Longtime lurker here (I found this group via the Klarinet listserve, where I am much more active).

Are the feelers the same ones generally used to measure clarinet mouthpieces? In particular, is a .0015" feeler used to determine the length of the curve?

Hi, Barry. It's been a long time since we've seen each other.

Karl

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "kkrelove1" <kkrelove@...> wrote:
>
> Longtime lurker here (I found this group via the Klarinet listserve, where I am much more active).
> 
> Are the feelers the same ones generally used to measure clarinet mouthpieces? In particular, is a .0015" feeler used to determine the length of the curve?
> 
> Hi, Barry. It's been a long time since we've seen each other.
> 
> Karl
>

Karl, while some will tape together thinner feelers to try to use for in place of thicker feelers, I have not gotten good results from that.  You can compress them with a caliper and get a reasonable measurement, but using stacked feelers does not work well for me when actually measuring the curve with glass.

The .0015" feeler has long been the standard for measuring the total facing length.  While theoretically the facing is actually longer, it makes little to no difference.  We can't measure with a .0000" feeler.  

John Winslow and I had talked about this, and the delicacy of the .0015" feeler, how easy to damage them.  He suggested, and sent me to try, a .002" feeler.  This gave very similar readings, perhaps a half mm shorter, but still consistent with what I was measuring with the .0015".  The .002" is more durable, so if you opt to use that, when comparing to other curves measured with .0015", just take into account the 1/2 mm difference.  And that is just an estimate, it will vary with the curve a little.

The .010" feeler is really more indicative of what the player feels as the "break", where the curve leaves the plane of the reed.  In general, the .010" feeler should be about 5 mm (or 10 on the Eric Brand scale) shorter than the .0015".

The next feeler of the E. Brand set is the .024".  If you were to use a .025" you would get exactly, or nearly so the same measurement.  Winslow felt there needed to be a measurement in between, so he supplied a .014" feeler with his sets.

Next, a .032" or .035" feeler to measure more of the middle of the curve.  These will give similar results, just take into account there may be a half mm difference in facing length measured.  But either is suitable.

The largest size feeler used in the old original Eric Brand set was the .050".  Winslow supplied .048", and again, there is little to no practical difference.  For clarinet this largest feeler is more than adequate, and may not be used for the majority of clarinet facings as they range from .039" - .046".  

And in those days, saxophone mouthpiece used much narrower tip openings, longer facings, and harder reeds.  The .050" (or .048") feeler was entirely adequate for measuring the facing curve nearer the tip.

These days we play shorter facings, and much larger tip openings, so larger feelers are required.  For this we use .063" (1/16"), .078" (2 mm), .094" (3/32").  And for some tenor and bari mouthpieces, we may use even larger feelers, though there is no agreed upon standard.

Theo Wanne offers some nice feeler sets, as well as glass gauges.  More about those in a minute.

http://theowanne.com/products/accessories/measuring

Also Music Medic.

http://www.musicmedic.com/catalog/categories/cat_46.html

Glass gauges, there are two types... some have the 0 point at the very edge, and this is the type I prefer.

The other type has the 0 point a few mm set back from the edge.

For the first type, zero edge, I place the glass on the mouthpiece, gently press the tip and glass against the vertical face of my work bench, and this gives a consistent alignment so that I can get consistent measurements with the feelers.  It is quick and easy.

The second type, with the zero set back, you must visually align the tip with the zero mark.  This is not fast or easy.  It gives me inconsistent results.  You may prefer this, others do, but it does not work well for me.

Measuring the tip may be done with a "tapered wand".  This is a long tapered rod that is ground flat on one side, with markings on the flat.  The wand is inserted between the tip and glass gauge such that the flat side is against the glass, and the curved side gently touches the tip rail.  The curved side will touch the tip in only one point.

The problem with wands is that chamber shape, or the rollover baffle may not allow the wand to be fully inserted and lay correctly for good measurement.  I have one, don't use it except to show others why not to buy it.

The Theo Wanne digital tip opening gauge is EXCELLENT.  It is consistent.  The small ball end will let you measure either the middle of the tip rail, or as I prefer, near the outer edge of the tip rail.  With a flat probe on the gauge a rollover baffle and wide tip opening may make the probe rest on the baffle and not the actual tip.

I have a similar fixture to the Wanne that came with my kit from Winslow, but have since substituted a digital gauge (similar to the one sold with the Wanne gauge) for Winslow's original dial gauge.  I also have two of the Wanne gauges.

There are other measuring tools, but these are the ones I use for the most consistent results.

