Tip opening/baffle on Ebonite, good indication to picking a Guardala?

[Michael Bishop]

Hi Johnny,
Starting this week I have officially begun to work with my new Instructor every single week–very happy/excited about it…BIG smiles on my face finding him 🙂 Before I ask my question, read the following so you can get greater insights into the question I’m asking as it’s related to selecting the right Guardala for me: When you made the announcement about being able to buy the REAL Guardala I was going to jump on the Studio for Tenor right away like I had bought from Amazon before and my Instructor told me “just sit tight for a bit”. He’s had me using an ebonite Vandoren Jumbo Java T95 for Tenor 2 weeks which has a Step baffle with a tip opening of .116″. Using the reed size of 2.5 medium that I always use I discovered the tip opening on this MP was too narrow for me, we’re getting that ‘fat, hissing’ sound because the reed doesn’t vibrate enough. So the solution is either to downsize the reed by 1/2 size or open up the tip opening to compensate for thicker reeds. We tried downsizing the reed first and it was fantastic in the normal range of the Sax, but had to work a little harder to get Altissimo to come out (typical with thinner reeds). With the reeds I normally use of 2.5 medium, Altissimo pops out easily So he approved of me opening up the tip opening to .120″ to compensate for a thicker reed, which our member Kevin here on your site is going to do for me…THANKS SO MUCH KEVIN, YOU ARE AWESOME!!! :)–sorry about the large print shouting out to Kevin, but got to make sure he sees it LOL I really love seeing his videos, he’s a very sincere & genuine person 🙂
So with the above being said, if we’re finding that an MP with a step baffle and tip opening of .116″ is too narrow of a tip opening for me, is that a good indication as to which Guardala I should pick, or are there other variables to take into consideration too? An ebonite MP is not the same thing as a metal MP (much less a Guardala) but at the very least we’re finding what works for me/what doesn’t work so that I can pick the right Guardala. My Instructor says he’s definately in favor of me getting a Guardala but told me to “sit tight and hold on” for a little bit.

[Anonymous]

Does the material used make any difference in how mouthpieces play? In my last two columns, we looked at the various types of materials used for mouthpieces, which included wood, metals, synthetics, and crystal. We also looked at a few of the manufacturers of these mouthpiece types. In reality, the type of material does have a dis- tinct effect on such things as tone quality, projection, response, etc., but there are also other aspects of the mouthpiece which we should associate with these effects.

GRENADILLA AND ROSEWOOD MOUTHPIECES

First, the woods used in the earliest mouthpieces were comparatively soft, such as various fruitwoods and box- wood. This type of wood was very workable; most examples are beauti- fully carved and finished. It seems at the time that the very warm, rich tone quality of these was desirable. Of course, we are now talking about clarinet mouthpieces made long before the saxophone was invented. By 1840 grenadilla and rosewood were in common use for the clarinet and, thus, for saxophone too. The earliest, wood, saxophone mouthpieces in our ar- chives were made in France by Buffet. grenadilla was far superior to box- wood. It had much greater density and a specific gravity of over 1.0, such that it would not float. The grain was more pronounced; the tone produced was more brilliant and richer in midrange harmonics. Therefore, grenadilla en- hanced the saxophone sound. The chambers of these grenadilla saxo- phone mouthpieces were round and quite large with a concave roof from tip rail to throat; thus, the dark ‘fat’, almost hollow, sounds we associated with these mouthpieces are how we think of them. Due to the thinness of the walls, they were very resonant in feel, acting to enhance the reed vibra- tions. Due to the relatively low physi- cal strength of these wood mouth- pieces, compared to hard rubber or metal, we normally find a metal ring of some sort applied around the shank to prevent cracking when pushing the mouthpiece onto the neckpipe cork.

The workmanship on the grenadilla wood mouthpieces was usually flaw- less. The material was still soft enough that constructing an accurate facing curve on the side rails is a very touchy operation. Just a little extra pressure will cause a slip in the proper curva- ture. It seems obvious that using mod- ern machinery to apply a facing and table should result in an accurate cut. Unfortunately, wood has a tendency to spring away from the cutting tool, resulting in a variety of products. The cutter is programmed to just cut, not compensate.

AMERICAN HARD RUBBER MOUTHPIECES

Hard rubber became “the thing to use” after Harvey Firestone discovered how to vulcanize, or harden, natural gum rubber. This happened none too soon since the need for clarinets and saxophones grew rapidly in the late 1800s. The new, hard rubber offered a plentiful and inexpensive material. Tolerances could be kept much closer than with wood and it proved to be more stable. Hard rubber also retained the curves of the facing quite accu- rately, regardless of extreme condi- tions, such as temperature and humid- ity. It was also not subject to cracking and excessive wearing caused by the upper teeth. Note that, with minor variations in formulae, hard rubber is still the foremost material used world- wide. To determine the comparative hardness of various hard rubber prod- ucts, whether a hockey puck, an ACE comb, or a mouthpiece, we refer to a hardness scale of numbers called “Shore D.”

SHORE “D” HARDNESS SCALE FOR HARD RUBBER MOUTHPIECES

Most ebonite used for mouthpieces registers between 82 and 95 on this scale. The softer, or less dense, rubber measures in the lower 80s and pro- duces a darker sound, while the higher readings on the Shore D scale are produced by harder rubber, more dense, and produce a progressively brighter tone quality. It should be noted that readings below 82 will produce a dull or flat sounding mouth- piece, while readings above 95 will generate a hard or ‘brittle’ sound. It is possible to vary the Shore D hardness of ebonite by using different formulae of a rubber mix.

