I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
 

 Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
 

 Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
 

 Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on this.
 

 If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in your curve data?

As far as the curve on the tip, I want it flat there and the tip thin.
People say it helps altissimo if it is curved but also increases resistance
in my experience. The fellers and the tip:  I see no problem if it doesn't
go deep. The latest feller that does shows you the tendency and the tip
itself you can see it on light, again being flat helps.


On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 9:02 AM, <mike@...> wrote:

>
>
> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically
> the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a
> few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>
>
> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails
> seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen
> any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone
> would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way,
> I'd love to hear about it.
>
>
> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue
> through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the
> tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>
>
> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
> this.
>
>
> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
> and include them both in your curve data?
>
>  
>



-- 
Sakshama

www. sakshamamouthpieces.com

So is that what people refer to as "flipping" the tip--just continuing the curve through the tip rail, instead of leaving this area flat? 

 

When the facings are cut on the Runyon facing machine, the curve maintains the same radius all the way from the "break" to the tip.  And these mouthpieces play just fine.

But that is easy to do with the machine.  When hand refacing it is very difficult.  As the mouthpiece butt end is lifted during the stroke, once on the tip rail, with the same pressure applied, that pressure is applied to a smaller or narrower area as the middle of the tip rail is approached.  And the tendency is to lift the butt end more, creating a shorter radius of curve over that tip rail area... and that is the "flip" we talk about.

But what I do, as I make the stroke across the cutting paper, the side rails draw two lines.  As soon as it begins to make a wide smear, that indicated the tip rail is being cut, I stop lifting the butt end of the mouthpiece, thus making it fat on the tip rail.  This allows the reed to close the tip all at once, giving the mouthpiece faster response.  It just plays better.

The difference between the machined curve and the flattened tip is not much.  But when a flip is cut into the tip rail it makes a lot of difference in how it plays, and not for the better.

What we want to prevent, anywhere in the curve, whether at the "break" or the tip, is a sudden change in radius, especially a sudden decrease in radius.  We want to avoid a "bump" in the curve where the reed has to bend around a kink in the curve.

Paul C.

An exaggerated curve in the tip rail area can play with great altissimo but will sound airy in the normal sax range.  I had a Lakey like this that I gradually took out ~90% of the flip that was in it and the normal range tone cleared up but the high altissimo was still good.  
 
I find a flat tip rail or one that is curved the same as the rest of the facing is good for about an octave of altissimo on tenor with a Fibracell reed.  Putting slightly more roll in the curve at the tip rail gets me another 1/2 octave with no negative response trade-offs.   The results are more dramatic for the guys using cane reeds and playing TOP style solos.
 
I do not think measuring the tip rail inside and out will help guide this work.  It is a nice thought be we are at the limits of our measurement abilities here.  I just do something similar to what Paul describes when facing near the tip rail.  But I adjust the last bit of lift as needed to get what i want.  I look at the tip rail by eye to see how the light reflects off it.  I can tell if it is flat or has a gentle smooth roll in it.  If it has a kink in it from a sudden lift while facing near the tip, that shows up clear too.  



________________________________
From: "mike@..." <mike@...>
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2014 9:02 AM
Subject: [MouthpieceWork] No man's land. From where the side rails end to the tip. (measuring & refacing)



  
I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.

Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.

Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?

Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on this.

If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in your curve data?

Hi Mike.

I think you raise a couple of very important points....


The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.

I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure of
an hour-long conversation with Mark,
from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the
mouthpiece
(everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
he pointed out several things to me:

1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which
to measure the mouthpiece facing.
"I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is
'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not.
There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
(This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing
into no-man's land (as you put it)....
I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
good once it got going.
"I bet you like it up top, hey?"
'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
*He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
register / altissimo register.*


My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
work.....but it does.
Go figure.

Two things then:

(Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in
the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
(Beechler - designed, in any case).
A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).

I hope that helps with your query.

As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
the tip.
Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.

All the best,

David Smart.


On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@mikewilkens.com> wrote:

>
>
> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically
> the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a
> few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>
>
> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails
> seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen
> any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone
> would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way,
> I'd love to hear about it.
>
>
> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue
> through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the
> tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>
>
> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
> this.
>
>
> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
> and include them both in your curve data?
>
>  
>

Just to add....


Mark, showed me to take the tip rail measurement from the *centre of the
tip-rail*
(he did this by 'feel' on a dial indicator protruding through a thick, flat
plate....at 'so many' + mouthpieces per day, I guess you get a 'feel' for
it....)
This also corroborates methods shown here and elsewhere.


All the best,

David Smart.


On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:

> Hi Mike.
>
> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>
>
> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
> the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>
> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure
> of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
> the mouthpiece
> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
> he pointed out several things to me:
>
> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which
> to measure the mouthpiece facing.
> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is
> 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not.
> There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing
> into no-man's land (as you put it)....
> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
> good once it got going.
> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
> register / altissimo register.*
>
>
> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
> work.....but it does.
> Go figure.
>
> Two things then:
>
> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in
> the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>
> I hope that helps with your query.
>
> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
> the tip.
> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>
> All the best,
>
> David Smart.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically
>> the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a
>> few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>>
>>
>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side
>> rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't
>> seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if
>> anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
>> way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>
>>
>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>
>>
>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>> this.
>>
>>
>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>
>>  
>>
>
>

I get best results continuing an approximation of the facing curve from the corners to the outside of the mid tip rail - no irregularities anywhere. That takes care of the reed to blowing/embouchure pressure response optimally.  More important, and the cause of all the extra resistance, is the profile of the baffle in this area.  Continuing the facing curve results in a higher, mid tip area baffle, increased response to internal air pressure changes and more Bernoulli force, often causing the reed to close too soon = the perception of blowing resistance.  In either case (flat or curved tip rail) all other aspects being equal, the shape of the baffle between the rail ends and mid tip rail, is where really great mouthpieces are made.
On Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:12 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@gmail.com> wrote:
 
  
Just to add....


Mark, showed me to take the tip rail measurement from the centre of the tip-rail
(he did this by 'feel' on a dial indicator protruding through a thick, flat plate....at 'so many' + mouthpieces per day, I guess you get a 'feel' for it....)
This also corroborates methods shown here and elsewhere.


All the best,

David Smart.




On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:

Hi Mike.
>
>I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>
>
>The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>
>I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the mouthpiece 
>(everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>he pointed out several things to me:
>
>1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>
>2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>
>"I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
>
>(This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>
>3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>
>I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet good once it got going.
>
>"I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>
>'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>
>He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high register / altissimo register.
>
>
>
>My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't work.....but it does.
>
>Go figure.
>
>
>Two things then:
>
>
>(Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>
>A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>
>
>I hope that helps with your query.
>
>
>As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to the tip.
>
>Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>
>
>All the best,
>
>
>David Smart.
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>
> 
>>  
>>I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>>
>>
>>Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>
>>
>>Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>
>>
>>Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on this.
>>
>>
>>If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in your curve data?
>

"In either case (flat or curved tip rail) all other aspects being equal,
the shape of the baffle between the rail ends and mid tip rail, is where
really great mouthpieces are made."

Amen


On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 6:41 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

>
>
> I get best results continuing an approximation of the facing curve from
> the corners to the outside of the mid tip rail - no irregularities
> anywhere. That takes care of the reed to blowing/embouchure pressure
> response optimally.  More important, and the cause of all the extra
> resistance, is the profile of the baffle in this area.  Continuing the
> facing curve results in a higher, mid tip area baffle, increased response
> to internal air pressure changes and more Bernoulli force, often causing
> the reed to close too soon = the perception of blowing resistance.  In
> either case (flat or curved tip rail) all other aspects being equal, the
> shape of the baffle between the rail ends and mid tip rail, is where really
> great mouthpieces are made.
>    On Sunday, April 27, 2014 12:12 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>
> wrote:
>
>  Just to add....
>
>
> Mark, showed me to take the tip rail measurement from the *centre of the
> tip-rail*
> (he did this by 'feel' on a dial indicator protruding through a thick,
> flat plate....at 'so many' + mouthpieces per day, I guess you get a 'feel'
> for it....)
> This also corroborates methods shown here and elsewhere.
>
>
> All the best,
>
> David Smart.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 8:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>
> Hi Mike.
>
> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>
>
> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
> the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>
> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure
> of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
> the mouthpiece
> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
> he pointed out several things to me:
>
> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which
> to measure the mouthpiece facing.
> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is
> 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not.
> There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing
> into no-man's land (as you put it)....
> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
> good once it got going.
> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
> register / altissimo register.*
>
>
> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
> work.....but it does.
> Go figure.
>
> Two things then:
>
> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in
> the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>
> I hope that helps with your query.
>
> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
> the tip.
> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>
> All the best,
>
> David Smart.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>
>
>  I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
> doing things.
>
> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails
> seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen
> any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone
> would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way,
> I'd love to hear about it.
>
> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue
> through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the
> tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>
> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
> this.
>
> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
> and include them both in your curve data?
>
>
>
>
>
>    
>



-- 
Sakshama

www. sakshamamouthpieces.com

I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at Beechler.  

> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...m> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mike.
> 
> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
> 
> 
> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
> 
> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the mouthpiece 
> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
> he pointed out several things to me:
> 
> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet good once it got going.
> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
> He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high register / altissimo register.
> 
> 
> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't work.....but it does.
> Go figure.
> 
> Two things then:
> 
> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
> 
> I hope that helps with your query.
> 
> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to the tip.
> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> David Smart.
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>  
>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on this.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in your curve data?
>> 
> 
> 

Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much more
about mouthpieces than them.


On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:

>
>
> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at
> Beechler.
>
> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Mike.
>
> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>
>
> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
> the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>
> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure
> of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
> the mouthpiece
> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
> he pointed out several things to me:
>
> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which
> to measure the mouthpiece facing.
> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is
> 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not.
> There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing
> into no-man's land (as you put it)....
> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
> good once it got going.
> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
> register / altissimo register.*
>
>
> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
> work.....but it does.
> Go figure.
>
> Two things then:
>
> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in
> the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>
> I hope that helps with your query.
>
> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
> the tip.
> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>
> All the best,
>
> David Smart.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically
>> the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a
>> few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>>
>>
>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side
>> rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't
>> seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if
>> anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
>> way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>
>>
>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>
>>
>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>> this.
>>
>>
>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>
>>
>   
>



-- 
Sakshama

www. sakshamamouthpieces.com

....and there's nothing "proprietary" about what goes on inside the mouthpiece.  Nobody owns it. That's an open secret.  It's physics, period.  Combine that knowledge with the experience of some advanced playing/note voicing skills, and it will reveal itself to you.
On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...> wrote:
 
  
Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much more about mouthpieces than them. 



On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:

 
>  
>I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at Beechler.  
>
>On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>
>
>  
>>Hi Mike.
>>
>>I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>
>>
>>The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>
>>I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the mouthpiece 
>>(everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>he pointed out several things to me:
>>
>>1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>
>>2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>
>>"I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
>>
>>(This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>
>>3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>
>>I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet good once it got going.
>>
>>"I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>
>>'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>
>>He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high register / altissimo register.
>>
>>
>>
>>My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't work.....but it does.
>>
>>Go figure.
>>
>>
>>Two things then:
>>
>>
>>(Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>
>>A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>
>>
>>I hope that helps with your query.
>>
>>
>>As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to the tip.
>>
>>Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>
>>
>>All the best,
>>
>>
>>David Smart.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@mikewilkens.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>>  
>>>I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>>>
>>>
>>>Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>
>>>
>>>Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on this.
>>>
>>>
>>>If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in your curve data?
>>


-- 
Sakshama

www. sakshamamouthpieces.com

No...but it's 'proprietary' to him and the company....if I wanted to find
out what Beechler have done inside their mouthpieces, I would have (...and
have)...he just didn't want to answer any questions regarding the inside of
the mouthpiece.

Sounds fair enough to me.....no?

All the best,

David.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

>
>
> ....and there's nothing "proprietary" about what goes on inside the
> mouthpiece.  Nobody owns it. That's an open secret.  It's physics, period.
>  Combine that knowledge with the experience of some advanced playing/note
> voicing skills, and it will reveal itself to you.
>   On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...>
> wrote:
>
>  Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much
> more about mouthpieces than them.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>
>
>  I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at
> Beechler.
>
> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Mike.
>
> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>
>
> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
> the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>
> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure
> of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
> the mouthpiece
> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
> he pointed out several things to me:
>
> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which
> to measure the mouthpiece facing.
> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is
> 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not.
> There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing
> into no-man's land (as you put it)....
> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
> good once it got going.
> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
> register / altissimo register.*
>
>
> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
> work.....but it does.
> Go figure.
>
> Two things then:
>
> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in
> the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>
> I hope that helps with your query.
>
> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
> the tip.
> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>
> All the best,
>
> David Smart.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>
>
>  I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
> doing things.
>
> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails
> seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen
> any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone
> would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way,
> I'd love to hear about it.
>
> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue
> through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the
> tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>
> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
> this.
>
> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
> and include them both in your curve data?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sakshama
>
> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>
>
>
>    
>

Not fair at all. Leading you to  Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual
is like suggesting a century old dental book to a medical student that has
chapter on medicine also. Probably fair if that is what he knows.
5-6 gauges are insufficient. Period. In the time of that book largest
facing was .060, now some people play on .160 with a standard being .105.
You need the larger gauges to cover the new ground.
There are no secrets about Beechler mouthpieces nor they came out with any
invention regarding mouthpieces.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:

>
>
> No...but it's 'proprietary' to him and the company....if I wanted to find
> out what Beechler have done inside their mouthpieces, I would have (...and
> have)...he just didn't want to answer any questions regarding the inside of
> the mouthpiece.
>
> Sounds fair enough to me.....no?
>
> All the best,
>
> David.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> ....and there's nothing "proprietary" about what goes on inside the
>> mouthpiece.  Nobody owns it. That's an open secret.  It's physics, period.
>>  Combine that knowledge with the experience of some advanced playing/note
>> voicing skills, and it will reveal itself to you.
>>    On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM, Sakshama Koloski <
>> sakshama1@...> wrote:
>>
>>  Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much
>> more about mouthpieces than them.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>>
>>
>>  I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at
>> Beechler.
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hi Mike.
>>
>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>
>>
>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
>> the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>
>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure
>> of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
>> the mouthpiece
>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
>> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>
>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
>> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which
>> to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve
>> is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or
>> not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring
>> points..."
>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
>> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
>> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
>> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
>> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece
>> disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
>> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
>> good once it got going.
>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
>> register / altissimo register.*
>>
>>
>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
>> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
>> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
>> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
>> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
>> work.....but it does.
>> Go figure.
>>
>> Two things then:
>>
>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in
>> the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
>> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
>> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>
>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>
>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
>> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
>> the tip.
>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> David Smart.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>  I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
>> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
>> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
>> doing things.
>>
>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side
>> rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't
>> seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if
>> anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
>> way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>
>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>
>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>> this.
>>
>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sakshama
>>
>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>  
>



-- 
Sakshama

www. sakshamamouthpieces.com

Curve vs flat across the tip, yeah it matters.  Try both and see what the difference is.  For some players I'll do one for others the other. 

 Data, I do this area by hand and eye.  The rest of the curve is right so it's going to be about the target tip opening, the only datum I worry about is how does it play.

Curve vs flat across the tip, yeah it matters.  Try both and see what the difference is. I'll use one for some players and the other for others. 

 Measuring in this area, i just eyeball it.  It's easy to get hung up on data.  The only datum I'm worried about is how does it play.

All mouthpieces work internally according to set principles.  While a manufacturer may have found what they consider to be a unique way to balance the interaction of those principles, to dismiss any informative discussion of the nature of mouthpiece internals on the basis of it being proprietary information usually means, "I don't really know.".


On Monday, April 28, 2014 8:43 AM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...> wrote:
 
  
Not fair at all. Leading you to  Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual is like suggesting a century old dental book to a medical student that has chapter on medicine also. Probably fair if that is what he knows. 
5-6 gauges are insufficient. Period. In the time of that book largest facing was .060, now some people play on .160 with a standard being .105. You need the larger gauges to cover the new ground. 
There are no secrets about Beechler mouthpieces nor they came out with any invention regarding mouthpieces. 



On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:

 
>  
>No...but it's 'proprietary' to him and the company....if I wanted to find out what Beechler have done inside their mouthpieces, I would have (...and have)...he just didn't want to answer any questions regarding the inside of the mouthpiece.
>
>Sounds fair enough to me.....no?
>
>All the best,
>
>David.
>
>
>
>
>On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>
> 
>>  
>>....and there's nothing "proprietary" about what goes on inside the mouthpiece.  Nobody owns it. That's an open secret.  It's physics, period.  Combine that knowledge with the experience of some advanced playing/note voicing skills, and it will reveal itself to you.
>>On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...> wrote:
>> 
>>  
>>Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much more about mouthpieces than them. 
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>>  
>>>I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at Beechler.  
>>>
>>>On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  
>>>>Hi Mike.
>>>>
>>>>I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>
>>>>I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>>from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>>>
During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the mouthpiece 
>>>>(everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>>>he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>
>>>>1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>>
>>>>2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>>
>>>>"I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
>>>>
>>>>(This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>>
>>>>3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>>
>>>>I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet good once it got going.
>>>>
>>>>"I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>>
>>>>'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>>>
>>>>He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high register / altissimo register.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't work.....but it does.
>>>>
>>>>Go figure.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Two things then:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>(Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>>
>>>>A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to the tip.
>>>>
>>>>Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>All the best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>David Smart.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>>I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Sakshama
>>
>>www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


-- 
Sakshama

www. sakshamamouthpieces.com

Hi...

I did say he said it was a good place to start.....it's not the bible.

Please list the works you've read on this subject; I'm interested in
reading as much about the subject as possible, and look forward to finding
as many books on the subject as possible....