Paul C.

Excellent input as always!


2013/2/19 tenorman1952 <tenorman1952@...>

> **
>
>
>
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "kkrelove1" wrote:
> >
> > Longtime lurker here (I found this group via the Klarinet listserve,
> where I am much more active).
> >
> > Are the feelers the same ones generally used to measure clarinet
> mouthpieces? In particular, is a .0015" feeler used to determine the length
> of the curve?
> >
> > Hi, Barry. It's been a long time since we've seen each other.
> >
> > Karl
> >
>
> Karl, while some will tape together thinner feelers to try to use for in
> place of thicker feelers, I have not gotten good results from that. You can
> compress them with a caliper and get a reasonable measurement, but using
> stacked feelers does not work well for me when actually measuring the curve
> with glass.
>
> The .0015" feeler has long been the standard for measuring the total
> facing length. While theoretically the facing is actually longer, it makes
> little to no difference. We can't measure with a .0000" feeler.
>
> John Winslow and I had talked about this, and the delicacy of the .0015"
> feeler, how easy to damage them. He suggested, and sent me to try, a .002"
> feeler. This gave very similar readings, perhaps a half mm shorter, but
> still consistent with what I was measuring with the .0015". The .002" is
> more durable, so if you opt to use that, when comparing to other curves
> measured with .0015", just take into account the 1/2 mm difference. And
> that is just an estimate, it will vary with the curve a little.
>
> The .010" feeler is really more indicative of what the player feels as the
> "break", where the curve leaves the plane of the reed. In general, the
> .010" feeler should be about 5 mm (or 10 on the Eric Brand scale) shorter
> than the .0015".
>
> The next feeler of the E. Brand set is the .024". If you were to use a
> .025" you would get exactly, or nearly so the same measurement. Winslow
> felt there needed to be a measurement in between, so he supplied a .014"
> feeler with his sets.
>
> Next, a .032" or .035" feeler to measure more of the middle of the curve.
> These will give similar results, just take into account there may be a half
> mm difference in facing length measured. But either is suitable.
>
> The largest size feeler used in the old original Eric Brand set was the
> .050". Winslow supplied .048", and again, there is little to no practical
> difference. For clarinet this largest feeler is more than adequate, and may
> not be used for the majority of clarinet facings as they range from .039" -
> .046".
>
> And in those days, saxophone mouthpiece used much narrower tip openings,
> longer facings, and harder reeds. The .050" (or .048") feeler was entirely
> adequate for measuring the facing curve nearer the tip.
>
> These days we play shorter facings, and much larger tip openings, so
> larger feelers are required. For this we use .063" (1/16"), .078" (2 mm),
> .094" (3/32"). And for some tenor and bari mouthpieces, we may use even
> larger feelers, though there is no agreed upon standard.
>
> Theo Wanne offers some nice feeler sets, as well as glass gauges. More
> about those in a minute.
>
> http://theowanne.com/products/accessories/measuring
>
> Also Music Medic.
>
> http://www.musicmedic.com/catalog/categories/cat_46.html
>
> Glass gauges, there are two types... some have the 0 point at the very
> edge, and this is the type I prefer.
>
> The other type has the 0 point a few mm set back from the edge.
>
> For the first type, zero edge, I place the glass on the mouthpiece, gently
> press the tip and glass against the vertical face of my work bench, and
> this gives a consistent alignment so that I can get consistent measurements
> with the feelers. It is quick and easy.
>
> The second type, with the zero set back, you must visually align the tip
> with the zero mark. This is not fast or easy. It gives me inconsistent
> results. You may prefer this, others do, but it does not work well for me.
>
> Measuring the tip may be done with a "tapered wand". This is a long
> tapered rod that is ground flat on one side, with markings on the flat. The
> wand is inserted between the tip and glass gauge such that the flat side is
> against the glass, and the curved side gently touches the tip rail. The
> curved side will touch the tip in only one point.
>
> The problem with wands is that chamber shape, or the rollover baffle may
> not allow the wand to be fully inserted and lay correctly for good
> measurement. I have one, don't use it except to show others why not to buy
> it.
>
> The Theo Wanne digital tip opening gauge is EXCELLENT. It is consistent.
> The small ball end will let you measure either the middle of the tip rail,
> or as I prefer, near the outer edge of the tip rail. With a flat probe on
> the gauge a rollover baffle and wide tip opening may make the probe rest on
> the baffle and not the actual tip.
>
> I have a similar fixture to the Wanne that came with my kit from Winslow,
> but have since substituted a digital gauge (similar to the one sold with
> the Wanne gauge) for Winslow's original dial gauge. I also have two of the
> Wanne gauges.
>
> There are other measuring tools, but these are the ones I use for the most
> consistent results.
>
> Paul C.
>
>  
>

