamamouthpieces.com >
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Interchangeable Shank
My Gayle Hollywood inspired, interchangeable shank, bari mouthpiece. Made from a solid brass rod, the walls remain massively thick to eliminate wall vibration. Altering shank inner length (use shorter shank) adjusts mouthpiece volume/frequency relationship to match any vintage or modern horn. Altering shank outer length adapts mouthpiece to any neck/cork requirement. Match your shank and then forget about it. Different shanks for different horns. I eliminated the bite plate to increase mass. A patch is sufficient for playing comfort. http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2001.jpg http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2002.jpg http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2003.jpg http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2004.jpg http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2005.jpg http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2006.jpg http://www.martinmods.com/gayle.mp3 Squeeze chambers have some acoustical advantages over Link chambers. I'll be going into those specifics on my website for anyone interested.
FROM: crunchie_nuts (crunchie_nuts)
SUBJECT: Re: Interchangeable Shank
Do you find wall vibrations a problem with commercially available mouthpieces? --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > My Gayle Hollywood inspired, interchangeable shank, bari mouthpiece. Made from a solid brass rod, the walls remain massively thick to eliminate wall vibration. Altering shank inner length (use shorter shank) adjusts mouthpiece volume/frequency relationship to match any vintage or modern horn. Altering shank outer length adapts mouthpiece to any neck/cork requirement. Match your shank and then forget about it. Different shanks for different horns. I eliminated the bite plate to increase mass. A patch is sufficient for playing comfort. > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2001.jpg > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2002.jpg > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2003.jpg > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2004.jpg > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2005.jpg > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2006.jpg > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle.mp3 > > Squeeze chambers have some acoustical advantages over Link chambers. I'll be going into those specifics on my website for anyone interested. >
FROM: kwbradbury (Keith Bradbury)
SUBJECT: Re: Interchangeable Shank
The shank design looks pretty clever. Snug fit like a flute head joint? On Mar 6, 2012, at 5:24 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > My Gayle Hollywood inspired, interchangeable shank, bari mouthpiece. Made from a solid brass rod, the walls remain massively thick to eliminate wall vibration. Altering shank inner length (use shorter shank) adjusts mouthpiece volume/frequency relationship to match any vintage or modern horn. Altering shank outer length adapts mouthpiece to any neck/cork requirement. Match your shank and then forget about it. Different shanks for different horns. I eliminated the bite plate to increase mass. A patch is sufficient for playing comfort. > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2001.jpg > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2002.jpg > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2003.jpg > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2004.jpg > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2005.jpg > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle%2006.jpg > > http://www.martinmods.com/gayle.mp3 > > Squeeze chambers have some acoustical advantages over Link chambers. I'll be going into those specifics on my website for anyone interested. > > > > TODAY(Beta) • Powered by Yahoo! > LeBron's unhealthy new endorsement deal > The NBA star's quest to become a global icon takes a twist with what he'll be selling in China. > Privacy Policy
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Interchangeable Shank
I wouldn't call them a problem, rather, a characteristic to embrace or not. Whereas Morgan discussed making his mouthpiece beak thin to maximize wall vibrations, I, preferring a solid, stable feel, opted to eliminate them as much as possible. The results of both are perfectly satisfactory. I'm inclined to think that I won't feel the need to add more weight (blobs of mass) on the neck to influence the sound. Its nice the way it is.
--- On Wed, 3/7/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
Do you find wall vibrations a problem with commercially available mouthpieces?
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Interchangeable Shank
Thanks. Yes. Snug but not too much so. The idea is to have it shoved all the way in and to forget about it, i.e., the inner and outer lengths are optimized for a particular horn. In the event it becomes tight or stuck, wrapping thick rubber (vacuum cleaner belt) around the knob on the end of the shank and gripping with normal pliers breaks it free easily, without marring the finish at all.
--- On Wed, 3/7/12, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
The shank design looks pretty clever. Snug fit like a flute head joint?