As for the number of feeler gauges - if he says he needs 5-6 gauges to
check if a certain curve is correct, I believe him.
He's been doing it for years, makes hundreds of mouthpieces a year and
proved to me during our conversation that he can create a curve and check
it using 5-6 gauges.
As for the tip opening - I did say he uses a dial test indicator poking
through a flat surface...

As for myself, I use a set of nearly 100 pin gauges, 30-odd feeler gauges,
two different kinds of depth gauge,
my own contraption in conjunction with a hand-held depth gauge...and I have
a choice of three gauge glasses.
My production rate is a snail's pace compared to his....who's right?

This 'dissing' someone I've mentioned does nothing to answer the original
query....which you haven't addressed either.
Care to enlighten the OP as to why his mouthpiece has no significant tip
rail?

All the best,

David.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...>wrote:

>
>
> Not fair at all. Leading you to  Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair
> Manual is like suggesting a century old dental book to a medical student
> that has chapter on medicine also. Probably fair if that is what he knows.
> 5-6 gauges are insufficient. Period. In the time of that book largest
> facing was .060, now some people play on .160 with a standard being .105.
> You need the larger gauges to cover the new ground.
> There are no secrets about Beechler mouthpieces nor they came out with any
> invention regarding mouthpieces.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> No...but it's 'proprietary' to him and the company....if I wanted to find
>> out what Beechler have done inside their mouthpieces, I would have (...and
>> have)...he just didn't want to answer any questions regarding the inside of
>> the mouthpiece.
>>
>> Sounds fair enough to me.....no?
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> David.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ....and there's nothing "proprietary" about what goes on inside the
>>> mouthpiece.  Nobody owns it. That's an open secret.  It's physics, period.
>>>  Combine that knowledge with the experience of some advanced playing/note
>>> voicing skills, and it will reveal itself to you.
>>>    On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM, Sakshama Koloski <
>>> sakshama1@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much
>>> more about mouthpieces than them.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done
>>> at Beechler.
>>>
>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Mike.
>>>
>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>
>>>
>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
>>> the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>
>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure
>>> of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
>>> the mouthpiece
>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
>>> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>>
>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
>>> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with
>>> which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve
>>> is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or
>>> not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring
>>> points..."
>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
>>> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
>>> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
>>> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
>>> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece
>>> disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
>>> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
>>> good once it got going.
>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
>>> register / altissimo register.*
>>>
>>>
>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
>>> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
>>> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
>>> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
>>> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
>>> work.....but it does.
>>> Go figure.
>>>
>>> Two things then:
>>>
>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown
>>> in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
>>> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
>>> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>
>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>
>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
>>> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
>>> the tip.
>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> David Smart.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>  I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
>>> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
>>> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
>>> doing things.
>>>
>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side
>>> rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't
>>> seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if
>>> anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
>>> way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>
>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>>> this.
>>>
>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sakshama
>>>
>>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sakshama
>
> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>
>   
>

No it doesn't....

It could mean 'I'm not allowed to tell you' (it's not his company).
It could mean 'I don't know who you are...you could be from any major
competitor.'
It could mean 'I don't feel like it'.

What's with the attitude toward Beechler, guys?
Do you know these people personally?

I'm surprised.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:38 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> All mouthpieces work internally according to set principles.  While a
> manufacturer may have found what they consider to be a unique way to
> balance the interaction of those principles, to dismiss any informative
> discussion of the nature of mouthpiece internals on the basis of it being
> proprietary information usually means, "I don't really know.".
>
>
>   On Monday, April 28, 2014 8:43 AM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>  Not fair at all. Leading you to  Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair
> Manual is like suggesting a century old dental book to a medical student
> that has chapter on medicine also. Probably fair if that is what he knows.
> 5-6 gauges are insufficient. Period. In the time of that book largest
> facing was .060, now some people play on .160 with a standard being .105.
> You need the larger gauges to cover the new ground.
> There are no secrets about Beechler mouthpieces nor they came out with any
> invention regarding mouthpieces.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>
>
>  No...but it's 'proprietary' to him and the company....if I wanted to
> find out what Beechler have done inside their mouthpieces, I would have
> (...and have)...he just didn't want to answer any questions regarding the
> inside of the mouthpiece.
>
> Sounds fair enough to me.....no?
>
> All the best,
>
> David.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>wrote:
>
>
>  ....and there's nothing "proprietary" about what goes on inside the
> mouthpiece.  Nobody owns it. That's an open secret.  It's physics, period.
>  Combine that knowledge with the experience of some advanced playing/note
> voicing skills, and it will reveal itself to you.
>    On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM, Sakshama Koloski <
> sakshama1@...> wrote:
>
>  Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much
> more about mouthpieces than them.
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>
>
>  I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at
> Beechler.
>
> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Mike.
>
> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>
>
> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
> the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>
> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure
> of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
> the mouthpiece
> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
> he pointed out several things to me:
>
> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which
> to measure the mouthpiece facing.
> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is
> 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not.
> There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing
> into no-man's land (as you put it)....
> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
> good once it got going.
> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
> register / altissimo register.*
>
>
> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
> work.....but it does.
> Go figure.
>
> Two things then:
>
> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in
> the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>
> I hope that helps with your query.
>
> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
> the tip.
> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>
> All the best,
>
> David Smart.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>
>
>  I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
> doing things.
>
> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails
> seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen
> any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone
> would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way,
> I'd love to hear about it.
>
> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue
> through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the
> tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>
> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
> this.
>
> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
> and include them both in your curve data?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sakshama
>
> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sakshama
>
> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>
>
>
>    
>

Hi Keith,

Well....I happened to be on a once-a-lifetime holiday in the United States.
(I only had a certain amount of money to spend...and only had two weeks.)
I was in LA....not in Elkhart.
I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far to get to see you....and Ted
Klum 'wasn't in'.

I aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole
philosophy in that.

Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my path....or allow people
to think that, just because I visited Beechler....that's the standard I
want to attain?
That's like saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy you.
Nope; I aim much higher than that too.
I was on a learning trip....I feel sorry for you if you think you can
*only*learn from the best!

All the best,

David.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:

>
>
> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at
> Beechler.
>
> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Mike.
>
> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>
>
> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
> the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>
> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure
> of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
> the mouthpiece
> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
> he pointed out several things to me:
>
> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which
> to measure the mouthpiece facing.
> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is
> 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not.
> There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing
> into no-man's land (as you put it)....
> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
> good once it got going.
> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
> register / altissimo register.*
>
>
> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
> work.....but it does.
> Go figure.
>
> Two things then:
>
> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in
> the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>
> I hope that helps with your query.
>
> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
> the tip.
> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>
> All the best,
>
> David Smart.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically
>> the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a
>> few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>>
>>
>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side
>> rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't
>> seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if
>> anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
>> way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>
>>
>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>
>>
>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>> this.
>>
>>
>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>
>>
>   
>

My apologies, Sakshama Koloksi, you did address the OP's original query...


All the best,

David.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:44 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:

> Hi...
>
> I did say he said it was a good place to start.....it's not the bible.
>
> Please list the works you've read on this subject; I'm interested in
> reading as much about the subject as possible, and look forward to finding
> as many books on the subject as possible....
>
> As for the number of feeler gauges - if he says he needs 5-6 gauges to
> check if a certain curve is correct, I believe him.
> He's been doing it for years, makes hundreds of mouthpieces a year and
> proved to me during our conversation that he can create a curve and check
> it using 5-6 gauges.
> As for the tip opening - I did say he uses a dial test indicator poking
> through a flat surface...
>
> As for myself, I use a set of nearly 100 pin gauges, 30-odd feeler gauges,
> two different kinds of depth gauge,
> my own contraption in conjunction with a hand-held depth gauge...and I
> have a choice of three gauge glasses.
> My production rate is a snail's pace compared to his....who's right?
>
> This 'dissing' someone I've mentioned does nothing to answer the original
> query....which you haven't addressed either.
> Care to enlighten the OP as to why his mouthpiece has no significant tip
> rail?
>
> All the best,
>
> David.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:43 PM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Not fair at all. Leading you to  Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair
>> Manual is like suggesting a century old dental book to a medical student
>> that has chapter on medicine also. Probably fair if that is what he knows.
>> 5-6 gauges are insufficient. Period. In the time of that book largest
>> facing was .060, now some people play on .160 with a standard being .105.
>> You need the larger gauges to cover the new ground.
>> There are no secrets about Beechler mouthpieces nor they came out with
>> any invention regarding mouthpieces.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No...but it's 'proprietary' to him and the company....if I wanted to
>>> find out what Beechler have done inside their mouthpieces, I would have
>>> (...and have)...he just didn't want to answer any questions regarding the
>>> inside of the mouthpiece.
>>>
>>> Sounds fair enough to me.....no?
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> David.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ....and there's nothing "proprietary" about what goes on inside the
>>>> mouthpiece.  Nobody owns it. That's an open secret.  It's physics, period.
>>>>  Combine that knowledge with the experience of some advanced playing/note
>>>> voicing skills, and it will reveal itself to you.
>>>>    On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM, Sakshama Koloski <
>>>> sakshama1@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much
>>>> more about mouthpieces than them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done
>>>> at Beechler.
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mike.
>>>>
>>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements
>>>> at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>
>>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me)
>>>> pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
>>>> the mouthpiece
>>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
>>>> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
>>>> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with
>>>> which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve
>>>> is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or
>>>> not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring
>>>> points..."
>>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
>>>> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
>>>> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
>>>> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
>>>> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece
>>>> disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
>>>> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
>>>> good once it got going.
>>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>>> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the
>>>> high register / altissimo register.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
>>>> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
>>>> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
>>>> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
>>>> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
>>>> work.....but it does.
>>>> Go figure.
>>>>
>>>> Two things then:
>>>>
>>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown
>>>> in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
>>>> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
>>>> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>
>>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>
>>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
>>>> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
>>>> the tip.
>>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> David Smart.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
>>>> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
>>>> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
>>>> doing things.
>>>>
>>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side
>>>> rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't
>>>> seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if
>>>> anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
>>>> way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>
>>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>>>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>>>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>>>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>>>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>>>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sakshama
>>>>
>>>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sakshama
>>
>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>
>>   
>>
>
>

Hi David,
You missed the point. This group is your best info on mouthpieces and since
you are here you are home. This is the best source of mouthpiece info you
can find, just search the archives.  You showed highest reverence to
halfway knowledge that made us react. I have nothing against Beechler, I
haven't thought about him or his mouthpieces at all for very long time. The
few I have seen haven't made in my book of good mouthpieces, making
mouthpieces fast and making them good is different. Nothing said was
intended to hurt you in any way.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> Well....I happened to be on a once-a-lifetime holiday in the United States.
> (I only had a certain amount of money to spend...and only had two weeks.)
> I was in LA....not in Elkhart.
> I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far to get to see you....and Ted
> Klum 'wasn't in'.
>
> I aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole
> philosophy in that.
>
> Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my path....or allow people
> to think that, just because I visited Beechler....that's the standard I
> want to attain?
> That's like saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy you.
> Nope; I aim much higher than that too.
> I was on a learning trip....I feel sorry for you if you think you can
> *only* learn from the best!
>
> All the best,
>
> David.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at
>> Beechler.
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Mike.
>>
>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>
>>
>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
>> the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>
>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure
>> of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
>> the mouthpiece
>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
>> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>
>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
>> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which
>> to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve
>> is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or
>> not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring
>> points..."
>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
>> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
>> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
>> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
>> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece
>> disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
>> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
>> good once it got going.
>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
>> register / altissimo register.*
>>
>>
>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
>> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
>> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
>> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
>> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
>> work.....but it does.
>> Go figure.
>>
>> Two things then:
>>
>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in
>> the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
>> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
>> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>
>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>
>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
>> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
>> the tip.
>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> David Smart.
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
>>> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
>>> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
>>> doing things.
>>>
>>>
>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side
>>> rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't
>>> seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if
>>> anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
>>> way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>
>>>
>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>>> this.
>>>
>>>
>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>>
>>>
>>
>  
>



-- 
Sakshama

www. sakshamamouthpieces.com

 

I agree totally with your earlier post about the shape of the baffle
just behind the tip rail. To me, this is really "no man's land". Small
adjustments here can make a large difference in how a mouthpiece plays.
And there is much design variation extant (compare, for example compare
roll-over baffles with ones that have a "ditch" behind the tip rail).


A small amount of resistance here seems beneficial in some cases - it
feels to me as though it results in a certain uniformity of resistance
over the range of the horn, but at the cost of less projection. The
small hump on Selmers imparts this feel. OTOH, the deep ditch of the
Rico graftonite also does this - unpleasantly however, and a greater
cost of projection. 

If Beechler has developed a good method of finely
tuning this zone, it might well be considered proprietary. That said, I
haven't played on or worked on any Beechlers. Whether they have anything
special going for them remains unknown to me. 

Barry Levine 

On
2014-04-28 17:38, MartinMods wrote: 

> All mouthpieces work internally
according to set principles. While a manufacturer may have found what
they consider to be a unique way to balance the interaction of those
principles, to dismiss any informative discussion of the nature of
mouthpiece internals on the basis of it being proprietary information
usually means, "I don't really know.".
> 
> On Monday, April 28, 2014
8:43 AM, Sakshama Koloski wrote:
> 
> Not fair at all. Leading you to
Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual is like suggesting a century
old dental book to a medical student that has chapter on medicine also.
Probably fair if that is what he knows. 
> 5-6 gauges are insufficient.
Period. In the time of that book largest facing was .060, now some
people play on .160 with a standard being .105. You need the larger
gauges to cover the new ground. 
> There are no secrets about Beechler
mouthpieces nor they came out with any invention regarding mouthpieces.

> 
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, David Smart
<davidsmart64@... [7]> wrote:
> 
>> No...but it's 'proprietary' to
him and the company....if I wanted to find out what Beechler have done
inside their mouthpieces, I would have (...and have)...he just didn't
want to answer any questions regarding the inside of the mouthpiece.
>>

>> Sounds fair enough to me.....no?
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> David.

>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, MartinMods
<lancelotburt@... [6]> wrote:
>> 
>>> ....and there's nothing
"proprietary" about what goes on inside the mouthpiece. Nobody owns it.
That's an open secret. It's physics, period. Combine that knowledge with
the experience of some advanced playing/note voicing skills, and it will
reveal itself to you. 
>>> 
>>> On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM,
Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@... [3]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Most people
here do better work than Beechler and actually know much more about
mouthpieces than them. 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith
Bradbury <kwbradbury@... [4]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I think you should
aspire to do better facing work than what is done at Beechler. 
>>>>

>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...
[2]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Mike.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think you raise a couple
of very important points....
>>>>> 
>>>>> The first being the issue with
the feeler gauges and the measurements at the extreme tip of the
mouthpiece.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the
(life-event, for me) pleasure of an hour-long conversation with
Mark,
>>>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA. During our
discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the
mouthpiece 
>>>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was
'proprietary information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....), he pointed
out several things to me:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand
Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its chapter on mouthpieces was a
very good start to refacing mouthpieces. 
>>>>> 2. I'd pointed out to
him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which to measure the
mouthpiece facing. 
>>>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good
literature. If your curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to
tell you if it's right or not. There's only so many mistakes you can
make in between measuring points..." 
>>>>> (This means that if your
curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't going to make it any
clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z', is not the same
as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock many, that a
major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his measurements....but he's
not: He's correct.) 
>>>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue
of the mouthpiece disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....

>>>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe.
I complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in
response...stuffy...yet good once it got going. 
>>>>> "I bet you like
it up top, hey?" 
>>>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest
is too....'breathy''. 
>>>>> HE TOLD ME THAT THE MOUTHPIECE IS DESIGNED
LIKE THAT TO FAVOUR THE HIGH REGISTER / ALTISSIMO REGISTER.
>>>>> 
>>>>>
My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail
that you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any
(clarinet) reed that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in
all registers and is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with
it....it shouldn't work.....but it does. 
>>>>> Go figure.
>>>>> 
>>>>>
Two things then:
>>>>> 
>>>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other
way'...) The feeler gauges shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to
measure the curve of a mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).

>>>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to
favour the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read
elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>> 
>>>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>>

>>>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges
(they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area
leading up to the tip. 
>>>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll
let you know how I got on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> David
Smart. 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM,
<mike@... [1]> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> I've been doing some
thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the
end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions
and possibly some new ways of doing things. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Feeler gage
measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to
lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any
discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone
would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
way, I'd love to hear about it. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also related--Is there a
consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's
land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should
there be a flat tip rail? 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but
my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to
hear some more experienced thoughts on this. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If this is
a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements,
one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include
them both in your curve data?
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Sakshama
>>> 
>>> www.
sakshamamouthpieces.com [5]
> 
> -- 
> Sakshama
> 
> www.
sakshamamouthpieces.com [8]
> 
> 




Links:
------
[1] mailto:mike@...
[2]
mailto:davidsmart64@...
[3] mailto:sakshama1@...
[4]
mailto:kwbradbury@...
[5] http://sakshamamouthpieces.com/
[6]
mailto:lancelotburt@...
[7] mailto:davidsmart64@...
[8]
http://sakshamamouthpieces.com/
[9]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/conversations/messages/11648;_ylc=X3oDMTJxNGhlb3JmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BG1zZ0lkAzExNjQ4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM5ODcyMTI4Mg--?act=reply&messageNum648
[10]
mailto:lancelotburt@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BMouthpieceWork%5D%20No%20man%27s%20land%2E%20From%20where%20the%20side%20rails%20end%20to%20the%20tip%2E%20%28measuring%20%26%20refacing%29
[11]
mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BMouthpieceWork%5D%20No%20man%27s%20land%2E%20From%20where%20the%20side%20rails%20end%20to%20the%20tip%2E%20%28measuring%20%26%20refacing%29
[12]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJldDIzNmhjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM5ODcyMTI4Mg--
[13]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/conversations/topics/11632;_ylc=X3oDMTM2cnM0ajRqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BG1zZ0lkAzExNjQ4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM5ODcyMTI4MgR0cGNJZAMxMTYzMg--
[14]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork
[15]
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
[16]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMWI2ZTU4BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM5ODcyMTI4Mg--
[17]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYXJqbWY2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzOTg3MjEyODI-
[18]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdDlta3NnBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzk4NzIxMjgy
[19]
https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html
[20]
mailto:MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
[21]
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

Hi again...