I start this video with a review of feeler gauge sets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLXNVzWbqiw&feature=youtube_gdata_player


On Feb 18, 2013, at 12:36 PM, "kkrelove1" <kkrelove@...> wrote:

> Longtime lurker here (I found this group via the Klarinet listserve, where I am much more active).
> 
> Are the feelers the same ones generally used to measure clarinet mouthpieces? In particular, is a .0015" feeler used to determine the length of the curve?
> 
> Hi, Barry. It's been a long time since we've seen each other.
> 
> Karl
> 
> 

Eastern Industries lets you make up your own set of 6" long feeler gauges, up to .125". 

http://www.easterngage.com/product-line.asp



--- On Wed, 2/20/13, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

From: Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Feeler gauge sets
To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com" <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013, 1:28 AM
















 



  


    
      
      
      I start this video with a review of feeler gauge sets:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLXNVzWbqiw&feature=youtube_gdata_player


On Feb 18, 2013, at 12:36 PM, "kkrelove1" <kkrelove@...> wrote:
















 



    
      
      
      Longtime lurker here (I found this group via the Klarinet listserve, where I am much more active).



Are the feelers the same ones generally used to measure clarinet mouthpieces? In particular, is a .0015" feeler used to determine the length of the curve?



Hi, Barry. It's been a long time since we've seen each other.



Karl





    
     

    









    
     

    
    






  

Paul,
What is the maximum depth reading you can measure with the Theo Wanne digital tip gauge?

I'm wondering if you can use it to measure baffle shapes as well, by sliding the gauge back the mouthpiece table and taking readings every 1/4" or so.

Thanks,
Mike

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "kkrelove1" <kkrelove@> wrote:
> >
> > Longtime lurker here (I found this group via the Klarinet listserve, where I am much more active).
> > 
> > Are the feelers the same ones generally used to measure clarinet mouthpieces? In particular, is a .0015" feeler used to determine the length of the curve?
> > 
> > Hi, Barry. It's been a long time since we've seen each other.
> > 
> > Karl
> >
> 
> Karl, while some will tape together thinner feelers to try to use for in place of thicker feelers, I have not gotten good results from that.  You can compress them with a caliper and get a reasonable measurement, but using stacked feelers does not work well for me when actually measuring the curve with glass.
> 
> The .0015" feeler has long been the standard for measuring the total facing length.  While theoretically the facing is actually longer, it makes little to no difference.  We can't measure with a .0000" feeler.  
> 
> John Winslow and I had talked about this, and the delicacy of the .0015" feeler, how easy to damage them.  He suggested, and sent me to try, a .002" feeler.  This gave very similar readings, perhaps a half mm shorter, but still consistent with what I was measuring with the .0015".  The .002" is more durable, so if you opt to use that, when comparing to other curves measured with .0015", just take into account the 1/2 mm difference.  And that is just an estimate, it will vary with the curve a little.
> 
> The .010" feeler is really more indicative of what the player feels as the "break", where the curve leaves the plane of the reed.  In general, the .010" feeler should be about 5 mm (or 10 on the Eric Brand scale) shorter than the .0015".
> 
> The next feeler of the E. Brand set is the .024".  If you were to use a .025" you would get exactly, or nearly so the same measurement.  Winslow felt there needed to be a measurement in between, so he supplied a .014" feeler with his sets.
> 
> Next, a .032" or .035" feeler to measure more of the middle of the curve.  These will give similar results, just take into account there may be a half mm difference in facing length measured.  But either is suitable.
> 
> The largest size feeler used in the old original Eric Brand set was the .050".  Winslow supplied .048", and again, there is little to no practical difference.  For clarinet this largest feeler is more than adequate, and may not be used for the majority of clarinet facings as they range from .039" - .046".  
> 
> And in those days, saxophone mouthpiece used much narrower tip openings, longer facings, and harder reeds.  The .050" (or .048") feeler was entirely adequate for measuring the facing curve nearer the tip.
> 
> These days we play shorter facings, and much larger tip openings, so larger feelers are required.  For this we use .063" (1/16"), .078" (2 mm), .094" (3/32").  And for some tenor and bari mouthpieces, we may use even larger feelers, though there is no agreed upon standard.
> 
> Theo Wanne offers some nice feeler sets, as well as glass gauges.  More about those in a minute.
> 
> http://theowanne.com/products/accessories/measuring
> 
> Also Music Medic.
> 
> http://www.musicmedic.com/catalog/categories/cat_46.html
> 
> Glass gauges, there are two types... some have the 0 point at the very edge, and this is the type I prefer.
> 
> The other type has the 0 point a few mm set back from the edge.
> 
> For the first type, zero edge, I place the glass on the mouthpiece, gently press the tip and glass against the vertical face of my work bench, and this gives a consistent alignment so that I can get consistent measurements with the feelers.  It is quick and easy.
> 
> The second type, with the zero set back, you must visually align the tip with the zero mark.  This is not fast or easy.  It gives me inconsistent results.  You may prefer this, others do, but it does not work well for me.
> 
> Measuring the tip may be done with a "tapered wand".  This is a long tapered rod that is ground flat on one side, with markings on the flat.  The wand is inserted between the tip and glass gauge such that the flat side is against the glass, and the curved side gently touches the tip rail.  The curved side will touch the tip in only one point.
> 
> The problem with wands is that chamber shape, or the rollover baffle may not allow the wand to be fully inserted and lay correctly for good measurement.  I have one, don't use it except to show others why not to buy it.
> 
> The Theo Wanne digital tip opening gauge is EXCELLENT.  It is consistent.  The small ball end will let you measure either the middle of the tip rail, or as I prefer, near the outer edge of the tip rail.  With a flat probe on the gauge a rollover baffle and wide tip opening may make the probe rest on the baffle and not the actual tip.
> 
> I have a similar fixture to the Wanne that came with my kit from Winslow, but have since substituted a digital gauge (similar to the one sold with the Wanne gauge) for Winslow's original dial gauge.  I also have two of the Wanne gauges.
> 
> There are other measuring tools, but these are the ones I use for the most consistent results.
> 
> Paul C.
>

