I've been fiddling around with my own mouthpieces for a while now and so far I have not destroyed anything yet (but I'm keeping away from anyone else's mouthpieces). What I still don't quite understand is what part of the lay/curve would make a mouthpiece 'free' blowing? For all I know that alone does not guarantee 'free blowing' and other factors should also be taken in consideration. However, I'm more interested to know about experiences with the lay/curve. anyone? 
 

 Based on the Brand manual says that "..the most important points of the lay is the spot between B and C, also known by such names as pivot or resistance section. It's the point where the reed leaves the lay under actual playing conditions. The curve at this point becomes somewhat sharper.". That's as far as the explanation goes, leaving me with questions like should the curve shape change rapidly? or continue smoothly? 
 

 Also, in one of Mojo's videos on youtube he talks about a Link curve which makes the mouthpiece free blowing. In this case if I want to make any Link free blowing (at least to my liking), all I have to do is follow that same curve?
 

 Thanks.

I experimented with a Rico Reserve clarinet mouthpiece. I found it to be 
playable but more resistant than I was comfortable. On advice from 
someone who knows more about the subject than I do, I reduced the width 
of the tip rail by 50%. This reduced the resistance without affecting 
the characteristics of the mouthpiece. Might be another area to look at.
Tony F.

On 6/3/2015 7:06 PM, tsaxman@... [MouthpieceWork] wrote:
>
> I've been fiddling around with my own mouthpieces for a while now and 
> so far I have not destroyed anything yet (but I'm keeping away from 
> anyone else's mouthpieces). What I still don't quite understand is 
> what part of the lay/curve would make a mouthpiece 'free' blowing? For 
> all I know that alone does not guarantee 'free blowing' and other 
> factors should also be taken in consideration. However, I'm more 
> interested to know about experiences with the lay/curve. anyone?
>
>
> Based on the Brand manual says that "..the most important points of 
> the lay is the spot between B and C, also known by such names as pivot 
> or resistance section. It's the point where the reed leaves the lay 
> under actual playing conditions. The curve at this point becomes 
> somewhat sharper.". That's as far as the explanation goes, leaving me 
> with questions like should the curve shape change rapidly? or continue 
> smoothly?
>
>
> Also, in one of Mojo's videos on youtube he talks about a Link curve 
> which makes the mouthpiece free blowing. In this case if I want to 
> make any Link free blowing (at least to my liking), all I have to do 
> is follow that same curve?
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> 



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Hi!
There are few things to do to make a mouthpiece free blowing: First keep
the facing very precise according to the plan on your screen. Measure at as
many points as you can, quite more than the Brand manual suggest, actually
you can discard it as an obsolete. Make the facing slightly longer than
suggested. Every design has its sweet spot and it is where the highs are
not diminishing or where the lows and highs are in balance. Flatten the
curve towards the tip. Thin the tip and the side rails. Very often
resistance is a factor of the baffle and the area just behind the tip rail
has a lot to do with it. Play with the files there for a direct knowledge.
Usually shelf like, straight baffles can be very free blowing.
You can do all of those points or just a few to get to desired resistance.

I agree with Sakshama.

First, a smooth radial curve, that is, a curve which is formed from a constant radius is less resistant than a curve that has abrupt changes in radius.

Flattening the curve toward the tip so that the entire tip rail closes at once.

Thinning the tip rail, but this can lead to chirps and squeaks if too thin.

A "rollover baffle" will have less resistance than one that leaves the tip rail at a steeper angle.

After all this is done, slightly lengthening the curve, that is, reducing the radius right at the 
"break" will also make the mouthpiece easier to blow and more flexible.

And finally, don't use a reed harder than necessary.

Paul C.

For a given tip opening and facing length, I and others have found that a radial curve blows the most freely. 

I started exploring elliptical curves to see if the low notes could have less resistance while having more resistance for the high notes and altissimo.  The elliptical curves do redistribute the resistance that way, but are overall more resistant than a radial curve with the same facing length.  So I tend to use longer facing lengths with elliptical facing curves.  

For large tip openings (like .125"+ on tenor) I use radial curves and long facing lengths.

In some of my videos I do mention a Link curve that is often seen and copied off of nice playing vintage Links.  It has a somewhat parabolic shape but a pure mathematical parabola will not fit the curve exactly.  It has more curve in the facing where it breaks from the table and less curve as it approaches the tip.  Some players think this is a free blowing design but I have found that if the hump at the break is smoothed out towards a radial or elliptical curve, it will blow with less resistance.  The only thing I can conclude is that some players use an embouchure that bends the reed closed at this break so that hump is taken out of play and the rest of the facing behaves like a radial curve.  All players bend the reed some with their embouchure.  It is how we shape our notes.  

But I have not found that this quasi-parabolic curve is great on sax.  Clarinet is another story.  It may be a left over from clarinet refacers making early sax mouthpieces.




> On Jun 3, 2015, at 10:06 PM, tsaxman@... [MouthpieceWork] <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> I've been fiddling around with my own mouthpieces for a while now and so far I have not destroyed anything yet (but I'm keeping away from anyone else's mouthpieces). What I still don't quite understand is what part of the lay/curve would make a mouthpiece 'free' blowing? For all I know that alone does not guarantee 'free blowing' and other factors should also be taken in consideration. However, I'm more interested to know about experiences with the lay/curve. anyone? 
> 
> 
> 
> Based on the Brand manual says that "..the most important points of the lay is the spot between B and C, also known by such names as pivot or resistance section. It's the point where the reed leaves the lay under actual playing conditions. The curve at this point becomes somewhat sharper.". That's as far as the explanation goes, leaving me with questions like should the curve shape change rapidly? or continue smoothly? 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, in one of Mojo's videos on youtube he talks about a Link curve which makes the mouthpiece free blowing. In this case if I want to make any Link free blowing (at least to my liking), all I have to do is follow that same curve?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 

Because of lack of experience and resources, I've been reading lots of information found here in this forum as well as other resourceful sites, and watching videos whenever they become available (thanks a lot everyone, but specially Keith - invaluable information you're providing!!!. 