Nothing you wrote I took personally.
I'm just amazed at the level of animosity toward another individual
(employee from Beechler).
I didn't "show reverence" to halfway knowledge at all...It was a
'life-time' experience for me...I doubt if I'll make it back to the USA
again...(on holiday)...who knows?

But thanks for the reply.


David.


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...>wrote:

>
>
> Hi David,
> You missed the point. This group is your best info on mouthpieces and
> since you are here you are home. This is the best source of mouthpiece info
> you can find, just search the archives.  You showed highest reverence to
> halfway knowledge that made us react. I have nothing against Beechler, I
> haven't thought about him or his mouthpieces at all for very long time. The
> few I have seen haven't made in my book of good mouthpieces, making
> mouthpieces fast and making them good is different. Nothing said was
> intended to hurt you in any way.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> Well....I happened to be on a once-a-lifetime holiday in the United
>> States.
>> (I only had a certain amount of money to spend...and only had two weeks.)
>> I was in LA....not in Elkhart.
>> I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far to get to see you....and Ted
>> Klum 'wasn't in'.
>>
>> I aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole
>> philosophy in that.
>>
>> Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my path....or allow people
>> to think that, just because I visited Beechler....that's the standard I
>> want to attain?
>> That's like saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy you.
>> Nope; I aim much higher than that too.
>> I was on a learning trip....I feel sorry for you if you think you can
>> *only* learn from the best!
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> David.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at
>>> Beechler.
>>>
>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Mike.
>>>
>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>
>>>
>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
>>> the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>
>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure
>>> of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
>>> the mouthpiece
>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
>>> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>>
>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
>>> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with
>>> which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve
>>> is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or
>>> not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring
>>> points..."
>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
>>> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
>>> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
>>> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
>>> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece
>>> disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
>>> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
>>> good once it got going.
>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
>>> register / altissimo register.*
>>>
>>>
>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
>>> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
>>> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
>>> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
>>> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
>>> work.....but it does.
>>> Go figure.
>>>
>>> Two things then:
>>>
>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown
>>> in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
>>> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
>>> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>
>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>
>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
>>> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
>>> the tip.
>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> David Smart.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@mikewilkens.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
>>>> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
>>>> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
>>>> doing things.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side
>>>> rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't
>>>> seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if
>>>> anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
>>>> way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>>>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>>>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>>>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>>>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>>>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Sakshama
>
> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>
>   
>

I do think it was nice that Mark from Beechler was willing to talk with you for an hour on his methods and opinions.  


> On Apr 28, 2014, at 10:41 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
> 
> No...but it's 'proprietary' to him and the company....if I wanted to find out what Beechler have done inside their mouthpieces, I would have (...and have)...he just didn't want to answer any questions regarding the inside of the mouthpiece.
> 
> Sounds fair enough to me.....no?
> 
> All the best,
> 
> David.
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>>  
>> ....and there's nothing "proprietary" about what goes on inside the mouthpiece.  Nobody owns it. That's an open secret.  It's physics, period.  Combine that knowledge with the experience of some advanced playing/note voicing skills, and it will reveal itself to you.
>> On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...> wrote:
>>  
>> Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much more about mouthpieces than them. 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>>  
>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at Beechler.  
>> 
>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Hi Mike.
>>> 
>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>> 
>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the mouthpiece 
>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>> 
>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet good once it got going.
>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>> He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high register / altissimo register.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't work.....but it does.
>>> Go figure.
>>> 
>>> Two things then:
>>> 
>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>> 
>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>> 
>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to the tip.
>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>> 
>>> All the best,
>>> 
>>> David Smart.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>>  
>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>>> 
>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>> 
>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>> 
>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on this.
>>> 
>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in your curve data?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sakshama
>> 
>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
> 
> 

The "proprietary secrets" of the baffle are in good part, explained here, in Benade's 1977 class notes, page 76 

- https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf


On Monday, April 28, 2014 4:35 PM, barrylevine <barrylevine@...> wrote:
 
I agree totally with your earlier post about the shape of the baffle just behind the tip rail.  To me, this is really "no man's land". Small adjustments here can make a large difference in how a mouthpiece plays. And there is much design variation extant (compare, for example compare roll-over baffles with ones that have a "ditch" behind the tip rail).
A small amount of resistance here seems beneficial in some cases - it feels to me as though it results in a certain uniformity of resistance over the range of the horn, but at the cost of less projection. The small hump on Selmers imparts this feel. OTOH, the deep ditch of the Rico graftonite also does this - unpleasantly however, and a greater cost of projection.
If Beechler has developed a good method of finely tuning this zone, it might well be considered proprietary. That said, I haven't played on or worked on any Beechlers. Whether they have anything special going for them remains unknown to me.
Barry Levine
On 2014-04-28 17:38, MartinMods wrote:
  
> 
>All mouthpieces work internally according to set principles.  While a manufacturer may have found what they consider to be a unique way to balance the interaction of those principles, to dismiss any informative discussion of the nature of mouthpiece internals on the basis of it being proprietary information usually means, "I don't really know.".
>
>
>
>On Monday, April 28, 2014 8:43 AM, Sakshama Koloski wrote:
>
>
>  
>Not fair at all. Leading you to  Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual is like suggesting a century old dental book to a medical student that has chapter on medicine also. Probably fair if that is what he knows.  
>5-6 gauges are insufficient. Period. In the time of that book largest facing was .060, now some people play on .160 with a standard being .105. You need the larger gauges to cover the new ground. 
>There are no secrets about Beechler mouthpieces nor they came out with any invention regarding mouthpieces. 
>
>
>
>On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>
> 
>>  
>>No...but it's 'proprietary' to him and the company....if I wanted to find out what Beechler have done inside their mouthpieces, I would have (...and have)...he just didn't want to answer any questions regarding the inside of the mouthpiece.
>>
>>
Sounds fair enough to me.....no?
>>
>>
All the best,
>>
>>
David.
>>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>>  
>>>....and there's nothing "proprietary" about what goes on inside the mouthpiece.  Nobody owns it. That's an open secret.  It's physics, period.  Combine that knowledge with the experience of some advanced playing/note voicing skills, and it will reveal itself to you.
>>>On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>  
>>>Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much more about mouthpieces than them. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at Beechler.  
>>>>
>>>>On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>>Hi Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>>
I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>>
>>>>>
I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>>>from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the mouthpiece 
>>>>>(everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>>
>>>>>
1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>>>2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>>>"I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
>>>>>(This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>>>3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>>>I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet good once it got going.
>>>>>"I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>>>'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>>>>He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high register / altissimo register.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't work.....but it does.
>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Two things then:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>(Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>>>A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to the tip.
>>>>>Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>All the best,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>David Smart.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
-- 
>>>Sakshama
>>>
>>>www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>> 
>
>
> 
-- 
>Sakshama
>
>www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>
>
> 
> 
>
>

David, I think some of the things you reported about Beechler came off like you thought the way they measured facings was all anyone needed to do good work.  It sounds like English is not your first language.  So we should all take that into consideration.

> On Apr 28, 2014, at 7:43 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
> 
> Hi again...
> 
> Nothing you wrote I took personally. 
> I'm just amazed at the level of animosity toward another individual (employee from Beechler).
> I didn't "show reverence" to halfway knowledge at all...It was a 'life-time' experience for me...I doubt if I'll make it back to the USA again...(on holiday)...who knows?
> 
> But thanks for the reply.
> 
> 
> David.
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...> wrote:
>>  
>> Hi David,
>> You missed the point. This group is your best info on mouthpieces and since you are here you are home. This is the best source of mouthpiece info you can find, just search the archives.  You showed highest reverence to halfway knowledge that made us react. I have nothing against Beechler, I haven't thought about him or his mouthpieces at all for very long time. The few I have seen haven't made in my book of good mouthpieces, making mouthpieces fast and making them good is different. Nothing said was intended to hurt you in any way.  
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>>  
>>> Hi Keith,
>>> 
>>> Well....I happened to be on a once-a-lifetime holiday in the United States.
>>> (I only had a certain amount of money to spend...and only had two weeks.)
>>> I was in LA....not in Elkhart.
>>> I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far to get to see you....and Ted Klum 'wasn't in'.
>>> 
>>> I aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole philosophy in that.
>>> 
>>> Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my path....or allow people to think that, just because I visited Beechler....that's the standard I want to attain?
>>> That's like saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy you.
>>> Nope; I aim much higher than that too.
>>> I was on a learning trip....I feel sorry for you if you think you can only learn from the best!
>>> 
>>> All the best,
>>> 
>>> David.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at Beechler.  
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...m> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> Hi Mike.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the mouthpiece 
>>>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
>>>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet good once it got going.
>>>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>>>> He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high register / altissimo register.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't work.....but it does.
>>>>> Go figure.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Two things then:
>>>>> 
>>>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>> 
>>>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to the tip.
>>>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>> 
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> David Smart.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on this.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sakshama
>> 
>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
> 
> 

Thank you.

No need to ride the word 'proprietary'.

(The need for companies to protect the information they consider theirs is
very real.)

All the best,

David.


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:01 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

> The "proprietary secrets" of the baffle are in good part, explained here,
> in Benade's 1977 class notes, page 76
>
> -
> https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf
>
>
>   On Monday, April 28, 2014 4:35 PM, barrylevine <
> barrylevine@...> wrote:
>   I agree totally with your earlier post about the shape of the baffle
> just behind the tip rail.  To me, this is really "no man's land". Small
> adjustments here can make a large difference in how a mouthpiece plays. And
> there is much design variation extant (compare, for example compare
> roll-over baffles with ones that have a "ditch" behind the tip rail).
> A small amount of resistance here seems beneficial in some cases - it
> feels to me as though it results in a certain uniformity of resistance over
> the range of the horn, but at the cost of less projection. The small hump
> on Selmers imparts this feel. OTOH, the deep ditch of the Rico graftonite
> also does this - unpleasantly however, and a greater cost of projection.
> If Beechler has developed a good method of finely tuning this zone, it
> might well be considered proprietary. That said, I haven't played on or
> worked on any Beechlers. Whether they have anything special going for them
> remains unknown to me.
> Barry Levine
> On 2014-04-28 17:38, MartinMods wrote:
>
>
>
> All mouthpieces work internally according to set principles.  While a
> manufacturer may have found what they consider to be a unique way to
> balance the interaction of those principles, to dismiss any informative
> discussion of the nature of mouthpiece internals on the basis of it being
> proprietary information usually means, "I don't really know.".
>
>   On Monday, April 28, 2014 8:43 AM, Sakshama Koloski wrote:
>
>
>  Not fair at all. Leading you to  Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair
> Manual is like suggesting a century old dental book to a medical student
> that has chapter on medicine also. Probably fair if that is what he knows.
> 5-6 gauges are insufficient. Period. In the time of that book largest
> facing was .060, now some people play on .160 with a standard being .105.
> You need the larger gauges to cover the new ground.
> There are no secrets about Beechler mouthpieces nor they came out with any
> invention regarding mouthpieces.
>
>
>  On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>
>
>    No...but it's 'proprietary' to him and the company....if I wanted to
> find out what Beechler have done inside their mouthpieces, I would have
> (...and have)...he just didn't want to answer any questions regarding the
> inside of the mouthpiece.
>
> Sounds fair enough to me.....no?
>
> All the best,
>
> David.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>wrote:
>
>
>   ....and there's nothing "proprietary" about what goes on inside the
> mouthpiece.  Nobody owns it. That's an open secret.  It's physics, period.
>  Combine that knowledge with the experience of some advanced playing/note
> voicing skills, and it will reveal itself to you.
>    On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM, Sakshama Koloski <
> sakshama1@...> wrote:
>
>  Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much
> more about mouthpieces than them.
>
>
>  On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>
>
>  I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at
> Beechler.
>
> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>
>
>     Hi Mike.
>
> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>
>
> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
> the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>
> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure
> of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
> the mouthpiece
> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
> he pointed out several things to me:
>
> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which
> to measure the mouthpiece facing.
> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is
> 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not.
> There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing
> into no-man's land (as you put it)....
> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
> good once it got going.
> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
> register / altissimo register.*
>
>
> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
> work.....but it does.
> Go figure.
>
> Two things then:
>
> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in
> the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>
> I hope that helps with your query.
>
> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
> the tip.
> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>
> All the best,
>
> David Smart.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>
>
>  I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
> doing things.
>
> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails
> seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen
> any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone
> would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way,
> I'd love to hear about it.
>
> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue
> through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the
> tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>
> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
> this.
>
> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
> and include them both in your curve data?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sakshama
>
> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sakshama
>
> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi Keith,

I think you should read my post again...English is my first language (your
comment is somewhat baffling since we've spoken on the phone before...) and
I think I gave a well-written account of my visit to Beechler.

I addressed the fact that the tip rail of my mouthpiece (like the OP's),
was non-existent which means that depending on the shape of the baffle,
it's unlikely to be flat.
I was told (by Beechler....who make a mouthpiece like that), that it is to
favour the altissimo register.
They do the same on some saxophone mouthpieces.

On the subject of refacing mouthpieces (I'd asked about other literature),
he told me that the Erick Brand manual was a
*good place to start.*
Given that the guy makes God knows how many mouthpieces per year, I thought
it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the facing he's
just put on the mouthpiece.
I suppose I should have said that he has other feeler gauges...and that he
uses certain sets of gauges for certain mouthpieces, but that he relies on
5-6 measurements / feelers for each mouthpiece.

This approach to craftsmanship is not unknown..."less is more".
I've seen guys in Taiwan put a saxophone together with a third of the tools
on the bench that I use...
I've also worked in a couple of the saxophone factories that some people
revere as if they were temples of perfection...
...some of the things they do to instruments would make you wince and look
away...
...if only some people knew.

Some people are capable of doing the same thing as others with fewer tools.
The point about there only being so many mistakes you can make in a curve
(an action which he performs...thousands of times in a year?),
is relevant.
He probably knows the curve for each of the mouthpieces so well that he can
trace it without the mouthpiece in his hand....'in his sleep', if you like.

Personally; I'm in awe of this philosophy...it can probably only be
followed when a) there is complete confidence in your skills and b) when
there is a demand for high production figures.
I'll bet Mark at Beechler hasn't got the luxury of taking more than 6
measurements either...it's not that kind of work.

Right now, I own thousands of £'s of tools that have been acquired with
measuring mouthpieces in mind.
I'm even 'departing' from feeler gauges (because they're so hard to come
by) and experimenting with pin gauges
for the last third of the facing (toward the tip).
No; I'm definitely the type that likes lots of tools and information around
me...

But enough of explaining my (open) attitude toward other methods...
The question has long been answered and we are miles from the original
discussion.
I'll refrain from including my holiday experiences in future, however
'nice' they are...
...and stick to facts.

Regards,

David.







On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:

>
>
> David, I think some of the things you reported about Beechler came off
> like you thought the way they measured facings was all anyone needed to do
> good work.  It sounds like English is not your first language.  So we
> should all take that into consideration.
>
> On Apr 28, 2014, at 7:43 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi again...
>
> Nothing you wrote I took personally.
> I'm just amazed at the level of animosity toward another individual
> (employee from Beechler).
> I didn't "show reverence" to halfway knowledge at all...It was a
> 'life-time' experience for me...I doubt if I'll make it back to the USA
> again...(on holiday)...who knows?
>
> But thanks for the reply.
>
>
> David.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi David,
>> You missed the point. This group is your best info on mouthpieces and
>> since you are here you are home. This is the best source of mouthpiece info
>> you can find, just search the archives.  You showed highest reverence to
>> halfway knowledge that made us react. I have nothing against Beechler, I
>> haven't thought about him or his mouthpieces at all for very long time. The
>> few I have seen haven't made in my book of good mouthpieces, making
>> mouthpieces fast and making them good is different. Nothing said was
>> intended to hurt you in any way.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...m>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Keith,
>>>
>>> Well....I happened to be on a once-a-lifetime holiday in the United
>>> States.
>>> (I only had a certain amount of money to spend...and only had two weeks.)
>>> I was in LA....not in Elkhart.
>>> I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far to get to see you....and
>>> Ted Klum 'wasn't in'.
>>>
>>> I aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole
>>> philosophy in that.
>>>
>>> Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my path....or allow
>>> people to think that, just because I visited Beechler....that's the
>>> standard I want to attain?
>>> That's like saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy you.
>>> Nope; I aim much higher than that too.
>>> I was on a learning trip....I feel sorry for you if you think you can
>>> *only* learn from the best!
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> David.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at
>>>> Beechler.
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mike.
>>>>
>>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements
>>>> at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>
>>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me)
>>>> pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
>>>> the mouthpiece
>>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
>>>> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>
>>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
>>>> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with
>>>> which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve
>>>> is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or
>>>> not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring
>>>> points..."
>>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
>>>> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
>>>> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
>>>> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
>>>> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece
>>>> disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
>>>> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
>>>> good once it got going.
>>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>>> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the
>>>> high register / altissimo register.*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
>>>> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
>>>> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
>>>> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
>>>> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
>>>> work.....but it does.
>>>> Go figure.
>>>>
>>>> Two things then:
>>>>
>>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown
>>>> in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
>>>> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
>>>> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>
>>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>
>>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
>>>> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
>>>> the tip.
>>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> David Smart.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
>>>>> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
>>>>> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
>>>>> doing things.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side
>>>>> rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't
>>>>> seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if
>>>>> anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
>>>>> way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>>>>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>>>>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>>>>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>>>>> this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>>>>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>>>>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sakshama
>>
>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>
>>
>   
>

I don't see anyone dissing B'chler mouthpieces.  It's just a reaction to a strong, generalized statement with which there is disagreement.  