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------The Wanne gauge will measure far beyond any practical tip opening which is
around .557" \\--- mike@mikewilkens.com wrote: From: "Mike"  To:
MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Feeler gauge sets
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 08:06:17 -0000 Paul, What is the maximum depth reading
you can measure with the Theo Wanne digital tip gauge? I'm wondering if you
can use it to measure baffle shapes as well, by sliding the gauge back the
mouthpiece table and taking readings every 1/4" or so. Thanks, Mike \\--- In
[MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com),
"tenorman1952" wrote: > > > > \\--- In >
[MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com](mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com), >
"kkrelove1" wrote: > > > > Longtime lurker here (I found this group via the
Klarinet listserve, where > I am much more active). > > > > Are the feelers
the same ones generally used to measure clarinet > mouthpieces? In particular,
is a .0015" feeler used to determine the length > of the curve? > > > > Hi,
Barry. It's been a long time since we've seen each other. > > > > Karl > > > >
Karl, while some will tape together thinner feelers to try to use for in >
place of thicker feelers, I have not gotten good results from that. You can >
compress them with a caliper and get a reasonable measurement, but using >
stacked feelers does not work well for me when actually measuring the curve >
with glass. > > The .0015" feeler has long been the standard for measuring the
total facing > length. While theoretically the facing is actually longer, it
makes little > to no difference. We can't measure with a .0000" feeler. > >
John Winslow and I had talked about this, and the delicacy of the .0015" >
feeler, how easy to damage them. He suggested, and sent me to try, a .002" >
feeler. This gave very similar readings, perhaps a half mm shorter, but >
still consistent with what I was measuring with the .0015". The .002" is >
more durable, so if you opt to use that, when comparing to other curves >
measured with .0015", just take into account the 1/2 mm difference. And that >
is just an estimate, it will vary with the curve a little. > > The .010"
feeler is really more indicative of what the player feels as the > "break",
where the curve leaves the plane of the reed. In general, the .010" > feeler
should be about 5 mm (or 10 on the Eric Brand scale) shorter than the >
.0015". > > The next feeler of the E. Brand set is the .024". If you were to
use a .025" > you would get exactly, or nearly so the same measurement.
Winslow felt there > needed to be a measurement in between, so he supplied a
.014" feeler with > his sets. > > Next, a .032" or .035" feeler to measure
more of the middle of the curve. > These will give similar results, just take
into account there may be a half > mm difference in facing length measured.
But either is suitable. > > The largest size feeler used in the old original
Eric Brand set was the > .050". Winslow supplied .048", and again, there is
little to no practical > difference. For clarinet this largest feeler is more
than adequate, and may > not be used for the majority of clarinet facings as
they range from .039" - > .046". > > And in those days, saxophone mouthpiece
used much narrower tip openings, > longer facings, and harder reeds. The .050"
(or .048") feeler was entirely > adequate for measuring the facing curve
nearer the tip. > > These days we play shorter facings, and much larger tip
openings, so larger > feelers are required. For this we use .063" (1/16"),
.078" (2 mm), .094" > (3/32"). And for some tenor and bari mouthpieces, we may
use even larger > feelers, though there is no agreed upon standard. > > Theo
Wanne offers some nice feeler sets, as well as glass gauges. More about >
those in a minute. > >  > > Also Music Medic. > >  > > Glass gauges, there are
two types... some have the 0 point at the very edge, > and this is the type I
prefer. > > The other type has the 0 point a few mm set back from the edge. >
> For the first type, zero edge, I place the glass on the mouthpiece, gently >
press the tip and glass against the vertical face of my work bench, and this >
gives a consistent alignment so that I can get consistent measurements with >
the feelers. It is quick and easy. > > The second type, with the zero set
back, you must visually align the tip > with the zero mark. This is not fast
or easy. It gives me inconsistent > results. You may prefer this, others do,
but it does not work well for me. > > Measuring the tip may be done with a
"tapered wand". This is a long tapered > rod that is ground flat on one side,
with markings on the flat. The wand is > inserted between the tip and glass
gauge such that the flat side is against > the glass, and the curved side
gently touches the tip rail. The curved side > will touch the tip in only one
point. > > The problem with wands is that chamber shape, or the rollover
baffle may not > allow the wand to be fully inserted and lay correctly for
good measurement. > I have one, don't use it except to show others why not to
buy it. > > The Theo Wanne digital tip opening gauge is EXCELLENT. It is
consistent. The > small ball end will let you measure either the middle of the
tip rail, or as > I prefer, near the outer edge of the tip rail. With a flat
probe on the > gauge a rollover baffle and wide tip opening may make the probe
rest on the > baffle and not the actual tip. > > I have a similar fixture to
the Wanne that came with my kit from Winslow, > but have since substituted a
digital gauge (similar to the one sold with the > Wanne gauge) for Winslow's
original dial gauge. I also have two of the Wanne > gauges. > > There are
other measuring tools, but these are the ones I use for the most > consistent
results. > > Paul C. > * * * Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