FROM: crunchie_nuts (crunchie_nuts)
SUBJECT: Re: Interchangeable Shank
Are you talking about a difference in audible sound, or just the perception of vibration in the players mouth? --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > I wouldn't call them a problem, rather, a characteristic to embrace or not. Whereas Morgan discussed making his mouthpiece beak thin to maximize wall vibrations, I, preferring a solid, stable feel, opted to eliminate them as much as possible. The results of both are perfectly satisfactory. I'm inclined to think that I won't feel the need to add more weight (blobs of mass) on the neck to influence the sound. Its nice the way it is. > > --- On Wed, 3/7/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you find wall vibrations a problem with commercially available mouthpieces? >
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Interchangeable Shank
I think it's mostly the player's perception of vibration through the teeth/bone, but, you'd have to have two identical (inner dims) mouthpieces, one thick walled and one thin, to test it.
--- On Wed, 3/7/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@hotmail.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Interchangeable Shank
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, March 7, 2012, 11:03 PM
Are you talking about a difference in audible sound, or just the perception of vibration in the players mouth?
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I wouldn't call them a problem, rather, a characteristic to embrace or not. Whereas Morgan discussed making his mouthpiece beak thin to maximize wall vibrations, I, preferring a solid, stable feel, opted to eliminate them as much as possible. The results of both are perfectly satisfactory. I'm inclined to think that I won't feel the need to add more weight (blobs of mass) on the neck to influence the sound. Its nice the way it is.
>
> --- On Wed, 3/7/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you find wall vibrations a problem with commercially available mouthpieces?
>
FROM: keith29236 (Edward McLean)
SUBJECT: Re: Interchangeable Shank
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote: > > I think it's mostly the player's perception of vibration through the teeth/bone, but, you'd have to have two identical (inner dims) mouthpieces, one thick walled and one thin, to test it. > > --- On Wed, 3/7/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote: > > From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> > Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Interchangeable Shank > To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com > Date: Wednesday, March 7, 2012, 11:03 PM > > Most of the vibrating reed is inside the mouth. A thin walled MPC vibrates in sympathy outside the mouth. Whether this is good or bad is open to debate. I have a much relayed old rubber Larsen which is like this and needs a rubber patch to stifle teeth vibration. Eddie > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > Are you talking about a difference in audible sound, or just the perception of vibration in the players mouth? > > > > --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote: > > > > > > I wouldn't call them a problem, rather, a characteristic to embrace or not. Whereas Morgan discussed making his mouthpiece beak thin to maximize wall vibrations, I, preferring a solid, stable feel, opted to eliminate them as much as possible. The results of both are perfectly satisfactory. I'm inclined to think that I won't feel the need to add more weight (blobs of mass) on the neck to influence the sound. Its nice the way it is. > > > > > > --- On Wed, 3/7/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you find wall vibrations a problem with commercially available mouthpieces? > > > >
FROM: lancelotburt (MartinMods)
SUBJECT: Re: Interchangeable Shank
I know what you mean. This one is more than twice the weight of a Link STM. I much prefer feeling/hearing only the reed.
--- On Fri, 3/9/12, Edward McLean <ed@...> wrote:
From: Edward McLean <ed@ewmclean.plus.com>
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Interchangeable Shank
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, March 9, 2012, 5:47 PM
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> I think it's mostly the player's perception of vibration through the teeth/bone, but, you'd have to have two identical (inner dims) mouthpieces, one thick walled and one thin, to test it.
>
> --- On Wed, 3/7/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
>
> From: crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@...>
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Interchangeable Shank
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, March 7, 2012, 11:03 PM
>
> Most of the vibrating reed is inside the mouth.
A thin walled MPC vibrates in sympathy outside the mouth. Whether this is good or bad is open to debate.
I have a much relayed old rubber Larsen which is like this and needs a rubber patch to stifle teeth vibration. Eddie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Are you talking about a difference in audible sound, or just the perception of vibration in the players mouth?
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, MartinMods <lancelotburt@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > I wouldn't call them a problem, rather, a characteristic to embrace or not. Whereas Morgan discussed making his mouthpiece beak thin to maximize wall vibrations, I, preferring a solid, stable feel, opted to eliminate them as much as possible. The results of both are perfectly satisfactory. I'm inclined to think that I won't feel the need to add more weight (blobs of mass) on the neck to influence the sound. Its nice the way it is.
>
> >
>
> > --- On Wed, 3/7/12, crunchie_nuts <andrewhdonaldson@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Â
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Do you find wall vibrations a problem with commercially available mouthpieces?
>
> >
>