As for the reading list - that is easy.  You have to read everything available on all aspects of the saxophone, again and again, until you can relate all of it, bit by bit, to your own playing experience.
On Monday, April 28, 2014 5:06 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
 
  
Thank you.

No need to ride the word 'proprietary'.

(The need for companies to protect the information they consider theirs is very real.)

All the best,

David.




On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:01 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

The "proprietary secrets" of the baffle are in good part, explained here, in Benade's 1977 class notes, page 76 
>
>
>- https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf
>
>
>
>
>On Monday, April 28, 2014 4:35 PM, barrylevine <barrylevine@norwoodlight.com> wrote:
> 
>I agree totally with your earlier post about the shape of the baffle just behind the tip rail.  To me, this is really "no man's land". Small adjustments here can make a large difference in how a mouthpiece plays. And there is much design variation extant (compare, for example compare roll-over baffles with ones that have a "ditch" behind the tip rail).
>A small amount of resistance here seems beneficial in some cases - it feels to me as though it results in a certain uniformity of resistance over the range of the horn, but at the cost of less projection. The small hump on Selmers imparts this feel. OTOH, the deep ditch of the Rico graftonite also does this - unpleasantly however, and a greater cost of projection.
>If Beechler has developed a good method of finely tuning this zone, it might well be considered proprietary. That said, I haven't played on or worked on any Beechlers. Whether they have anything special going for them remains unknown to me.
>Barry Levine
>On 2014-04-28 17:38, MartinMods wrote:
>  
>> 
>>All mouthpieces work internally according to set principles.  While a manufacturer may have found what they consider to be a unique way to balance the interaction of those principles, to dismiss any informative discussion of the nature of mouthpiece internals on the basis of it being proprietary information usually means, "I don't really know.".
>>
>>
>>
>>On Monday, April 28, 2014 8:43 AM, Sakshama Koloski wrote:
>>
>>
>>  
>>Not fair at all. Leading you to  Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual is like suggesting a century old dental book to a medical student that has chapter on medicine also. Probably fair if that is what he knows.  
>>5-6 gauges are insufficient. Period. In the time of that book largest facing was .060, now some people play on .160 with a standard being .105. You need the larger gauges to cover the new ground. 
>>There are no secrets about Beechler mouthpieces nor they came out with any invention regarding mouthpieces. 
>>
>>
>>
>>On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>>  
>>>No...but it's 'proprietary' to him and the company....if I wanted to find out what Beechler have done inside their mouthpieces, I would have (...and have)...he just didn't want to answer any questions regarding the inside of the mouthpiece.
>>>
>>>
Sounds fair enough to me.....no?
>>>
>>>
All the best,
>>>
>>>
David.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> 
>>>>  
>>>>....and there's nothing "proprietary" about what goes on inside the mouthpiece.  Nobody owns it. That's an open secret.  It's physics, period.  Combine that knowledge with the experience of some advanced playing/note voicing skills, and it will reveal itself to you.
>>>>On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much more about mouthpieces than them. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>>I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at Beechler.  
>>>>>
>>>>>On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>>Hi Mike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>>>>from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the mouthpiece 
>>>>>>(everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>>>>2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>>>>"I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
>>>>>>(This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>>>>3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>>>>I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet good once it got going.
>>>>>>"I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>>>>'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>>>>>He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high register / altissimo register.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't work.....but it does.
>>>>>>Go figure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Two things then:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>>>>A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to the tip.
>>>>>>Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All the best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>David Smart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@mikewilkens.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on this.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
-- 
>>>>Sakshama
>>>>
>>>>www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 
>>> 
>>
>>
>> 
-- 
>>Sakshama
>>
>>www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>
>>
>> 
>> 
>>
>>
> 
> 
>
>

Volume (quantity) most certainly does not equate to quality, nor do I think
it is representative of any degree of skill (accuracy).  That is a pretty
big assumption.

Hearing that he only "relies" on 5-6 measurements makes sense to me based
on the Beechler mouthpieces that I have measured myself, none of which I
would consider well executed.  Mark Shim, an accomplished saxophonist here
in NY has a Beechler tenor mouthpiece that was "custom" made for him at a
tip opening of .140".  I'm not sure how it would even be possible to cut
the curve on a mouthpiece that open with 5 or 6 measurements.  The length
of the facing on that particular mouthpiece is 30mm+...

Matt


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:17 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> I think you should read my post again...English is my first language (your
> comment is somewhat baffling since we've spoken on the phone before...) and
> I think I gave a well-written account of my visit to Beechler.
>
> I addressed the fact that the tip rail of my mouthpiece (like the OP's),
> was non-existent which means that depending on the shape of the baffle,
> it's unlikely to be flat.
> I was told (by Beechler....who make a mouthpiece like that), that it is to
> favour the altissimo register.
> They do the same on some saxophone mouthpieces.
>
> On the subject of refacing mouthpieces (I'd asked about other literature),
> he told me that the Erick Brand manual was a
> *good place to start.*
> Given that the guy makes God knows how many mouthpieces per year, I
> thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the
> facing he's just put on the mouthpiece.
> I suppose I should have said that he has other feeler gauges...and that he
> uses certain sets of gauges for certain mouthpieces, but that he relies on
> 5-6 measurements / feelers for each mouthpiece.
>
> This approach to craftsmanship is not unknown..."less is more".
> I've seen guys in Taiwan put a saxophone together with a third of the
> tools on the bench that I use...
> I've also worked in a couple of the saxophone factories that some people
> revere as if they were temples of perfection...
> ...some of the things they do to instruments would make you wince and look
> away...
> ...if only some people knew.
>
> Some people are capable of doing the same thing as others with fewer tools.
> The point about there only being so many mistakes you can make in a curve
> (an action which he performs...thousands of times in a year?),
> is relevant.
> He probably knows the curve for each of the mouthpieces so well that he
> can trace it without the mouthpiece in his hand....'in his sleep', if you
> like.
>
> Personally; I'm in awe of this philosophy...it can probably only be
> followed when a) there is complete confidence in your skills and b) when
> there is a demand for high production figures.
> I'll bet Mark at Beechler hasn't got the luxury of taking more than 6
> measurements either...it's not that kind of work.
>
> Right now, I own thousands of £'s of tools that have been acquired with
> measuring mouthpieces in mind.
> I'm even 'departing' from feeler gauges (because they're so hard to come
> by) and experimenting with pin gauges
> for the last third of the facing (toward the tip).
> No; I'm definitely the type that likes lots of tools and information
> around me...
>
> But enough of explaining my (open) attitude toward other methods...
> The question has long been answered and we are miles from the original
> discussion.
> I'll refrain from including my holiday experiences in future, however
> 'nice' they are...
> ...and stick to facts.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> David, I think some of the things you reported about Beechler came off
>> like you thought the way they measured facings was all anyone needed to do
>> good work.  It sounds like English is not your first language.  So we
>> should all take that into consideration.
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 7:43 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi again...
>>
>> Nothing you wrote I took personally.
>> I'm just amazed at the level of animosity toward another individual
>> (employee from Beechler).
>> I didn't "show reverence" to halfway knowledge at all...It was a
>> 'life-time' experience for me...I doubt if I'll make it back to the USA
>> again...(on holiday)...who knows?
>>
>> But thanks for the reply.
>>
>>
>> David.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>> You missed the point. This group is your best info on mouthpieces and
>>> since you are here you are home. This is the best source of mouthpiece info
>>> you can find, just search the archives.  You showed highest reverence to
>>> halfway knowledge that made us react. I have nothing against Beechler, I
>>> haven't thought about him or his mouthpieces at all for very long time. The
>>> few I have seen haven't made in my book of good mouthpieces, making
>>> mouthpieces fast and making them good is different. Nothing said was
>>> intended to hurt you in any way.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Keith,
>>>>
>>>> Well....I happened to be on a once-a-lifetime holiday in the United
>>>> States.
>>>> (I only had a certain amount of money to spend...and only had two
>>>> weeks.)
>>>> I was in LA....not in Elkhart.
>>>> I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far to get to see you....and
>>>> Ted Klum 'wasn't in'.
>>>>
>>>> I aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole
>>>> philosophy in that.
>>>>
>>>> Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my path....or allow
>>>> people to think that, just because I visited Beechler....that's the
>>>> standard I want to attain?
>>>> That's like saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy you.
>>>> Nope; I aim much higher than that too.
>>>> I was on a learning trip....I feel sorry for you if you think you can
>>>> *only* learn from the best!
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> David.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done
>>>>> at Beechler.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements
>>>>> at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me)
>>>>> pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing
>>>>> of the mouthpiece
>>>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
>>>>> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
>>>>> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with
>>>>> which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your
>>>>> curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right
>>>>> or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring
>>>>> points..."
>>>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements
>>>>> aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip
>>>>> opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This
>>>>> may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
>>>>> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece
>>>>> disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
>>>>> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
>>>>> good once it got going.
>>>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>>>> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the
>>>>> high register / altissimo register.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
>>>>> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
>>>>> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
>>>>> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
>>>>> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
>>>>> work.....but it does.
>>>>> Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two things then:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown
>>>>> in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
>>>>> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour
>>>>> the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
>>>>> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
>>>>> the tip.
>>>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>
>>>>> David Smart.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@mikewilkens.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
>>>>>> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
>>>>>> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
>>>>>> doing things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side
>>>>>> rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't
>>>>>> seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if
>>>>>> anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
>>>>>> way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>>>>>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>>>>>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>>>>>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>>>>>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>>>>>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sakshama
>>>
>>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>  
>



-- 
Matt
www.matthewvossjazz.com

Thanks very much again for the literature you linked to.
I haven't been able to get all the way through the archives yet.

Regards,

David


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:25 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

> I don't see anyone dissing B'chler mouthpieces.  It's just a reaction to a
> strong, generalized statement with which there is disagreement.
>
> As for the reading list - that is easy.  You have to read everything
> available on all aspects of the saxophone, again and again, until you can
> relate all of it, bit by bit, to your own playing experience.
>   On Monday, April 28, 2014 5:06 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>
> wrote:
>
>  Thank you.
>
> No need to ride the word 'proprietary'.
>
> (The need for companies to protect the information they consider theirs is
> very real.)
>
> All the best,
>
> David.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:01 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>wrote:
>
> The "proprietary secrets" of the baffle are in good part, explained here,
> in Benade's 1977 class notes, page 76
>
> -
> https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-Physics323-1977.pdf
>
>
>    On Monday, April 28, 2014 4:35 PM, barrylevine <
> barrylevine@...> wrote:
>   I agree totally with your earlier post about the shape of the baffle
> just behind the tip rail.  To me, this is really "no man's land". Small
> adjustments here can make a large difference in how a mouthpiece plays. And
> there is much design variation extant (compare, for example compare
> roll-over baffles with ones that have a "ditch" behind the tip rail).
> A small amount of resistance here seems beneficial in some cases - it
> feels to me as though it results in a certain uniformity of resistance over
> the range of the horn, but at the cost of less projection. The small hump
> on Selmers imparts this feel. OTOH, the deep ditch of the Rico graftonite
> also does this - unpleasantly however, and a greater cost of projection.
> If Beechler has developed a good method of finely tuning this zone, it
> might well be considered proprietary. That said, I haven't played on or
> worked on any Beechlers. Whether they have anything special going for them
> remains unknown to me.
> Barry Levine
> On 2014-04-28 17:38, MartinMods wrote:
>
>
>
> All mouthpieces work internally according to set principles.  While a
> manufacturer may have found what they consider to be a unique way to
> balance the interaction of those principles, to dismiss any informative
> discussion of the nature of mouthpiece internals on the basis of it being
> proprietary information usually means, "I don't really know.".
>
>   On Monday, April 28, 2014 8:43 AM, Sakshama Koloski wrote:
>
>
>  Not fair at all. Leading you to  Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair
> Manual is like suggesting a century old dental book to a medical student
> that has chapter on medicine also. Probably fair if that is what he knows.
> 5-6 gauges are insufficient. Period. In the time of that book largest
> facing was .060, now some people play on .160 with a standard being .105.
> You need the larger gauges to cover the new ground.
> There are no secrets about Beechler mouthpieces nor they came out with any
> invention regarding mouthpieces.
>
>
>  On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 10:41 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>
>
>    No...but it's 'proprietary' to him and the company....if I wanted to
> find out what Beechler have done inside their mouthpieces, I would have
> (...and have)...he just didn't want to answer any questions regarding the
> inside of the mouthpiece.
>
> Sounds fair enough to me.....no?
>
> All the best,
>
> David.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:00 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>wrote:
>
>
>   ....and there's nothing "proprietary" about what goes on inside the
> mouthpiece.  Nobody owns it. That's an open secret.  It's physics, period.
>  Combine that knowledge with the experience of some advanced playing/note
> voicing skills, and it will reveal itself to you.
>    On Sunday, April 27, 2014 8:55 PM, Sakshama Koloski <
> sakshama1@...> wrote:
>
>  Most people here do better work than Beechler and actually know much
> more about mouthpieces than them.
>
>
>  On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:55 PM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>
>
>  I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at
> Beechler.
>
> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>
>
>     Hi Mike.
>
> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>
>
> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at
> the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>
> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure
> of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of
> the mouthpiece
> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
> he pointed out several things to me:
>
> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which
> to measure the mouthpiece facing.
> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is
> 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not.
> There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't
> going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z',
> is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock
> many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing
> into no-man's land (as you put it)....
> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
> good once it got going.
> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high
> register / altissimo register.*
>
>
> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
> work.....but it does.
> Go figure.
>
> Two things then:
>
> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in
> the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
> altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>
> I hope that helps with your query.
>
> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
> the tip.
> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>
> All the best,
>
> David Smart.
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>
>
>  I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
> doing things.
>
> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails
> seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen
> any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone
> would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way,
> I'd love to hear about it.
>
> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue
> through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the
> tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>
> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
> this.
>
> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
> and include them both in your curve data?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sakshama
>
> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Sakshama
>
> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Thank you Matthew.

If you think performing an action thousands of times won't improve your
accuracy.....(which was my point)....okay.

Regards,

David.


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Matthew Voss <matthewvossjazz@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Volume (quantity) most certainly does not equate to quality, nor do I
> think it is representative of any degree of skill (accuracy).  That is a
> pretty big assumption.
>
> Hearing that he only "relies" on 5-6 measurements makes sense to me based
> on the Beechler mouthpieces that I have measured myself, none of which I
> would consider well executed.  Mark Shim, an accomplished saxophonist here
> in NY has a Beechler tenor mouthpiece that was "custom" made for him at a
> tip opening of .140".  I'm not sure how it would even be possible to cut
> the curve on a mouthpiece that open with 5 or 6 measurements.  The length
> of the facing on that particular mouthpiece is 30mm+...
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:17 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> I think you should read my post again...English is my first language
>> (your comment is somewhat baffling since we've spoken on the phone
>> before...) and I think I gave a well-written account of my visit to
>> Beechler.
>>
>> I addressed the fact that the tip rail of my mouthpiece (like the OP's),
>> was non-existent which means that depending on the shape of the baffle,
>> it's unlikely to be flat.
>> I was told (by Beechler....who make a mouthpiece like that), that it is
>> to favour the altissimo register.
>> They do the same on some saxophone mouthpieces.
>>
>> On the subject of refacing mouthpieces (I'd asked about other
>> literature), he told me that the Erick Brand manual was a
>> *good place to start.*
>> Given that the guy makes God knows how many mouthpieces per year, I
>> thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the
>> facing he's just put on the mouthpiece.
>> I suppose I should have said that he has other feeler gauges...and that
>> he uses certain sets of gauges for certain mouthpieces, but that he relies
>> on 5-6 measurements / feelers for each mouthpiece.
>>
>> This approach to craftsmanship is not unknown..."less is more".
>> I've seen guys in Taiwan put a saxophone together with a third of the
>> tools on the bench that I use...
>> I've also worked in a couple of the saxophone factories that some people
>> revere as if they were temples of perfection...
>> ...some of the things they do to instruments would make you wince and
>> look away...
>> ...if only some people knew.
>>
>> Some people are capable of doing the same thing as others with fewer
>> tools.
>> The point about there only being so many mistakes you can make in a curve
>> (an action which he performs...thousands of times in a year?),
>> is relevant.
>> He probably knows the curve for each of the mouthpieces so well that he
>> can trace it without the mouthpiece in his hand....'in his sleep', if you
>> like.
>>
>> Personally; I'm in awe of this philosophy...it can probably only be
>> followed when a) there is complete confidence in your skills and b) when
>> there is a demand for high production figures.
>> I'll bet Mark at Beechler hasn't got the luxury of taking more than 6
>> measurements either...it's not that kind of work.
>>
>> Right now, I own thousands of £'s of tools that have been acquired with
>> measuring mouthpieces in mind.
>> I'm even 'departing' from feeler gauges (because they're so hard to come
>> by) and experimenting with pin gauges
>> for the last third of the facing (toward the tip).
>> No; I'm definitely the type that likes lots of tools and information
>> around me...
>>
>> But enough of explaining my (open) attitude toward other methods...
>> The question has long been answered and we are miles from the original
>> discussion.
>> I'll refrain from including my holiday experiences in future, however
>> 'nice' they are...
>> ...and stick to facts.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> David.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David, I think some of the things you reported about Beechler came off
>>> like you thought the way they measured facings was all anyone needed to do
>>> good work.  It sounds like English is not your first language.  So we
>>> should all take that into consideration.
>>>
>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 7:43 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi again...
>>>
>>> Nothing you wrote I took personally.
>>> I'm just amazed at the level of animosity toward another individual
>>> (employee from Beechler).
>>> I didn't "show reverence" to halfway knowledge at all...It was a
>>> 'life-time' experience for me...I doubt if I'll make it back to the USA
>>> again...(on holiday)...who knows?
>>>
>>> But thanks for the reply.
>>>
>>>
>>> David.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi David,
>>>> You missed the point. This group is your best info on mouthpieces and
>>>> since you are here you are home. This is the best source of mouthpiece info
>>>> you can find, just search the archives.  You showed highest reverence to
>>>> halfway knowledge that made us react. I have nothing against Beechler, I
>>>> haven't thought about him or his mouthpieces at all for very long time. The
>>>> few I have seen haven't made in my book of good mouthpieces, making
>>>> mouthpieces fast and making them good is different. Nothing said was
>>>> intended to hurt you in any way.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Keith,
>>>>>
>>>>> Well....I happened to be on a once-a-lifetime holiday in the United
>>>>> States.
>>>>> (I only had a certain amount of money to spend...and only had two
>>>>> weeks.)
>>>>> I was in LA....not in Elkhart.
>>>>> I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far to get to see you....and
>>>>> Ted Klum 'wasn't in'.
>>>>>
>>>>> I aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole
>>>>> philosophy in that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my path....or allow
>>>>> people to think that, just because I visited Beechler....that's the
>>>>> standard I want to attain?
>>>>> That's like saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy you.
>>>>> Nope; I aim much higher than that too.
>>>>> I was on a learning trip....I feel sorry for you if you think you can
>>>>> *only* learn from the best!
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>
>>>>> David.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done
>>>>>> at Beechler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Mike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements
>>>>>> at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me)
>>>>>> pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>>>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing
>>>>>> of the mouthpiece
>>>>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
>>>>>> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>>>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with
>>>>>> its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with
>>>>>> which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your
>>>>>> curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right
>>>>>> or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring
>>>>>> points..."
>>>>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements
>>>>>> aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip
>>>>>> opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This
>>>>>> may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
>>>>>> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece
>>>>>> disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
>>>>>> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
>>>>>> good once it got going.
>>>>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>>>>> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the
>>>>>> high register / altissimo register.*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
>>>>>> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
>>>>>> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
>>>>>> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
>>>>>> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
>>>>>> work.....but it does.
>>>>>> Go figure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two things then:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges
>>>>>> shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a
>>>>>> mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour
>>>>>> the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges
>>>>>> (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area
>>>>>> leading up to the tip.
>>>>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David Smart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
>>>>>>> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
>>>>>>> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
>>>>>>> doing things.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side
>>>>>>> rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't
>>>>>>> seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if
>>>>>>> anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
>>>>>>> way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>>>>>>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>>>>>>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>>>>>>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>>>>>>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>>>>>>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Sakshama
>>>>
>>>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt
> www.matthewvossjazz.com
>
>
>  
>