Speaking of measuring baffle shape, I've used a contour gauge like this:
http://www.johnsonlevel.com/productDetail.asp?cat=Construction+Squares&ID=9&pID%

but it looks like there's something a little better:
http://www.micromark.com/8-inch-plastic-contour-gauge-with-interlocking-ends,9578.html
(I've been looking around for a while, but never checked micromark).

Barry

On 2/20/2013 3:06 AM, Mike wrote:
>
> Paul,
> What is the maximum depth reading you can measure with the Theo Wanne 
> digital tip gauge?
>
> I'm wondering if you can use it to measure baffle shapes as well, by 
> sliding the gauge back the mouthpiece table and taking readings every 
> 1/4" or so.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>

Thanks for all the feedback and information. You've all been a great help.

Karl

That contour gauge looks pretty easy, and inexpensive. Are there any downsides to using them for baffle shapes? How do you turn the shape into data?
I'll give it a try.
If the contour gauge works well, then I can get the PM Woodwind tip opening gauge instead of Theo Wanne's, and save some bread. Does anyone know the accuracy differences between the PM and Wanne gauge?

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>
> Speaking of measuring baffle shape, I've used a contour gauge like this:
> http://www.johnsonlevel.com/productDetail.asp?cat=Construction+Squares&ID=9&pID%
> 
> but it looks like there's something a little better:
> http://www.micromark.com/8-inch-plastic-contour-gauge-with-interlocking-ends,9578.html
> (I've been looking around for a while, but never checked micromark).
> 
> Barry
> 
> On 2/20/2013 3:06 AM, Mike wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> > What is the maximum depth reading you can measure with the Theo Wanne 
> > digital tip gauge?
> >
> > I'm wondering if you can use it to measure baffle shapes as well, by 
> > sliding the gauge back the mouthpiece table and taking readings every 
> > 1/4" or so.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
>

On the same line that led me to ask about gauges, what is the range of curve
lengths (at .0015") for modern alto and tenor mouthpieces now on the market?
Vandoren's website is specific about tip openings, but, for both clarinet
and sax mouthpieces, they only publish relatively vague terms - medium short
(MC) to long (L) - for lengths. 