 That said, when using my little arsenal of mouthpieces as baseline/comparison, which includes Link, Berg, Guardalas (King and MBII), RPC, Ponzol, H-Couf, Sugal, Dukoff and a few others. From these bunch the 2 Guardalas and the RPC are the best free blowing by far. As a test and practice experience, I've copied the RPC radius curve over to a plastic/abs blank mouthpiece, and I believe the curve readings and length were pretty close to the original, as well as the tip opening and rails. However, I have to confess that the results were not what I've expected. 
 

 Although I was able to impressed a couple of friends when they've played the $3 mouthpiece, I personally was not that impressed. The most noticeable differences were resistance and lack of sound brilliance. For the latter issue, I don't mean to say that the piece sounded dull or muffled, but there was something certainly missing, and for the lack of experience I am attributing that to the ABS/Plastic material used until I can learn more and start to dig deeper into other areas.
 

 However, the resistance question on this thread was mainly to cover my curiosity for this project.I've got another blank from another vendor and the material looks and feels better. I'll retry the same test I've done, by using the RPC radius curve, rails, and tip and try it again using those advices.
 

 Thanks for your help so far.
  

Did you also try to copy the RPC baffle shape?  

> On Jun 4, 2015, at 12:04 PM, tsaxman@... [MouthpieceWork] <MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> Because of lack of experience and resources, I've been reading lots of information found here in this forum as well as other resourceful sites, and watching videos whenever they become available (thanks a lot everyone, but specially Keith - invaluable information you're providing!!!.
> 
> 
> That said, when using my little arsenal of mouthpieces as baseline/comparison, which includes Link, Berg, Guardalas (King and MBII), RPC, Ponzol, H-Couf, Sugal, Dukoff and a few others. From these bunch the 2 Guardalas and the RPC are the best free blowing by far. As a test and practice experience, I've copied the RPC radius curve over to a plastic/abs blank mouthpiece, and I believe the curve readings and length were pretty close to the original, as well as the tip opening and rails. However, I have to confess that the results were not what I've expected. 
> 
> Although I was able to impressed a couple of friends when they've played the $3 mouthpiece, I personally was not that impressed. The most noticeable differences were resistance and lack of sound brilliance. For the latter issue, I don't mean to say that the piece sounded dull or muffled, but there was something certainly missing, and for the lack of experience I am attributing that to the ABS/Plastic material used until I can learn more and start to dig deeper into other areas.
> 
> However, the resistance question on this thread was mainly to cover my curiosity for this project.I've got another blank from another vendor and the material looks and feels better. I'll retry the same test I've done, by using the RPC radius curve, rails, and tip and try it again using those advices.
> 
> Thanks for your help so far.
>  
> 

Yes, I've play tests using a temporary baffle using play doh putty. I finally got the good stuff (Epoxie Sculpt - again thanks Keith) but never got around to make a more permanent one. 

 Maybe I should keep going on this and re-evaluate measurements and baffle before given up?

As mentioned by Keith, there are some clarinet facing methods that will work for that, 
shorter facing lengths, narrower tip openings that don't work well for saxophone.

For example, and this is mentioned in one of the Runyon papers in the files section, 
the mouthpiece is drawn over the paper making a flat table, then the angle is 
abruptly changed making the facing... not a curve, just another flat area.  Then 
the abrupt angle is slightly rounded off.

This facing "works" in that it is playable, but it has some resistance that clarinet 
players like.  This works only because of the very short facing length and tip 
opening used (as compared to saxophone.

Paul C.

That's interesting, Paul. Before I started tinkering with mouthpieces I always thought that, as an oversimplified example, all mouthpiece facings would almost follows the same elliptical shape curve, independently of the tip opening. Mouthpieces with more open tip curve would have different feeler gauge readings than smaller tip openings, but the curve would always follow that same elliptical shape. I've clearly wasn't taking in consideration the length of the facing and other factors (like rails, materials, etc..).  

 I almost never play Links because of various factors like lack of projection, high resistance, etc.. (chances are I have never found a good one), and the one in my collection just sits in the drawer for these same reasons. But I'm wondering what would the results if I take another mouthpiece I like it and shape my Link's facing with that curve shape? Ex: My RPC curving facing shape over to a Link. 
 

Read those papers in the Files.

Paul

For a number of years, I played a metal Link with a baffle insert. Made 
all the difference as far as projection and a bit more buzz, without 
significantly thinning the sound. Worth trying, if you haven't already 
done so.

I found, by the way, that  I had to drop the baffle insert in from the 
back of the mouthpiece (I grind them out of solid plastic, and wedge 
them in place.) The Link had a chamber taper that is the reverse of 
every other mouthpiece I've seen, probably because it has scooped out 
sidewalls. Perhaps that has something to do with their particular sound.

Barry Levine


On 6/5/2015 11:02 PM, tsaxman@... [MouthpieceWork] wrote:
>
> I almost never play Links because of various factors like lack of 
> projection, high resistance, etc.. (chances are I have never found a 
> good one), and the one in my collection just sits in the drawer for 
> these same reasons. But I'm wondering what would the results if I take 
> another mouthpiece I like it and shape my Link's facing with that 
> curve shape? Ex: My RPC curving facing shape over to a Link.
>
>