I don't disagree.  I'm sure I could accurately reproduce a poor facing
curve pretty quickly by repeating it many times a day.

I disagree with the "less is more" assertion with respect to this
discussion.


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:44 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:

>
>
> Thank you Matthew.
>
> If you think performing an action thousands of times won't improve your
> accuracy.....(which was my point)....okay.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Matthew Voss <matthewvossjazz@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Volume (quantity) most certainly does not equate to quality, nor do I
>> think it is representative of any degree of skill (accuracy).  That is a
>> pretty big assumption.
>>
>> Hearing that he only "relies" on 5-6 measurements makes sense to me based
>> on the Beechler mouthpieces that I have measured myself, none of which I
>> would consider well executed.  Mark Shim, an accomplished saxophonist here
>> in NY has a Beechler tenor mouthpiece that was "custom" made for him at a
>> tip opening of .140".  I'm not sure how it would even be possible to cut
>> the curve on a mouthpiece that open with 5 or 6 measurements.  The length
>> of the facing on that particular mouthpiece is 30mm+...
>>
>> Matt
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:17 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Keith,
>>>
>>> I think you should read my post again...English is my first language
>>> (your comment is somewhat baffling since we've spoken on the phone
>>> before...) and I think I gave a well-written account of my visit to
>>> Beechler.
>>>
>>> I addressed the fact that the tip rail of my mouthpiece (like the OP's),
>>> was non-existent which means that depending on the shape of the baffle,
>>> it's unlikely to be flat.
>>> I was told (by Beechler....who make a mouthpiece like that), that it is
>>> to favour the altissimo register.
>>> They do the same on some saxophone mouthpieces.
>>>
>>> On the subject of refacing mouthpieces (I'd asked about other
>>> literature), he told me that the Erick Brand manual was a
>>> *good place to start.*
>>> Given that the guy makes God knows how many mouthpieces per year, I
>>> thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the
>>> facing he's just put on the mouthpiece.
>>> I suppose I should have said that he has other feeler gauges...and that
>>> he uses certain sets of gauges for certain mouthpieces, but that he relies
>>> on 5-6 measurements / feelers for each mouthpiece.
>>>
>>> This approach to craftsmanship is not unknown..."less is more".
>>> I've seen guys in Taiwan put a saxophone together with a third of the
>>> tools on the bench that I use...
>>> I've also worked in a couple of the saxophone factories that some people
>>> revere as if they were temples of perfection...
>>> ...some of the things they do to instruments would make you wince and
>>> look away...
>>> ...if only some people knew.
>>>
>>> Some people are capable of doing the same thing as others with fewer
>>> tools.
>>> The point about there only being so many mistakes you can make in a curve
>>> (an action which he performs...thousands of times in a year?),
>>> is relevant.
>>> He probably knows the curve for each of the mouthpieces so well that he
>>> can trace it without the mouthpiece in his hand....'in his sleep', if you
>>> like.
>>>
>>> Personally; I'm in awe of this philosophy...it can probably only be
>>> followed when a) there is complete confidence in your skills and b) when
>>> there is a demand for high production figures.
>>> I'll bet Mark at Beechler hasn't got the luxury of taking more than 6
>>> measurements either...it's not that kind of work.
>>>
>>> Right now, I own thousands of £'s of tools that have been acquired with
>>> measuring mouthpieces in mind.
>>> I'm even 'departing' from feeler gauges (because they're so hard to come
>>> by) and experimenting with pin gauges
>>> for the last third of the facing (toward the tip).
>>> No; I'm definitely the type that likes lots of tools and information
>>> around me...
>>>
>>> But enough of explaining my (open) attitude toward other methods...
>>> The question has long been answered and we are miles from the original
>>> discussion.
>>> I'll refrain from including my holiday experiences in future, however
>>> 'nice' they are...
>>> ...and stick to facts.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> David.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@yahoo.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David, I think some of the things you reported about Beechler came off
>>>> like you thought the way they measured facings was all anyone needed to do
>>>> good work.  It sounds like English is not your first language.  So we
>>>> should all take that into consideration.
>>>>
>>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 7:43 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi again...
>>>>
>>>> Nothing you wrote I took personally.
>>>> I'm just amazed at the level of animosity toward another individual
>>>> (employee from Beechler).
>>>> I didn't "show reverence" to halfway knowledge at all...It was a
>>>> 'life-time' experience for me...I doubt if I'll make it back to the USA
>>>> again...(on holiday)...who knows?
>>>>
>>>> But thanks for the reply.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> David.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@gmail.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>> You missed the point. This group is your best info on mouthpieces and
>>>>> since you are here you are home. This is the best source of mouthpiece info
>>>>> you can find, just search the archives.  You showed highest reverence to
>>>>> halfway knowledge that made us react. I have nothing against Beechler, I
>>>>> haven't thought about him or his mouthpieces at all for very long time. The
>>>>> few I have seen haven't made in my book of good mouthpieces, making
>>>>> mouthpieces fast and making them good is different. Nothing said was
>>>>> intended to hurt you in any way.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Keith,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well....I happened to be on a once-a-lifetime holiday in the United
>>>>>> States.
>>>>>> (I only had a certain amount of money to spend...and only had two
>>>>>> weeks.)
>>>>>> I was in LA....not in Elkhart.
>>>>>> I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far to get to see you....and
>>>>>> Ted Klum 'wasn't in'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole
>>>>>> philosophy in that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my path....or allow
>>>>>> people to think that, just because I visited Beechler....that's the
>>>>>> standard I want to attain?
>>>>>> That's like saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy
>>>>>> you.
>>>>>> Nope; I aim much higher than that too.
>>>>>> I was on a learning trip....I feel sorry for you if you think you can
>>>>>> *only* learn from the best!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> David.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done
>>>>>>> at Beechler.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Mike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the
>>>>>>> measurements at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me)
>>>>>>> pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>>>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>>>>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing
>>>>>>> of the mouthpiece
>>>>>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
>>>>>>> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>>>>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with
>>>>>>> its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>>>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with
>>>>>>> which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>>>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your
>>>>>>> curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right
>>>>>>> or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring
>>>>>>> points..."
>>>>>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements
>>>>>>> aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip
>>>>>>> opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This
>>>>>>> may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
>>>>>>> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>>>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece
>>>>>>> disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>>>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
>>>>>>> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
>>>>>>> good once it got going.
>>>>>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>>>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is
>>>>>>> too....'breathy''.
>>>>>>> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the
>>>>>>> high register / altissimo register.*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
>>>>>>> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
>>>>>>> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
>>>>>>> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
>>>>>>> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
>>>>>>> work.....but it does.
>>>>>>> Go figure.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Two things then:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges
>>>>>>> shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a
>>>>>>> mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>>>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour
>>>>>>> the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges
>>>>>>> (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area
>>>>>>> leading up to the tip.
>>>>>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David Smart.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
>>>>>>>> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
>>>>>>>> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
>>>>>>>> doing things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the
>>>>>>>> side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I
>>>>>>>> haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue,
>>>>>>>> so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special
>>>>>>>> kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>>>>>>>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>>>>>>>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>>>>>>>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>>>>>>>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>>>>>>>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Sakshama
>>>>>
>>>>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt
>> www.matthewvossjazz.com
>>
>>
>>
>  
>



-- 
Matt
www.matthewvossjazz.com

Matthew,

you obviously disagree, but it still exists.

Your (cleverly worded) response is based on....how many Beechler
mouthpieces? One. (going by your post).

I don't wish to get into an argument.

I've already made clear to Keith that I'll keep my 'holiday snaps' out of
here....no need to stir the pot.

Regards,

David.


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 3:01 AM, Matthew Voss <matthewvossjazz@...>wrote:

>
>
> I don't disagree.  I'm sure I could accurately reproduce a poor facing
> curve pretty quickly by repeating it many times a day.
>
> I disagree with the "less is more" assertion with respect to this
> discussion.
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:44 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Thank you Matthew.
>>
>> If you think performing an action thousands of times won't improve your
>> accuracy.....(which was my point)....okay.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> David.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Matthew Voss <matthewvossjazz@...>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Volume (quantity) most certainly does not equate to quality, nor do I
>>> think it is representative of any degree of skill (accuracy).  That is a
>>> pretty big assumption.
>>>
>>> Hearing that he only "relies" on 5-6 measurements makes sense to me
>>> based on the Beechler mouthpieces that I have measured myself, none of
>>> which I would consider well executed.  Mark Shim, an accomplished
>>> saxophonist here in NY has a Beechler tenor mouthpiece that was "custom"
>>> made for him at a tip opening of .140".  I'm not sure how it would even be
>>> possible to cut the curve on a mouthpiece that open with 5 or 6
>>> measurements.  The length of the facing on that particular mouthpiece is
>>> 30mm+...
>>>
>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:17 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Keith,
>>>>
>>>> I think you should read my post again...English is my first language
>>>> (your comment is somewhat baffling since we've spoken on the phone
>>>> before...) and I think I gave a well-written account of my visit to
>>>> Beechler.
>>>>
>>>> I addressed the fact that the tip rail of my mouthpiece (like the
>>>> OP's), was non-existent which means that depending on the shape of the
>>>> baffle, it's unlikely to be flat.
>>>> I was told (by Beechler....who make a mouthpiece like that), that it is
>>>> to favour the altissimo register.
>>>> They do the same on some saxophone mouthpieces.
>>>>
>>>> On the subject of refacing mouthpieces (I'd asked about other
>>>> literature), he told me that the Erick Brand manual was a
>>>> *good place to start.*
>>>> Given that the guy makes God knows how many mouthpieces per year, I
>>>> thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the
>>>> facing he's just put on the mouthpiece.
>>>> I suppose I should have said that he has other feeler gauges...and that
>>>> he uses certain sets of gauges for certain mouthpieces, but that he relies
>>>> on 5-6 measurements / feelers for each mouthpiece.
>>>>
>>>> This approach to craftsmanship is not unknown..."less is more".
>>>> I've seen guys in Taiwan put a saxophone together with a third of the
>>>> tools on the bench that I use...
>>>> I've also worked in a couple of the saxophone factories that some
>>>> people revere as if they were temples of perfection...
>>>> ...some of the things they do to instruments would make you wince and
>>>> look away...
>>>> ...if only some people knew.
>>>>
>>>> Some people are capable of doing the same thing as others with fewer
>>>> tools.
>>>> The point about there only being so many mistakes you can make in a
>>>> curve
>>>> (an action which he performs...thousands of times in a year?),
>>>> is relevant.
>>>> He probably knows the curve for each of the mouthpieces so well that he
>>>> can trace it without the mouthpiece in his hand....'in his sleep', if you
>>>> like.
>>>>
>>>> Personally; I'm in awe of this philosophy...it can probably only be
>>>> followed when a) there is complete confidence in your skills and b) when
>>>> there is a demand for high production figures.
>>>> I'll bet Mark at Beechler hasn't got the luxury of taking more than 6
>>>> measurements either...it's not that kind of work.
>>>>
>>>> Right now, I own thousands of £'s of tools that have been acquired with
>>>> measuring mouthpieces in mind.
>>>> I'm even 'departing' from feeler gauges (because they're so hard to
>>>> come by) and experimenting with pin gauges
>>>> for the last third of the facing (toward the tip).
>>>> No; I'm definitely the type that likes lots of tools and information
>>>> around me...
>>>>
>>>> But enough of explaining my (open) attitude toward other methods...
>>>> The question has long been answered and we are miles from the original
>>>> discussion.
>>>> I'll refrain from including my holiday experiences in future, however
>>>> 'nice' they are...
>>>> ...and stick to facts.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> David.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David, I think some of the things you reported about Beechler came off
>>>>> like you thought the way they measured facings was all anyone needed to do
>>>>> good work.  It sounds like English is not your first language.  So we
>>>>> should all take that into consideration.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 7:43 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi again...
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing you wrote I took personally.
>>>>> I'm just amazed at the level of animosity toward another individual
>>>>> (employee from Beechler).
>>>>> I didn't "show reverence" to halfway knowledge at all...It was a
>>>>> 'life-time' experience for me...I doubt if I'll make it back to the USA
>>>>> again...(on holiday)...who knows?
>>>>>
>>>>> But thanks for the reply.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> David.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Sakshama Koloski <
>>>>> sakshama1@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>> You missed the point. This group is your best info on mouthpieces and
>>>>>> since you are here you are home. This is the best source of mouthpiece info
>>>>>> you can find, just search the archives.  You showed highest reverence to
>>>>>> halfway knowledge that made us react. I have nothing against Beechler, I
>>>>>> haven't thought about him or his mouthpieces at all for very long time. The
>>>>>> few I have seen haven't made in my book of good mouthpieces, making
>>>>>> mouthpieces fast and making them good is different. Nothing said was
>>>>>> intended to hurt you in any way.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Keith,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well....I happened to be on a once-a-lifetime holiday in the United
>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>> (I only had a certain amount of money to spend...and only had two
>>>>>>> weeks.)
>>>>>>> I was in LA....not in Elkhart.
>>>>>>> I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far to get to see
>>>>>>> you....and Ted Klum 'wasn't in'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole
>>>>>>> philosophy in that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my path....or allow
>>>>>>> people to think that, just because I visited Beechler....that's the
>>>>>>> standard I want to attain?
>>>>>>> That's like saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy
>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>> Nope; I aim much higher than that too.
>>>>>>> I was on a learning trip....I feel sorry for you if you think you
>>>>>>> can *only* learn from the best!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury <
>>>>>>> kwbradbury@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is
>>>>>>>> done at Beechler.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...m>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Mike.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the
>>>>>>>> measurements at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me)
>>>>>>>> pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>>>>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>>>>>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the
>>>>>>>> facing of the mouthpiece
>>>>>>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
>>>>>>>> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>>>>>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with
>>>>>>>> its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>>>>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with
>>>>>>>> which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>>>>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your
>>>>>>>> curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right
>>>>>>>> or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring
>>>>>>>> points..."
>>>>>>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements
>>>>>>>> aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip
>>>>>>>> opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This
>>>>>>>> may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
>>>>>>>> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>>>>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece
>>>>>>>> disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>>>>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
>>>>>>>> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
>>>>>>>> good once it got going.
>>>>>>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>>>>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is
>>>>>>>> too....'breathy''.
>>>>>>>> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the
>>>>>>>> high register / altissimo register.*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
>>>>>>>> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
>>>>>>>> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
>>>>>>>> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
>>>>>>>> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
>>>>>>>> work.....but it does.
>>>>>>>> Go figure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Two things then:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges
>>>>>>>> shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a
>>>>>>>> mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>>>>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour
>>>>>>>> the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges
>>>>>>>> (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area
>>>>>>>> leading up to the tip.
>>>>>>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> David Smart.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@mikewilkens.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
>>>>>>>>> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
>>>>>>>>> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
>>>>>>>>> doing things.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the
>>>>>>>>> side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I
>>>>>>>>> haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue,
>>>>>>>>> so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special
>>>>>>>>> kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>>>>>>>>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>>>>>>>>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>>>>>>>>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>>>>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two
>>>>>>>>> tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the
>>>>>>>>> outside, and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Sakshama
>>>>>>
>>>>>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matt
>>> www.matthewvossjazz.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Matt
> www.matthewvossjazz.com
>
>
>  
>

Sorry, I did not recall that we spoke on the phone before.  The wording of the number 2 point in your original report was odd to me.  