 

My question about gauges came out of my measuring some old alto mouthpieces
I pulled out of a desk drawer. I'm wondering where the facings I measured
fall in comparison to more recently manufactured pieces. Examples - one old
Chedeville is an asymmetric 54-52 length with a 1.83mm (.072") tip; an old
Selmer C* has length 40 and a tip of 1.52 (060"). The closest tips in the
Vandoren alto lines are 1.52, but I have no idea where a 40 length fits,
although I suspect it's fairly short since many clarinet mouthpieces today
are as long as 36 to 38. 

 

Karl  

 

From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of kkrelove1
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:10 AM
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Feeler gauge sets

 

  

Thanks for all the feedback and information. You've all been a great help.

Karl

I made a crude baffle gauge a couple of years back.

Items required:

Digital Depth Micrometer
Small glass Plate
Metal MM Ruler

I had a glass shop drill a hole in the MIDDLE of the glass plate.  I then attached the micrometer to this so that it looks similar to a standard tip gauge, except with a couple of inches of glass stretching beyond the tip.  I cut off the end of the ruler and glued it face down to the glass between the extended end and where the micrometer is attached.

I use it in the same way as a tip gauge, except I can move the mouthpiece up and down by a measurable interval.  Looking from the mouthpiece side, the ruler shows through the glass and can be aligned at any increment with the tip.  So for any given distance from the tip it is easy to measure the depth of the baffle.

For the most part, this works pretty well for plotting the general shape of a baffle; though it misses a lot of data, the baffle being in three dimensions instead of two.  I do not find it at all useful in duplicating the specifics of the all important baffle area parallel to the tip rail.

Best,
Walter Hoehn


On Feb 20, 2013, at 7:53 AM, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...>
 wrote:

> Speaking of measuring baffle shape, I've used a contour gauge like this:
> http://www.johnsonlevel.com/productDetail.asp?cat=Construction+Squares&ID=9&pID%
> 
> but it looks like there's something a little better:
> http://www.micromark.com/8-inch-plastic-contour-gauge-with-interlocking-ends,9578.html
> (I've been looking around for a while, but never checked micromark).
> 
> Barry
> 
> On 2/20/2013 3:06 AM, Mike wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> > What is the maximum depth reading you can measure with the Theo Wanne 
> > digital tip gauge?
> >
> > I'm wondering if you can use it to measure baffle shapes as well, by 
> > sliding the gauge back the mouthpiece table and taking readings every 
> > 1/4" or so.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> >
> 

I haven't tried turning the shape into data/numbers, and have used the 
gauge to compare or match baffle shapes and heights between some 
mouthpieces.

I suppose one could trace the curve onto paper to have some record.

One downside is that the wires could scratch a plastic mouthpiece. 
Especially the wires resting on the tip rail. Hasn't happened yet, but 
they seem a little sharp... I think a very well-made contour gauge would 
have some rounding done at the end of each wire - but mine certainly 
doesn't. I've contemplated making something similar, perhaps using 
stacked thin plastic coffee stirrers or something like that, but haven't 
gotten a "round tuit."


On 2/20/2013 1:35 PM, Mike wrote:
>
> That contour gauge looks pretty easy, and inexpensive. Are there any 
> downsides to using them for baffle shapes? How do you turn the shape 
> into data?
> I'll give it a try.
> If the contour gauge works well, then I can get the PM Woodwind tip 
> opening gauge instead of Theo Wanne's, and save some bread. Does 
> anyone know the accuracy differences between the PM and Wanne gauge?
>
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
> <mailto:MouthpieceWork%40yahoogroups.com>, Barry Levine wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of measuring baffle shape, I've used a contour gauge like this:
> > 
> http://www.johnsonlevel.com/productDetail.asp?cat=Construction+Squares&ID=9&pID% 
> <http://www.johnsonlevel.com/productDetail.asp?cat=Construction+Squares&ID=9&pID%>
> >
> > but it looks like there's something a little better:
> > 
> http://www.micromark.com/8-inch-plastic-contour-gauge-with-interlocking-ends,9578.html
> > (I've been looking around for a while, but never checked micromark).
> >
> > Barry
> >
> > On 2/20/2013 3:06 AM, Mike wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul,
> > > What is the maximum depth reading you can measure with the Theo Wanne
> > > digital tip gauge?
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if you can use it to measure baffle shapes as well, by
> > > sliding the gauge back the mouthpiece table and taking readings every
> > > 1/4" or so.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mike
> > >
> >
>
> 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" <mike@...> wrote:
>
> Paul,
> What is the maximum depth reading you can measure with the Theo Wanne digital tip gauge?
> 
> I'm wondering if you can use it to measure baffle shapes as well, by sliding the gauge back the mouthpiece table and taking readings every 1/4" or so.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike

Hmmm, I think at least 0.500" or more.  It  will measure much deeper than you need.

Yes, you could measure the baffle at various points, but how would you reference a depth to the X-Y axis?

Paul C.

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Barry Levine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
>
> Speaking of measuring baffle shape, I've used a contour gauge like this:
> http://www.johnsonlevel.com/productDetail.asp?cat=Construction+Squares&ID=9&pID%
> 
> but it looks like there's something a little better:
> http://www.micromark.com/8-inch-plastic-contour-gauge-with-interlocking-ends,9578.html
> (I've been looking around for a while, but never checked micromark).
> 
> Barry
> 

Yes, I have recommended the Micromark contour gauge for this purpose.

Micromark has lots of good, precision tools useful for our purposes.  Let me recommend you go to their site and order a catalog.  They will send a monthly catalog which will allow you to flip through and find items that you would not know of to search for on their website.

For you guys that aren't familiar with Micromark, they supply tools and materials for modelers... model railroad, military dioramas, model ship building, etc.  Check them out.

Paul C.

I have one of these and have not found it useful.  It gives a crude representation of the baffle, but it can not be easily turned into data you can plot transfer the shape to another mouthpiece.

On Feb 20, 2013, at 1:35 PM, "Mike" <mike@...> wrote:

> That contour gauge looks pretty easy, and inexpensive. Are there any downsides to using them for baffle shapes? How do you turn the shape into data?
> I'll give it a try.
> If the contour gauge works well, then I can get the PM Woodwind tip opening gauge instead of Theo Wanne's, and save some bread. Does anyone know the accuracy differences between the PM and Wanne gauge?
> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Barry Levine wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of measuring baffle shape, I've used a contour gauge like this:
> > http://www.johnsonlevel.com/productDetail.asp?cat=Construction+Squares&ID=9&pID%
> > 
> > but it looks like there's something a little better:
> > http://www.micromark.com/8-inch-plastic-contour-gauge-with-interlocking-ends,9578.html
> > (I've been looking around for a while, but never checked micromark).
> > 
> > Barry
> > 
> > On 2/20/2013 3:06 AM, Mike wrote:
> > >
> > > Paul,
> > > What is the maximum depth reading you can measure with the Theo Wanne 
> > > digital tip gauge?
> > >
> > > I'm wondering if you can use it to measure baffle shapes as well, by 
> > > sliding the gauge back the mouthpiece table and taking readings every 
> > > 1/4" or so.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Mike
> > >
> >
> 
> 

I use my dial tip gage to measure baffle shapes.  I have filed lines in the side of the gage at increments I am interested in.  More readings near the tip and spaced farther apart heading into the chamber.  I put the gage probe on the outside edge of the tip and put a white dot on the mouthpiece at my zero file mark.  I then slide the gage away from the tip to the next file mark on the dot. I plot these to compare different mouthpieces and before/after modifications.

I do not bother with measuring side to side baffle arcs.  I just note the shape by eye.  But I suppose it could be quantified with a few measurements too.

Another data point I have been collecting is the depth from the table at the base of the window "U" to the baffle/chamber floor.  I use the end probe on my calipers for this since it is too long on many mouthpieces to use the tip gage.  This depth along with the length of the window from the tip gives another XY point that can be plotted.  


On Feb 20, 2013, at 9:59 PM, "tenorman1952" <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> 
> --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> > What is the maximum depth reading you can measure with the Theo Wanne digital tip gauge?
> > 
> > I'm wondering if you can use it to measure baffle shapes as well, by sliding the gauge back the mouthpiece table and taking readings every 1/4" or so.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> 
> Hmmm, I think at least 0.500" or more. It will measure much deeper than you need.
> 
> Yes, you could measure the baffle at various points, but how would you reference a depth to the X-Y axis?
> 
> Paul C.
> 
> 

Got a photo you can upload to the group?