> On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:17 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Keith,
> 
> I think you should read my post again...English is my first language (your comment is somewhat baffling since we've spoken on the phone before...) and I think I gave a well-written account of my visit to Beechler.
> 
> I addressed the fact that the tip rail of my mouthpiece (like the OP's), was non-existent which means that depending on the shape of the baffle, it's unlikely to be flat.
> I was told (by Beechler....who make a mouthpiece like that), that it is to favour the altissimo register.
> They do the same on some saxophone mouthpieces.
> 
> On the subject of refacing mouthpieces (I'd asked about other literature), he told me that the Erick Brand manual was a good place to start.
> Given that the guy makes God knows how many mouthpieces per year, I thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the facing he's just put on the mouthpiece.
> I suppose I should have said that he has other feeler gauges...and that he uses certain sets of gauges for certain mouthpieces, but that he relies on 5-6 measurements / feelers for each mouthpiece.
> 
> This approach to craftsmanship is not unknown..."less is more".
> I've seen guys in Taiwan put a saxophone together with a third of the tools on the bench that I use...
> I've also worked in a couple of the saxophone factories that some people revere as if they were temples of perfection...
> ...some of the things they do to instruments would make you wince and look away...
> ...if only some people knew.
> 
> Some people are capable of doing the same thing as others with fewer tools.
> The point about there only being so many mistakes you can make in a curve
> (an action which he performs...thousands of times in a year?),
> is relevant.
> He probably knows the curve for each of the mouthpieces so well that he can trace it without the mouthpiece in his hand....'in his sleep', if you like.
> 
> Personally; I'm in awe of this philosophy...it can probably only be followed when a) there is complete confidence in your skills and b) when there is a demand for high production figures.
> I'll bet Mark at Beechler hasn't got the luxury of taking more than 6 measurements either...it's not that kind of work.
> 
> Right now, I own thousands of £'s of tools that have been acquired with measuring mouthpieces in mind.
> I'm even 'departing' from feeler gauges (because they're so hard to come by) and experimenting with pin gauges
> for the last third of the facing (toward the tip).
> No; I'm definitely the type that likes lots of tools and information around me...
> 
> But enough of explaining my (open) attitude toward other methods...
> The question has long been answered and we are miles from the original discussion.
> I'll refrain from including my holiday experiences in future, however 'nice' they are...
> ...and stick to facts.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> David.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>>  
>> David, I think some of the things you reported about Beechler came off like you thought the way they measured facings was all anyone needed to do good work.  It sounds like English is not your first language.  So we should all take that into consideration.
>> 
>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 7:43 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Hi again...
>>> 
>>> Nothing you wrote I took personally. 
>>> I'm just amazed at the level of animosity toward another individual (employee from Beechler).
>>> I didn't "show reverence" to halfway knowledge at all...It was a 'life-time' experience for me...I doubt if I'll make it back to the USA again...(on holiday)...who knows?
>>> 
>>> But thanks for the reply.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> David.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> Hi David,
>>>> You missed the point. This group is your best info on mouthpieces and since you are here you are home. This is the best source of mouthpiece info you can find, just search the archives.  You showed highest reverence to halfway knowledge that made us react. I have nothing against Beechler, I haven't thought about him or his mouthpieces at all for very long time. The few I have seen haven't made in my book of good mouthpieces, making mouthpieces fast and making them good is different. Nothing said was intended to hurt you in any way.  
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>>>>  
>>>>> Hi Keith,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Well....I happened to be on a once-a-lifetime holiday in the United States.
>>>>> (I only had a certain amount of money to spend...and only had two weeks.)
>>>>> I was in LA....not in Elkhart.
>>>>> I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far to get to see you....and Ted Klum 'wasn't in'.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole philosophy in that.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my path....or allow people to think that, just because I visited Beechler....that's the standard I want to attain?
>>>>> That's like saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy you.
>>>>> Nope; I aim much higher than that too.
>>>>> I was on a learning trip....I feel sorry for you if you think you can only learn from the best!
>>>>> 
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>> 
>>>>> David.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at Beechler.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Hi Mike.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>>>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>>>>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the mouthpiece 
>>>>>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>>>>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>>>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>>>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
>>>>>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>>>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>>>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet good once it got going.
>>>>>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>>>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>>>>>> He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high register / altissimo register.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't work.....but it does.
>>>>>>> Go figure.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Two things then:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>>>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to the tip.
>>>>>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> David Smart.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@mikewilkens.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on this.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> Sakshama
>>>> 
>>>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
> 
> 

This html message parsed with html2text ---------------------------Beechler mouthpieces grew out of an affiliation with Brilhart. Many
similarities in design. Both use short facings that contribute brilliance but
suffer in the low register. \\--- kwbradbury@yahoo.com wrote: From: Keith
Bradbury  To: "MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com"  Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork]
No man's land. From where the side rails end to the tip. (measuring &
refacing) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 23:10:23 -0400 Sorry, I did not recall that
we spoke on the phone before. The wording of the number 2 point in your
original report was odd to me. On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:17 PM, David Smart
<[davidsmart64@gmail.com](mailto:davidsmart64@gmail.com)> wrote: > Hi Keith, I
think you should read my post again...English is my first language (your
comment is somewhat baffling since we've spoken on the phone before...) and I
think I gave a well-written account of my visit to Beechler. I addressed the
fact that the tip rail of my mouthpiece (like the OP's), was non-existent
which means that depending on the shape of the baffle, it's unlikely to be
flat. I was told (by Beechler....who make a mouthpiece like that), that it is
to favour the altissimo register. They do the same on some saxophone
mouthpieces. On the subject of refacing mouthpieces (I'd asked about other
literature), he told me that the Erick Brand manual was a **good place to
start. ** Given that the guy makes God knows how many mouthpieces per year, I
thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the facing
he's just put on the mouthpiece. I suppose I should have said that he has
other feeler gauges...and that he uses certain sets of gauges for certain
mouthpieces, but that he relies on 5-6 measurements / feelers for each
mouthpiece. This approach to craftsmanship is not unknown..."less is more".
I've seen guys in Taiwan put a saxophone together with a third of the tools on
the bench that I use... I've also worked in a couple of the saxophone
factories that some people revere as if they were temples of perfection...
...some of the things they do to instruments would make you wince and look
away... ...if only some people knew. Some people are capable of doing the same
thing as others with fewer tools. The point about there only being so many
mistakes you can make in a curve (an action which he performs...thousands of
times in a year?), is relevant. He probably knows the curve for each of the
mouthpieces so well that he can trace it without the mouthpiece in his
hand....'in his sleep', if you like. Personally; I'm in awe of this
philosophy...it can probably only be followed when a) there is complete
confidence in your skills and b) when there is a demand for high production
figures. I'll bet Mark at Beechler hasn't got the luxury of taking more than 6
measurements either...it's not that kind of work. Right now, I own thousands
of £'s of tools that have been acquired with measuring mouthpieces in mind.
I'm even 'departing' from feeler gauges (because they're so hard to come by)
and experimenting with pin gauges for the last third of the facing (toward the
tip). No; I'm definitely the type that likes lots of tools and information
around me... But enough of explaining my (open) attitude toward other
methods... The question has long been answered and we are miles from the
original discussion. I'll refrain from including my holiday experiences in
future, however 'nice' they are... ...and stick to facts. Regards, David. On
Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Keith Bradbury
<[kwbradbury@yahoo.com](mailto:kwbradbury@yahoo.com)> wrote: > __ > > > >
David, I think some of the things you reported about Beechler came off like >
you thought the way they measured facings was all anyone needed to do good >
work. It sounds like English is not your first language. So we should all >
take that into consideration. > > > > > On Apr 28, 2014, at 7:43 PM, David
Smart > <[davidsmart64@gmail.com](mailto:davidsmart64@gmail.com)> wrote: > > >
>> >> >> Hi again... > > >> >> Nothing you wrote I took personally. > >> >>
I'm just amazed at the level of animosity toward another individual (employee
from Beechler). > >> >> I didn't "show reverence" to halfway knowledge at
all...It was a 'life- time' experience for me...I doubt if I'll make it back
to the USA again...(on holiday)...who knows? > > >> >> But thanks for the
reply. > > > >> >> David. > >> >> > > >> >> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:19 AM,
Sakshama Koloski <[sakshama1@gmail.com](mailto:sakshama1@gmail.com)> wrote: >
>> >>> __ >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi David, >>> >>> You missed the point. This group
is your best info on mouthpieces and since you are here you are home. This is
the best source of mouthpiece info you can find, just search the archives. You
showed highest reverence to halfway knowledge that made us react. I have
nothing against Beechler, I haven't thought about him or his mouthpieces at
all for very long time. The few I have seen haven't made in my book of good
mouthpieces, making mouthpieces fast and making them good is different.
Nothing said was intended to hurt you in any way. >>> >>> > > >>> >>> On Mon,
Apr 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM, David Smart
<[davidsmart64@gmail.com](mailto:davidsmart64@gmail.com)> wrote: > >>> >>>> __
>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Keith, > > Well....I happened to be on a once-a-
lifetime holiday in the United States. > >>>> >>>> (I only had a certain
amount of money to spend...and only had two weeks.) > >>>> >>>> I was in
LA....not in Elkhart. > >>>> >>>> I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far
to get to see you....and Ted Klum 'wasn't in'. > >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> I
aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole philosophy in
that. > > >>>> >>>> Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my
path....or allow people to think that, just because I visited
Beechler....that's the standard I want to attain? > >>>> >>>> That's like
saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy you. > >>>> >>>> Nope;
I aim much higher than that too. > >>>> >>>> I was on a learning trip....I
feel sorry for you if you think you can **only** learn from the best! > > >>>>
>>>> All the best, > > >>>> >>>> David. > >>>> >>>> > > >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr
28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury
<[kwbradbury@yahoo.com](mailto:kwbradbury@yahoo.com)> wrote: > >>>> >>>>> __
>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work
than what is done at Beechler. >>>>> >>>>> > On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM,
David Smart > <[davidsmart64@gmail.com](mailto:davidsmart64@gmail.com)> wrote:
> > >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Mike. > > >>>>>> >>>>>> I think you raise a
couple of very important points.... > > > >>>>>> >>>>>> The first being the
issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at the extreme tip of the
mouthpiece. > > >>>>>> >>>>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the
(life-event, for me) pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark, > from
Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA. > >>>>>> >>>>>> During our discussion,
which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the mouthpiece > (everything
that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary > information' and
therefore 'out of bounds'....), > >>>>>> >>>>>> he pointed out several things
to me: > > >>>>>> >>>>>> 1\\. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument
Repair Manual, with its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to
refacing mouthpieces. > >>>>>> >>>>>> 2\\. I'd pointed out to him that he
"only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which to measure the mouthpiece facing. >
>>>>>> >>>>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If
your curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's
right or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring
points..." > >>>>>> >>>>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple
measurements aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to
tip opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'.
This may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
measurements....but he's not: He's correct.) > >>>>>> >>>>>> 3\\. I asked him
specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing into no-man's land
(as you put it).... > >>>>>> >>>>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece
exactly as you describe. I complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in
response...stuffy...yet good once it got going. > >>>>>> >>>>>> "I bet you
like it up top, hey?" > >>>>>> >>>>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is
great...the rest is too....'breathy''. > >>>>>> >>>>>> **He told me that the
mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high register / altissimo
register.** > > > >>>>>> >>>>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-
made) is the exact opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and
a tip rail that you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any
(clarinet) reed that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all
registers and is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it
shouldn't work.....but it does. > >>>>>> >>>>>> Go figure. > > >>>>>> >>>>>>
Two things then: > > >>>>>> >>>>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other
way'...) The feeler gauges shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to
measure the curve of a mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case). > >>>>>>
>>>>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the
altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw). > >
>>>>>> >>>>>> I hope that helps with your query. > > >>>>>> >>>>>> As an
aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're cylindrical),
in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to the tip. > >>>>>>
>>>>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on. > >
>>>>>> >>>>>> All the best, > > >>>>>> >>>>>> David Smart. > >>>>>> >>>>>> > >
>>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM,
<[mike@mikewilkens.com](mailto:mike@mikewilkens.com)> wrote: > >>>>>> >>>>>>>
__ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip
of a mouthpiece-- specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
doing things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Feeler gage measurements that
don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their
accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about
how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they
handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about
whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip
rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is
that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more
experienced thoughts on this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If this is a
relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at
the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in
your curve data? >>>>>> >>>>>> > >>>> >>>> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > >>> >>>
\\-- > Sakshama > > www.
[sakshamamouthpieces.com](http://sakshamamouthpieces.com) > > >> >> > * * *
Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

(To Keith)

Well, what I was trying to say in point 2 is that if he has already
established that the curve is correct,
he's then subsequently 'copying' it, and only needs 5-6 feelers to confirm
what he's just done.
(he also has a clarinet by his side, which I didn't mention).

I'm aware that many here like to achieve highly accurate measurements
(I'm one of them)
and generally with quite a lot more equipment than I described being used
(I'm one of them)
and I certainly didn't mean to vex anyone, I just felt like remarking how
others do things.

I've had an instructor who could cut strips one-tenth of a mm, repeatedly,
from paper...with a scalpel,
I've seen another edge and face an 8-foot board of lumber with a Stanley
No4...where I'd have to use a No6 or 7,
Another told me from across the room that I'd reached the final dimension
on the clarinet bell I was turning...he 'heard it'.
Mark, at Beechler, is one of these people.

You can train your eye / ear to do these things...as I'm sure you're aware.

That's all I wanted to point out.

I appreciate greatly the amount of information that is on these boards
and as a professional craftsman (granted, not as 'far along the road' as
some here, concerning mouthpieces),
who has always tried to do things to the best of my ability,
and has seen the many ways many craftsmen work around the world,
I'm very surprised at the (collective) reaction to someone using a
curiously low number of feeler gauges in his day-to-day work.

All the best,

David.

It's funny how an offhand post can draw so much interest...


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:

>
>
> Sorry, I did not recall that we spoke on the phone before.  The wording of
> the number 2 point in your original report was odd to me.
>
> On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:17 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> I think you should read my post again...English is my first language (your
> comment is somewhat baffling since we've spoken on the phone before...) and
> I think I gave a well-written account of my visit to Beechler.
>
> I addressed the fact that the tip rail of my mouthpiece (like the OP's),
> was non-existent which means that depending on the shape of the baffle,
> it's unlikely to be flat.
> I was told (by Beechler....who make a mouthpiece like that), that it is to
> favour the altissimo register.
> They do the same on some saxophone mouthpieces.
>
> On the subject of refacing mouthpieces (I'd asked about other literature),
> he told me that the Erick Brand manual was a
> *good place to start.*
> Given that the guy makes God knows how many mouthpieces per year, I
> thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the
> facing he's just put on the mouthpiece.
> I suppose I should have said that he has other feeler gauges...and that he
> uses certain sets of gauges for certain mouthpieces, but that he relies on
> 5-6 measurements / feelers for each mouthpiece.
>
> This approach to craftsmanship is not unknown..."less is more".
> I've seen guys in Taiwan put a saxophone together with a third of the
> tools on the bench that I use...
> I've also worked in a couple of the saxophone factories that some people
> revere as if they were temples of perfection...
> ...some of the things they do to instruments would make you wince and look
> away...
> ...if only some people knew.
>
> Some people are capable of doing the same thing as others with fewer tools.
> The point about there only being so many mistakes you can make in a curve
> (an action which he performs...thousands of times in a year?),
> is relevant.
> He probably knows the curve for each of the mouthpieces so well that he
> can trace it without the mouthpiece in his hand....'in his sleep', if you
> like.
>
> Personally; I'm in awe of this philosophy...it can probably only be
> followed when a) there is complete confidence in your skills and b) when
> there is a demand for high production figures.
> I'll bet Mark at Beechler hasn't got the luxury of taking more than 6
> measurements either...it's not that kind of work.
>
> Right now, I own thousands of £'s of tools that have been acquired with
> measuring mouthpieces in mind.
> I'm even 'departing' from feeler gauges (because they're so hard to come
> by) and experimenting with pin gauges
> for the last third of the facing (toward the tip).
> No; I'm definitely the type that likes lots of tools and information
> around me...
>
> But enough of explaining my (open) attitude toward other methods...
> The question has long been answered and we are miles from the original
> discussion.
> I'll refrain from including my holiday experiences in future, however
> 'nice' they are...
> ...and stick to facts.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> David, I think some of the things you reported about Beechler came off
>> like you thought the way they measured facings was all anyone needed to do
>> good work.  It sounds like English is not your first language.  So we
>> should all take that into consideration.
>>
>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 7:43 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi again...
>>
>> Nothing you wrote I took personally.
>> I'm just amazed at the level of animosity toward another individual
>> (employee from Beechler).
>> I didn't "show reverence" to halfway knowledge at all...It was a
>> 'life-time' experience for me...I doubt if I'll make it back to the USA
>> again...(on holiday)...who knows?
>>
>> But thanks for the reply.
>>
>>
>> David.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi David,
>>> You missed the point. This group is your best info on mouthpieces and
>>> since you are here you are home. This is the best source of mouthpiece info
>>> you can find, just search the archives.  You showed highest reverence to
>>> halfway knowledge that made us react. I have nothing against Beechler, I
>>> haven't thought about him or his mouthpieces at all for very long time. The
>>> few I have seen haven't made in my book of good mouthpieces, making
>>> mouthpieces fast and making them good is different. Nothing said was
>>> intended to hurt you in any way.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Keith,
>>>>
>>>> Well....I happened to be on a once-a-lifetime holiday in the United
>>>> States.
>>>> (I only had a certain amount of money to spend...and only had two
>>>> weeks.)
>>>> I was in LA....not in Elkhart.
>>>> I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far to get to see you....and
>>>> Ted Klum 'wasn't in'.
>>>>
>>>> I aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole
>>>> philosophy in that.
>>>>
>>>> Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my path....or allow
>>>> people to think that, just because I visited Beechler....that's the
>>>> standard I want to attain?
>>>> That's like saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy you.
>>>> Nope; I aim much higher than that too.
>>>> I was on a learning trip....I feel sorry for you if you think you can
>>>> *only* learn from the best!
>>>>
>>>> All the best,
>>>>
>>>> David.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done
>>>>> at Beechler.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Mike.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements
>>>>> at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me)
>>>>> pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing
>>>>> of the mouthpiece
>>>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary
>>>>> information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its
>>>>> chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with
>>>>> which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your
>>>>> curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right
>>>>> or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring
>>>>> points..."
>>>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements
>>>>> aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip
>>>>> opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This
>>>>> may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his
>>>>> measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece
>>>>> disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I
>>>>> complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet
>>>>> good once it got going.
>>>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>>>> *He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the
>>>>> high register / altissimo register.*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact
>>>>> opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that
>>>>> you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed
>>>>> that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and
>>>>> is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't
>>>>> work.....but it does.
>>>>> Go figure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Two things then:
>>>>>
>>>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown
>>>>> in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece
>>>>> (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour
>>>>> the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>>
>>>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're
>>>>> cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to
>>>>> the tip.
>>>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>
>>>>> David Smart.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@mikewilkens.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a
>>>>>> mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the
>>>>>> tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of
>>>>>> doing things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side
>>>>>> rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't
>>>>>> seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if
>>>>>> anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of
>>>>>> way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should
>>>>>> continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the
>>>>>> outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a
>>>>>> difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on
>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip
>>>>>> measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside,
>>>>>> and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sakshama
>>>
>>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>   
>

" I thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the facing he's just put on the mouthpiece."