On Feb 20, 2013, at 2:01 PM, "Walter Forbes Hoehn (wassa)" <wassa@...> wrote:

> I made a crude baffle gauge a couple of years back.
> 
> Items required:
> 
> Digital Depth Micrometer
> Small glass Plate
> Metal MM Ruler
> 
> I had a glass shop drill a hole in the MIDDLE of the glass plate.  I then attached the micrometer to this so that it looks similar to a standard tip gauge, except with a couple of inches of glass stretching beyond the tip.  I cut off the end of the ruler and glued it face down to the glass between the extended end and where the micrometer is attached.
> 
> I use it in the same way as a tip gauge, except I can move the mouthpiece up and down by a measurable interval.  Looking from the mouthpiece side, the ruler shows through the glass and can be aligned at any increment with the tip.  So for any given distance from the tip it is easy to measure the depth of the baffle.
> 
> For the most part, this works pretty well for plotting the general shape of a baffle; though it misses a lot of data, the baffle being in three dimensions instead of two.  I do not find it at all useful in duplicating the specifics of the all important baffle area parallel to the tip rail.
> 
> Best,
> Walter Hoehn
> 
> 
> On Feb 20, 2013, at 7:53 AM, Barry Levine <barrylevine@norwoodlight.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Speaking of measuring baffle shape, I've used a contour gauge like this:
>> http://www.johnsonlevel.com/productDetail.asp?cat=Construction+Squares&ID=9&pID%
>> 
>> but it looks like there's something a little better:
>> http://www.micromark.com/8-inch-plastic-contour-gauge-with-interlocking-ends,9578.html
>> (I've been looking around for a while, but never checked micromark).
>> 
>> Barry
>> 
>> On 2/20/2013 3:06 AM, Mike wrote:
>>> 
>>> Paul,
>>> What is the maximum depth reading you can measure with the Theo Wanne 
>>> digital tip gauge?
>>> 
>>> I'm wondering if you can use it to measure baffle shapes as well, by 
>>> sliding the gauge back the mouthpiece table and taking readings every 
>>> 1/4" or so.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Mike
>>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> Got a Mouthpiece Work question?  Send it to MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> 
> Visit the site at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork to see the Files, Photos and Bookmarks relating to Mouthpiece Work.
> 
> To see and modify your groups, go to http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroupsYahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 

We were discussing gauging and facing lengths at lot on here back in 2003.  Below is an excerpt from a Paul Coats post (#1233).  This is just a guideline since you will find some good playing mouthpieces outside these ranges.  Some mouthpieces will measure very long using the .0015" feeler, but the a curve fit of the rest of the facing curve data will show that the .0015" feeler reading should be shorter than measured.  This is due to years of wear on a vintage piece or some sloppy work on a newer mouthpiece.  Convex tables can also give very long facing length measurements.   So there are pit falls with just measuring a facing length and using it as a target without judging if it is a good one compared to the rest of the curve.


The facing is a little long, more like a bari sax length.  To shorten a facing you must remove material from the table.  Then there will be a sharp angle at the break.  You must actually go to short, and then round off the angle and blend back into the facing curve.  For tenor you want a facing length of 22 mm – 24 mm. For alto 20 mm – 22 mm.  Soprano 17 mm- 20 mm.  Baritone sax, 25 mm – 26 mm.


On Feb 20, 2013, at 1:35 PM, "Karl Krelove" <karlkrelove@...> wrote:

> On the same line that led me to ask about gauges, what is the range of curve lengths (at .0015”) for modern alto and tenor mouthpieces now on the market? Vandoren’s website is specific about tip openings, but, for both clarinet and sax mouthpieces, they only publish relatively vague terms – medium short (MC) to long (L) – for lengths.
> 
>  
> 
> My question about gauges came out of my measuring some old alto mouthpieces I pulled out of a desk drawer. I’m wondering where the facings I measured fall in comparison to more recently manufactured pieces. Examples – one old Chedeville is an asymmetric 54-52 length with a 1.83mm (.072”) tip; an old Selmer C* has length 40 and a tip of 1.52 (060”). The closest tips in the Vandoren alto lines are 1.52, but I have no idea where a 40 length fits, although I suspect it’s fairly short since many clarinet mouthpieces today are as long as 36 to 38.
> 
>  
> 
> Karl  
> 
>  
> 
> From: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kkrelove1
> Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 11:10 AM
> To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Feeler gauge sets
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for all the feedback and information. You've all been a great help.
> 
> Karl
> 
> 
> 

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>
> We were discussing gauging and facing lengths at lot on here back in 2003.  Below is an excerpt from a Paul Coats post (#1233).  This is just a guideline since you will find some good playing mouthpieces outside these ranges.  Some mouthpieces will measure very long using the .0015" feeler, but the a curve fit of the rest of the facing curve data will show that the .0015" feeler reading should be shorter than measured.  This is due to years of wear on a vintage piece or some sloppy work on a newer mouthpiece.  


Thus my comment about the .010" feeler, that this measurement is really what the player feels as the facing length.

Paul C.