From a production basis, that is not bad.  The main measurements would be the tip and facing length (with the .0015" feeler).  The other spot checks would be to make sure the facing is even on both sides.  What the actual numbers are would be set by the machinery cutting the facing.  That is mostly machine work, not hand work.  So the feelers used would be those in the areas of the facing concerning any hand work.

Making a new mouthpiece, with a machine cut facing is somewhat different from refacing / altering a facing.

Paul C.

If Mark is just doing clarinet work, I think using 5-6 feelers is enough.  

> On Apr 29, 2014, at 12:10 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
> 
> (To Keith)
> 
> Well, what I was trying to say in point 2 is that if he has already established that the curve is correct,
> he's then subsequently 'copying' it, and only needs 5-6 feelers to confirm what he's just done.
> (he also has a clarinet by his side, which I didn't mention).
> 
> I'm aware that many here like to achieve highly accurate measurements
> (I'm one of them)
> and generally with quite a lot more equipment than I described being used
> (I'm one of them)
> and I certainly didn't mean to vex anyone, I just felt like remarking how others do things.
> 
> I've had an instructor who could cut strips one-tenth of a mm, repeatedly, from paper...with a scalpel,
> I've seen another edge and face an 8-foot board of lumber with a Stanley No4...where I'd have to use a No6 or 7,
> Another told me from across the room that I'd reached the final dimension on the clarinet bell I was turning...he 'heard it'.
> Mark, at Beechler, is one of these people. 
> 
> You can train your eye / ear to do these things...as I'm sure you're aware.
> 
> That's all I wanted to point out.
> 
> I appreciate greatly the amount of information that is on these boards
> and as a professional craftsman (granted, not as 'far along the road' as some here, concerning mouthpieces),
> who has always tried to do things to the best of my ability,
> and has seen the many ways many craftsmen work around the world,
> I'm very surprised at the (collective) reaction to someone using a curiously low number of feeler gauges in his day-to-day work.
> 
> All the best,
> 
> David.
> 
> It's funny how an offhand post can draw so much interest...
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>>  
>> Sorry, I did not recall that we spoke on the phone before.  The wording of the number 2 point in your original report was odd to me.  
>> 
>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 9:17 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>> 
>>>  
>>> Hi Keith,
>>> 
>>> I think you should read my post again...English is my first language (your comment is somewhat baffling since we've spoken on the phone before...) and I think I gave a well-written account of my visit to Beechler.
>>> 
>>> I addressed the fact that the tip rail of my mouthpiece (like the OP's), was non-existent which means that depending on the shape of the baffle, it's unlikely to be flat.
>>> I was told (by Beechler....who make a mouthpiece like that), that it is to favour the altissimo register.
>>> They do the same on some saxophone mouthpieces.
>>> 
>>> On the subject of refacing mouthpieces (I'd asked about other literature), he told me that the Erick Brand manual was a good place to start.
>>> Given that the guy makes God knows how many mouthpieces per year, I thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the facing he's just put on the mouthpiece.
>>> I suppose I should have said that he has other feeler gauges...and that he uses certain sets of gauges for certain mouthpieces, but that he relies on 5-6 measurements / feelers for each mouthpiece.
>>> 
>>> This approach to craftsmanship is not unknown..."less is more".
>>> I've seen guys in Taiwan put a saxophone together with a third of the tools on the bench that I use...
>>> I've also worked in a couple of the saxophone factories that some people revere as if they were temples of perfection...
>>> ...some of the things they do to instruments would make you wince and look away...
>>> ...if only some people knew.
>>> 
>>> Some people are capable of doing the same thing as others with fewer tools.
>>> The point about there only being so many mistakes you can make in a curve
>>> (an action which he performs...thousands of times in a year?),
>>> is relevant.
>>> He probably knows the curve for each of the mouthpieces so well that he can trace it without the mouthpiece in his hand....'in his sleep', if you like.
>>> 
>>> Personally; I'm in awe of this philosophy...it can probably only be followed when a) there is complete confidence in your skills and b) when there is a demand for high production figures.
>>> I'll bet Mark at Beechler hasn't got the luxury of taking more than 6 measurements either...it's not that kind of work.
>>> 
>>> Right now, I own thousands of £'s of tools that have been acquired with measuring mouthpieces in mind.
>>> I'm even 'departing' from feeler gauges (because they're so hard to come by) and experimenting with pin gauges
>>> for the last third of the facing (toward the tip).
>>> No; I'm definitely the type that likes lots of tools and information around me...
>>> 
>>> But enough of explaining my (open) attitude toward other methods...
>>> The question has long been answered and we are miles from the original discussion.
>>> I'll refrain from including my holiday experiences in future, however 'nice' they are...
>>> ...and stick to facts.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> 
>>> David.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:06 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>>>>  
>>>> David, I think some of the things you reported about Beechler came off like you thought the way they measured facings was all anyone needed to do good work.  It sounds like English is not your first language.  So we should all take that into consideration.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Apr 28, 2014, at 7:43 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>>> Hi again...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Nothing you wrote I took personally. 
>>>>> I'm just amazed at the level of animosity toward another individual (employee from Beechler).
>>>>> I didn't "show reverence" to halfway knowledge at all...It was a 'life-time' experience for me...I doubt if I'll make it back to the USA again...(on holiday)...who knows?
>>>>> 
>>>>> But thanks for the reply.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> David.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:19 AM, Sakshama Koloski <sakshama1@...> wrote:
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> Hi David,
>>>>>> You missed the point. This group is your best info on mouthpieces and since you are here you are home. This is the best source of mouthpiece info you can find, just search the archives.  You showed highest reverence to halfway knowledge that made us react. I have nothing against Beechler, I haven't thought about him or his mouthpieces at all for very long time. The few I have seen haven't made in my book of good mouthpieces, making mouthpieces fast and making them good is different. Nothing said was intended to hurt you in any way.  
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 6:03 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> Hi Keith,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Well....I happened to be on a once-a-lifetime holiday in the United States.
>>>>>>> (I only had a certain amount of money to spend...and only had two weeks.)
>>>>>>> I was in LA....not in Elkhart.
>>>>>>> I was in Washington and NYC....a bit too far to get to see you....and Ted Klum 'wasn't in'.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I aspire to perfection....some say it's a mistake: there's a whole philosophy in that.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Should I ignore the only major manufacturer on my path....or allow people to think that, just because I visited Beechler....that's the standard I want to attain?
>>>>>>> That's like saying if I came to visit you, Keith, I'd want to copy you.
>>>>>>> Nope; I aim much higher than that too.
>>>>>>> I was on a learning trip....I feel sorry for you if you think you can only learn from the best!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> David.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> I think you should aspire to do better facing work than what is done at Beechler.  
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Apr 27, 2014, at 3:09 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>> Hi Mike.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I think you raise a couple of very important points....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The first being the issue with the feeler gauges and the measurements at the extreme tip of the mouthpiece.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I've had, in the last couple of weeks, the (life-event, for me) pleasure of an hour-long conversation with Mark,
>>>>>>>>> from Beechler mouthpieces in Northridge CA.
>>>>>>>>> During our discussion, which, I must stress, covered only the facing of the mouthpiece 
>>>>>>>>> (everything that went on 'inside' the mouthpiece was 'proprietary information' and therefore 'out of bounds'....),
>>>>>>>>> he pointed out several things to me:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 1. The copy of the Erick Brand Band Instrument Repair Manual, with its chapter on mouthpieces was a very good start to refacing mouthpieces.
>>>>>>>>> 2. I'd pointed out to him that he "only" had 5-6 feeler gauges with which to measure the mouthpiece facing.
>>>>>>>>> "I told ya: Erick Brand Repair Manual is good literature. If your curve is 'so'....you don't need ten feeler gauges to tell you if it's right or not. There's only so many mistakes you can make in between measuring points..."
>>>>>>>>> (This means that if your curve is correct, multiple measurements aren't going to make it any clearer to you: Curve 'A', leading to tip opening 'Z', is not the same as curve 'B', leading to tip opening 'Z'. This may shock many, that a major manufacturer is so 'offhand' with his measurements....but he's not: He's correct.)
>>>>>>>>> 3. I asked him specifically about the issue of the mouthpiece disappearing into no-man's land (as you put it)....
>>>>>>>>> I have a (Beechler) clarinet mouthpiece exactly as you describe. I complained that the mouthpiece was difficult in response...stuffy...yet good once it got going.
>>>>>>>>> "I bet you like it up top, hey?"
>>>>>>>>> 'Yes; the altissimo register is great...the rest is too....'breathy''.
>>>>>>>>> He told me that the mouthpiece is designed like that to favour the high register / altissimo register.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> My other (ARB 'Great Neck' ~ also Beechler-made) is the exact opposite...with wide, asymmetrical (in thickness) rails and a tip rail that you could balance a bus on....the rails are wider than any (clarinet) reed that I've ever put on there....yet it 'speaks' evenly in all registers and is flexible....you can 'tailgate' like a trombone with it....it shouldn't work.....but it does.
>>>>>>>>> Go figure.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Two things then:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> (Despite my desire to 'lean the other way'...) The feeler gauges shown in the Erick Brand Manual are ample to measure the curve of a mouthpiece (Beechler - designed, in any case).
>>>>>>>>> A 'non-existent' tip rail is intentional, and is designed to favour the altissimo register. (This corroborates what I've read elsewhere, fwiw).
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I hope that helps with your query.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> As an aside, I've been experimenting with Starrett pin gauges (they're cylindrical), in particular for the measurement of the area leading up to the tip.
>>>>>>>>> Email me in a couple of months and I'll let you know how I got on.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> David Smart.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 2:02 PM, <mike@...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> I've been doing some thinking about the tip of a mouthpiece--specifically the area from the end of the side rails to the tip. This has led me to a few new questions and possibly some new ways of doing things.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Feeler gage measurements that don't go deep enough to reach the side rails seem to lose much of their accuracy and thus their meaning. I haven't seen any discussion online about how to handle this specific issue, so if anyone would care to share how they handle this area in any special kind of way, I'd love to hear about it.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Also related--Is there a consensus about whether the curve should continue through this no man's land, through the tip rail and to the outside of the tip? Or should there be a flat tip rail?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but my feeling is that this may make a difference and so I would like to hear some more experienced thoughts on this.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> If this is a relevant issue, wouldn't it be helpful to take two tip measurements, one at the inside of the tip rail, and one at the outside, and include them both in your curve data?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Sakshama
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> www. sakshamamouthpieces.com
> 
> 

Hi tenorman / Paul C.

He used the feeler gauges to check the facing he put on a
mouthpiece...several of them, in fact (they were all the same).

The blanks still had the moulding flash on them...and he was finishing the
facing.
He checked it before he started and each time he did something to the
facing.

I appreciate your point (the moulding did 90% of the work).

I can also appreciate the difference between measuring a mouthpiece you've
never seen before
(5-6 feelers would certainly be inadequate, for me)
....the non-necessity of checking a machined / moulded facing with more
than 5-6 feelers,
....and the extra effort required to re-face an existing facing (especially
if your client wants the 'same' mouthpiece back).

He still checked his (hand) work with 5-6 feeler gauges....

....but the point is, he explained the effect of 'no tip rail'.

Regards,

David.




On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:53 PM, <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

>
>
> " I thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the
> facing he's just put on the mouthpiece."
>
> From a production basis, that is not bad.  The main measurements would be
> the tip and facing length (with the .0015" feeler).  The other spot checks
> would be to make sure the facing is even on both sides.  What the actual
> numbers are would be set by the machinery cutting the facing.  That is
> mostly machine work, not hand work.  So the feelers used would be those in
> the areas of the facing concerning any hand work.
>
> Making a new mouthpiece, with a machine cut facing is somewhat different
> from refacing / altering a facing.
>
> Paul C.
>
>  
>

If you want to experience the "no tip rail", shift your reed down on the table slightly.  I'm pretty sure everyone that does good work on mouthpieces went through the stage where they, leaving the tip rail for last, omitted it entirely, since they hadn't perfected the process, or just wanted to see what would happen.  It gives you slightly more high frequency components but at the cost of tonal stability in the attack transient phase of each note.  The increased highs may perhaps improve altissimo response, but the trade-off is not worth it, IMO, if you care about your tone/response in the normal range.  One can easily attain the same added highs and altissimo response without suffering attack transient instability everywhere else, by using a definite tip rail and thinning the tip of the reed ever so slightly.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
 
  
Hi tenorman / Paul C.

He used the feeler gauges to check the facing he put on a mouthpiece...several of them, in fact (they were all the same).


The blanks still had the moulding flash on them...and he was finishing the facing.

He checked it before he started and each time he did something to the facing.


I appreciate your point (the moulding did 90% of the work).


I can also appreciate the difference between measuring a mouthpiece you've never seen before 
(5-6 feelers would certainly be inadequate, for me)

....the non-necessity of checking a machined / moulded facing with more than 5-6 feelers,

....and the extra effort required to re-face an existing facing (especially if your client wants the 'same' mouthpiece back).

He still checked his (hand) work with 5-6 feeler gauges....


....but the point is, he explained the effect of 'no tip rail'.


Regards,


David.






On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:53 PM, <tenorman1952@yahoo.com> wrote:

 
>  
>" I thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the facing he's just put on the mouthpiece."
>
>From a production basis, that is not bad.  The main measurements would be the tip and facing length (with the .0015" feeler).  The other spot checks would be to make sure the facing is even on both sides.  What the actual numbers are would be set by the machinery cutting the facing.  That is mostly machine work, not hand work.  So the feelers used would be those in the areas of the facing concerning any hand work.
>
>Making a new mouthpiece, with a machine cut facing is somewhat different from refacing / altering a facing.
>
>Paul C. 

On the other hand, you can certainly make a lot of mouthpieces faster, if you omit forming a definite tip rail.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:20 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
 
  
If you want to experience the "no tip rail", shift your reed down on the table slightly.  I'm pretty sure everyone that does good work on mouthpieces went through the stage where they, leaving the tip rail for last, omitted it entirely, since they hadn't perfected the process, or just wanted to see what would happen.  It gives you slightly more high frequency components but at the cost of tonal stability in the attack transient phase of each note.  The increased highs may perhaps improve altissimo response, but the trade-off is not worth it, IMO, if you care about your tone/response in the normal range.  One can easily attain the same added highs and altissimo response without suffering attack transient instability everywhere else, by using a definite tip rail and thinning the tip of the reed ever so slightly.
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
 
  
Hi tenorman / Paul C.

He used the feeler gauges to check the facing he put on a mouthpiece...several of them, in fact (they were all the same).


The blanks still had the moulding flash on them...and he was finishing the facing.

He checked it before he started and each time he did something to the facing.


I appreciate your point (the moulding did 90% of the work).


I can also appreciate the difference between measuring a mouthpiece you've never seen before 
(5-6 feelers would certainly be inadequate, for me)

....the non-necessity of checking a machined / moulded facing with more than 5-6 feelers,

....and the extra effort required to re-face an existing facing (especially if your client wants the 'same' mouthpiece back).

He still checked his (hand) work with 5-6 feeler gauges....


....but the point is, he explained the effect of 'no tip rail'.


Regards,


David.






On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:53 PM, <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

 
>  
>" I thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the facing he's just put on the mouthpiece."
>
>From a production basis, that is not bad.  The main measurements would be the tip and facing length (with the .0015" feeler).  The other spot checks would be to make sure the facing is even on both sides.  What the actual numbers are would be set by the machinery cutting the facing.  That is mostly machine work, not hand work.  So the feelers used would be those in the areas of the facing concerning any hand work.
>
>Making a new mouthpiece, with a machine cut facing is somewhat different from refacing / altering a facing.
>
>Paul C. 

(*smiles)

I have to agree with both of your last posts. (martinmods)

Initially, that was my complaint, that it (the mouthpiece) didn't speak and
wasn't flexible once it had eventually got going.
(you're right: It's not worth it)

I have in mind to establish a tip rail on it...I'll let you know how I got
on.

Regards,

David.


On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:27 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

>
>
> On the other hand, you can certainly make a lot of mouthpieces faster, if
> you omit forming a definite tip rail.
>   On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:20 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>  If you want to experience the "no tip rail", shift your reed down on the
> table slightly.  I'm pretty sure everyone that does good work on
> mouthpieces went through the stage where they, leaving the tip rail for
> last, omitted it entirely, since they hadn't perfected the process, or just
> wanted to see what would happen.  It gives you slightly more high frequency
> components but at the cost of tonal stability in the attack transient phase
> of each note.  The increased highs may perhaps improve altissimo response,
> but the trade-off is not worth it, IMO, if you care about your
> tone/response in the normal range.  One can easily attain the same added
> highs and altissimo response without suffering attack transient instability
> everywhere else, by using a definite tip rail and thinning the tip of the
> reed ever so slightly.
>   On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>
> wrote:
>
>  Hi tenorman / Paul C.
>
> He used the feeler gauges to check the facing he put on a
> mouthpiece...several of them, in fact (they were all the same).
>
> The blanks still had the moulding flash on them...and he was finishing the
> facing.
> He checked it before he started and each time he did something to the
> facing.
>
> I appreciate your point (the moulding did 90% of the work).
>
> I can also appreciate the difference between measuring a mouthpiece you've
> never seen before
> (5-6 feelers would certainly be inadequate, for me)
> ....the non-necessity of checking a machined / moulded facing with more
> than 5-6 feelers,
> ....and the extra effort required to re-face an existing facing
> (especially if your client wants the 'same' mouthpiece back).
>
> He still checked his (hand) work with 5-6 feeler gauges....
>
> ....but the point is, he explained the effect of 'no tip rail'.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:53 PM, <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>
>
>  " I thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check
> the facing he's just put on the mouthpiece."
>
> From a production basis, that is not bad.  The main measurements would be
> the tip and facing length (with the .0015" feeler).  The other spot checks
> would be to make sure the facing is even on both sides.  What the actual
> numbers are would be set by the machinery cutting the facing.  That is
> mostly machine work, not hand work.  So the feelers used would be those in
> the areas of the facing concerning any hand work.
>
> Making a new mouthpiece, with a machine cut facing is somewhat different
> from refacing / altering a facing.
>
> Paul C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    
>

Yes.  Do let us know. How do you like using the pins for measuring?
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 1:35 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
 
  
(*smiles)

I have to agree with both of your last posts. (martinmods)

Initially, that was my complaint, that it (the mouthpiece) didn't speak and wasn't flexible once it had eventually got going.

(you're right: It's not worth it)

I have in mind to establish a tip rail on it...I'll let you know how I got on.

Regards,

David.




On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:27 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

 
>  
>On the other hand, you can certainly make a lot of mouthpieces faster, if you omit forming a definite tip rail.
>On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:20 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:
> 
>  
>If you want to experience the "no tip rail", shift your reed down on the table slightly.  I'm pretty sure everyone that does good work on mouthpieces went through the stage where they, leaving the tip rail for last, omitted it entirely, since they hadn't perfected the process, or just wanted to see what would happen.  It gives you slightly more high frequency components but at the cost of tonal stability in the attack transient phase of each note.  The increased highs may perhaps improve altissimo response, but the trade-off is not worth it, IMO, if you care about your tone/response in the normal range.  One can easily attain the same added highs and altissimo response without suffering attack transient instability everywhere else, by using a definite tip rail and thinning the tip of the reed ever so slightly.
>On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...> wrote:
> 
>  
>Hi tenorman / Paul C.
>
>He used the feeler gauges to check the facing he put on a mouthpiece...several of them, in fact (they were all the same).
>
>
>The blanks still had the moulding flash on them...and he was finishing the facing.
>
>He checked it before he started and each time he did something to the facing.
>
>
>I appreciate your point (the moulding did 90% of the work).
>
>
>I can also appreciate the difference between measuring a mouthpiece you've never seen before 
>(5-6 feelers would certainly be inadequate, for me)
>
>....the non-necessity of checking a machined / moulded facing with more than 5-6 feelers,
>
>....and the extra effort required to re-face an existing facing (especially if your client wants the 'same' mouthpiece back).
>
>He still checked his (hand) work with 5-6 feeler gauges....
>
>
>....but the point is, he explained the effect of 'no tip rail'.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>David.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:53 PM, <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>
> 
>>  
>>" I thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check the facing he's just put on the mouthpiece."
>>
>>From a production basis, that is not bad.  The main measurements would be the tip and facing length (with the .0015" feeler).  The other spot checks would be to make sure the facing is even on both sides.  What the actual numbers are would be set by the machinery cutting the facing.  That is mostly machine work, not hand work.  So the feelers used would be those in the areas of the facing concerning any hand work.
>>
>>Making a new mouthpiece, with a machine cut facing is somewhat different from refacing / altering a facing.
>>
>>Paul C. 
>
>
>
>
>

(To Martinmods)

The pins for measuring?

They're good (there's a great choice and they are (by piece) a lot cheaper
than feeler gauges), although they did require a substantial initial outlay.

I'm still getting my head around the mathematics of using them:
Obviously, there's only a part of the cylinder touching the facing....where
do you take your reading from?
The 'top' of the pin (making sure your eye is square with the pin and the
graduation on the glass gauge)?
The part of the pin touching the glass gauge?
The 'bottom' of the pin (again, making sure your eye is square with the pin
and the graduation on the glass gauge)?

That's the stage I'm at, at the moment.
So far, my opinion centres around it not mattering much...consistency being
the most important factor.
If, for example, I find it easier to take a reading from where the pin
touches the glass gauge.....and you (for example) measure the mpiece later,
as long as you use the same size pins....*and read them in the same
way*...there
should be no problems.

I'll let you know....but I think I'll start another thread on the subject.

Thanks for your interest.

All the best,

David.


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 8:22 AM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...> wrote:

>
>
> Yes.  Do let us know. How do you like using the pins for measuring?
>   On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 1:35 PM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>
> wrote:
>
>  (*smiles)
>
> I have to agree with both of your last posts. (martinmods)
>
> Initially, that was my complaint, that it (the mouthpiece) didn't speak
> and wasn't flexible once it had eventually got going.
> (you're right: It's not worth it)
>
> I have in mind to establish a tip rail on it...I'll let you know how I got
> on.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 8:27 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@...>wrote:
>
>
>  On the other hand, you can certainly make a lot of mouthpieces faster,
> if you omit forming a definite tip rail.
>    On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:20 PM, MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>  If you want to experience the "no tip rail", shift your reed down on the
> table slightly.  I'm pretty sure everyone that does good work on
> mouthpieces went through the stage where they, leaving the tip rail for
> last, omitted it entirely, since they hadn't perfected the process, or just
> wanted to see what would happen.  It gives you slightly more high frequency
> components but at the cost of tonal stability in the attack transient phase
> of each note.  The increased highs may perhaps improve altissimo response,
> but the trade-off is not worth it, IMO, if you care about your
> tone/response in the normal range.  One can easily attain the same added
> highs and altissimo response without suffering attack transient instability
> everywhere else, by using a definite tip rail and thinning the tip of the
> reed ever so slightly.
>   On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 10:04 AM, David Smart <davidsmart64@...>
> wrote:
>
>  Hi tenorman / Paul C.
>
> He used the feeler gauges to check the facing he put on a
> mouthpiece...several of them, in fact (they were all the same).
>
> The blanks still had the moulding flash on them...and he was finishing the
> facing.
> He checked it before he started and each time he did something to the
> facing.
>
> I appreciate your point (the moulding did 90% of the work).
>
> I can also appreciate the difference between measuring a mouthpiece you've
> never seen before
> (5-6 feelers would certainly be inadequate, for me)
> ....the non-necessity of checking a machined / moulded facing with more
> than 5-6 feelers,
> ....and the extra effort required to re-face an existing facing
> (especially if your client wants the 'same' mouthpiece back).
>
> He still checked his (hand) work with 5-6 feeler gauges....
>
> ....but the point is, he explained the effect of 'no tip rail'.
>
> Regards,
>
> David.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 1:53 PM, <tenorman1952@...> wrote:
>
>
>  " I thought it remarkable that he only uses 5-6 feeler gauges to check
> the facing he's just put on the mouthpiece."
>
> From a production basis, that is not bad.  The main measurements would be
> the tip and facing length (with the .0015" feeler).  The other spot checks
> would be to make sure the facing is even on both sides.  What the actual
> numbers are would be set by the machinery cutting the facing.  That is
> mostly machine work, not hand work.  So the feelers used would be those in
> the areas of the facing concerning any hand work.
>
> Making a new mouthpiece, with a machine cut facing is somewhat different
> from refacing / altering a facing.
>
> Paul C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>    
>

Hi tenorman / Paul C.
 
 He used the feeler gauges to check the facing he put on a
 mouthpiece...several of them, in fact (they were all the same).
 
 The blanks still had the moulding flash on them...and he was finishing the
 facing.
 He checked it before he started and each time he did something to the
 facing.
 
 I appreciate your point (the moulding did 90% of the work).



David, the only mouthpiece I'm aware of that the facing is molded on was the Rico 
Graftonite and Metalite mouthpieces.  It was designed to be molded only, no 
handwork at all.

I was talking about a facing being machined onto a mouthpiece blank.  Is this step 
done on the Beechler mouthpieces by hand?

On the Runyon mouthpieces after the table and facing are cut, the next step is to 
file the tip contour to the shape that matches the reed profile.  After that the baffle 
and tip rail work is done by hand.  But the table and most of the facing is as it is 
machined.

The Runyon facing machines were designed by Mr. Runyon and custom built for 
that purpose.  These are not "off the shelf" items you can buy anywhere.

Paul C.

(To Paul C.)

It would seem that the blanks are both molded and go through a CNC process.

He was definitely working on the facing of the mouthpieces that had just
been through that process.

He had to remove the 'flash' before working on the mouthpiece,
and the inside of the mouthpiece wasn't shiny...so I assume it had just
been machined (and had yet to be polished )

(I don't know if this is the norm...perhaps the blanks were from a batch
that needed finishing....? I don't know.)

Regards,

David.


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:59 PM, <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

>
>
> Hi tenorman / Paul C.
>
> He used the feeler gauges to check the facing he put on a
> mouthpiece...several of them, in fact (they were all the same).
>
> The blanks still had the moulding flash on them...and he was finishing the
> facing.
> He checked it before he started and each time he did something to the
> facing.
>
> I appreciate your point (the moulding did 90% of the work).
>
>
>
> David, the only mouthpiece I'm aware of that the facing is molded on was
> the Rico
> Graftonite and Metalite mouthpieces.  It was designed to be molded only,
> no
> handwork at all.
>
> I was talking about a facing being machined onto a mouthpiece blank.  Is
> this step
> done on the Beechler mouthpieces by hand?
>
> On the Runyon mouthpieces after the table and facing are cut, the next
> step is to
> file the tip contour to the shape that matches the reed profile.  After
> that the baffle
> and tip rail work is done by hand.  But the table and most of the facing
> is as it is
> machined.
>
> The Runyon facing machines were designed by Mr. Runyon and custom built
> for
> that purpose.  These are not "off the shelf" items you can buy anywhere.
>
> Paul C.
>
>  
>

 

I have a recent Graftonite. The facing has the fine shallow arc
lines of having been finished on a facing machine, from butt to tip.


Barry Levine 

>> David, the only mouthpiece I'm aware of that the
facing is molded on was the Rico 
>> Graftonite and Metalite
mouthpieces. It was designed to be molded only, no 
>> handwork at
all.
>> 
>> I was talking about a facing being machined onto a
mouthpiece blank. Is this step 
>> done on the Beechler mouthpieces by
hand?
>> 
>> On the Runyon mouthpieces after the table and facing are
cut, the next step is to 
>> file the tip contour to the shape that
matches the reed profile. After that the baffle 
>> and tip rail work is
done by hand. But the table and most of the facing is as it is 
>>
machined.
>> 
>> The Runyon facing machines were designed by Mr. Runyon
and custom built for 
>> that purpose. These are not "off the shelf"
items you can buy anywhere.
>> 
>> Paul C.
> 
> 




Links:
------
[1]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/conversations/messages/11684;_ylc=X3oDMTJxN2tiamZlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BG1zZ0lkAzExNjg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTM5ODkwNTE5Mw--?act=reply&messageNum684
[2]
mailto:davidsmart64@...?subject=Re%3A%20%5BMouthpieceWork%5D%20No%20man%27s%20land%2E%20From%20where%20the%20side%20rails%20end%20to%20the%20tip%2E%20%28measuring%20%26%20refacing%29
[3]
mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20%5BMouthpieceWork%5D%20No%20man%27s%20land%2E%20From%20where%20the%20side%20rails%20end%20to%20the%20tip%2E%20%28measuring%20%26%20refacing%29
[4]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/conversations/newtopic;_ylc=X3oDMTJlZDBpNjFpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM5ODkwNTE5Mw--
[5]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/conversations/topics/11632;_ylc=X3oDMTM2OXZyOTNtBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BG1zZ0lkAzExNjg0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTM5ODkwNTE5MwR0cGNJZAMxMTYzMg--
[6]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MouthpieceWork
[7]
http://groups.yahoo.com/mygroups
[8]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMmZxMm84BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTM5ODkwNTE5Mw--
[9]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/MouthpieceWork/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJmaTRkYmE2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEzOTg5MDUxOTM-
[10]
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZTRlczE1BF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzYyODI5MDAEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDMyMTk4BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMzk4OTA1MTkz
[11]
https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html
[12]
mailto:MouthpieceWork-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe
[13]
https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/

I did a calculation to see what the difference would be between a straight line and a curve across this area.  A typical tenor sax radial facing might have a tip opening of 2.54mm and a facing length of 27mm (absolute).  The longitudinal distance from the corner of the tip to the centre of the tip (front of the mouthpiece) I take as 2mm.  I get a figure of 0.0036mm as the maximum distance between a straight line and a curve.  My smallest feeler gauge only goes to 0.04mm, so I'm impressed you guys can detect the difference.

A difference in baffle contour between the corners and tip rail of .0025mm (.0001") is readily noticable.  You can't measure this area with guages.  Those minute contour differences manifest themselves in where the Bernoulli force snaps the reed closed in relation to where that occurance and the range of reed response to internal air pressure changes fall on the downward slope of air flow vs blowing/embouchure pressure.  Sounds complicated, but that's what it is - see woodwind acoustics 101.  You can't measure it.  You have to feel it.


On Thursday, May 1, 2014 8:02 PM, "andrewhdonaldson@..." <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
 
  
I did a calculation to see what the difference would be between a straight line and a curve across this area.  A typical tenor sax radial facing might have a tip opening of 2.54mm and a facing length of 27mm (absolute).  The longitudinal distance from the corner of the tip to the centre of the tip (front of the mouthpiece) I take as 2mm.  I get a figure of 0.0036mm as the maximum distance between a straight line and a curve.  My smallest feeler gauge only goes to 0.04mm, so I'm impressed you guys can detect the difference.

I was referring to the facing curve geometry, not the baffle shape.

The .0036mm difference between curved and straight tip sections = a .0036mm difference in baffle height = a clearly perceivable/audible difference in the way the mouthpiece plays.


On Thursday, May 1, 2014 10:12 PM, "andrewhdonaldson@..." <andrewhdonaldson@...> wrote:
 
  
I was referring to the facing curve geometry, not the baffle shape.

Less that four micrometers? C'mon Lance....I 'd love to put that to a blind test and see just how audible that is.

--- MartinMods <lancelotburt@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The .0036mm difference between curved and straight tip sections = a .0036mm difference in baffle height = a clearly perceivable/audible difference in the way the mouthpiece plays.
> 
> 
> On Thursday, May 1, 2014 10:12 PM, "andrewhdonaldson@..." <andrewhdonaldson@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I was referring to the facing curve geometry, not the baffle shape.
>

Across the tip rail?  You can definitely feel it.  Take a piece and try it.

Nowadays I only play when I think nobody can hear me...and I can 'feel' a
difference of 0.02mm....


On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 3:57 PM, <frymorgan@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Across the tip rail?  You can definitely feel it.  Take a piece and try it.
>  
>

Thanks to everyone for so much useful information! This site is unmeasurably more helpful than SOTW (I know it is a low bar, but I hope you know what I mean).
 

 It's helpful for me to know the consensus max and min range for any single aspect of mouthpieces before really getting into it myself. This makes it much more rewarding for me the first time I do it myself. That way I can be sure to be in the ball-park the first time. Also it prevents wasted time trying to reinvent the wheel. I can always experiment outside the normal range later (ie. if my preferences are at one extreme of that range.) Thanks to everyone that contributed along those lines...
 

 Also, thanks to those encouraging me to look forward to the next challenge--baffles--as well. All of those comments were super helpful.
 

 I just wanted to clear up one issue:
 David,
 You mentioned several times about the "OP" and having a "non-existent" tip rail.
 I re-read my initial post, and it's unclear to me where you got this. I asked about flat vs. curved tip rails, but in both of these cases there is a clearly defined and measurable tip rail.
 

 Thanks again. You guys are awesome!
 Mike