The raw natural rubber comes in several varieties, produced by various curing methods. There are many types of ‘lamp black,’ or carbon, to use as an additive. You may think it strange to first produce hard, vulcanized rubber, then pulverize it, so it can be used as “rubber dust,” an important filler additive in the ebonite mouthpiece. No wonder that, if you ever have the urge to get an analysis of some hard rubber mouthpiece, the analyst will caution you that he can only do so to an accu- racy of 85%. It seems hardly worth it. Then comes the matter of color.

Traditionally an ebonite mouthpiece is black, or nearly so. However, the W.S. Summer Co. made some several years ago which were a dark red. This was also tried by an English maker. It seems that the addition of a coloring powder tends to produce a much softer product that really not well- suited to retain a carefully faced curve without warping. Also the coloring in some instances, even certain lamp blacks, tends to bleed out, especially then they are refaced.

In producing an acceptable rubber compound, the rubber chemical engi- neer will try many different types of ‘filler,’ mostly different rubber dust samples, although some synthetic ones are used as well as varying amounts of certain chemicals, which affect the malleability or molding characteristics of the rubber. In so doing, the engineer can come up with many hundreds of formulae. Then we must determine which will produce the most desirable tonal and response characteristics. Once this has been determined, we must be aware of other variables which will dramatically affect the acoustical and aerodynamic results.

Foremost is the thickness of the walls of the mouthpiece. Perhaps this is best understood by considering my experience while working while work- ing on the clarinet mouthpiece. Gustave Langenus produced an excel- lent product in the 1930s and 40s, using his experiments in a different gradua- tion of thickness for the beak area. As one might suspect, he found that a thinner material can be more easily set in vibration than a thick one. In my trials, I started with a “normally” shaped mouthpiece. In filing and scrap- ing the beak area, I found that, as the material was thinned, the response and tone production suffered progres- sively. At a point somewhere near half the original beak thickness, the clarinet ceased to play, emitting mostly buzzes of various pitch levels. However, when the appropriate thickness was reached by more thinning, the sound and response suddenly reappeared at a greatly enhanced level. In other words, the walls of the mouthpiece can either act with a damping effect or as an auxiliary tone generator for the poor belabored reed. Then the entire scale

of the instrument speaks more quickly and evenly, with a more centered sound and “feel.”

The same changes pertain to saxo- phone mouthpieces as well. They become very evident to the player when comparing our own regular Morgan MI models of alto and tenor mouthpieces with our Excalibur mod- els, which have the same facings and chamber characteristics, but in which the body walls are significantly thinner. This enhances the production of higher partials, thus a more brilliant tonal characteristic.

Referring to the Lelandais’s line of the 1930s, they seem to have been one of the first to have used this technique in their ‘Le Jaseur’ line. The shape of their clarinet, alto, and tenor seem to have been inspired by the very oldest Selmer metal mouthpieces. Lelandais also started the ‘streamlined’ mode early on, which has contributed to many such models by more contempo- rary makers. Again, it is evident that the body wall thickness has a profound effect on the tonal aspects of the mouthpiece.

METAL SAXOPHONE MOUTHPIECES

Metal mouthpieces are not subject to the same tonal changes we note in hard rubber, since the average thick- ness of material used can do nothing but act with a damping effect on the reeds vibration. We tend to ignore the fact that the reed, in beating or vibrat- ing against the mouthpiece, seems to act independently; one of the factors that affects the response of the reed is the ease (or difficulty) with which the mouthpiece material is set into vibra- tion. Many players I’ve discussed this point with are sold on the use of only metal because a long list of prestigious players has used that type of mouth- piece. They do not take into consider- ation the fact that, in the majority of cases, they have only heard a perfor- mance using all manner of electronic enhancement and simplification, either live or on CDs/records/tapes. There- fore, what we hear may be far from what the player, mouthpiece, and instrument actually sound like, due to the whims of the sound engineer, etc., altering the true sound. Experiments show that a mouthpiece properly designed and made of good hard rubber will produce about 30% more sound overall and play with a more centered sound.

Just as the hard rubber materials can vary widely in density and hardness, causing variations in the sound spec- trum produced, metals also vary in composition or alloy, basic metal used, and durability. There are perhaps more alloys in the brass family, ranging from bronzes to ‘plain’ yellow brass. The comparative amounts of copper, tin, lead, zinc, sulphur, nickel, phospho- rous, and antimony all contribute to the sound conducting qualities of the metal. Obviously an alloy with less copper content will be harder and more dense, with a greater capacity to resonate. If you have ever compared the sounds of a fine Zildjian cymbal with some of the lesser quality ones available, the difference is heard imme- diately. There are several alloys of other metals, stainless steel, and alumi- num, for example. The hardest of stainless steel was used in the old Berg Larsen models–they hold dimensions perfectly, but require a great amount of work to apply a proper facing

curve, especially when changing a mouthpiece from, for example, .090″ tip opening to .100″ or from a #6 to a #8. This metal, being much harder, has a tendency toward a harder, clearer sound. The use of a soft metal, such as an aluminum alloy, seems to produce a sound devoid of the proper balance of low, mid, and high harmonic wave lengths. Also this metal does not have the tensile strength necessary to main- tain stability in the critical measure- ments needed for a mouthpiece. The tendency toward corrosion can cause a problem, especially if the player has a high body-acidic condition or the playing is done in a salt-air atmo- sphere. With most metal mouthpieces, it becomes of much greater importance that the basic design be the result of much acoustical and aerodynamic study, so that they will allow maximum efficiency of vibration of the reed since they naturally provide more damping of the reed than hard rubber or syn- thetic materials.

DISTINCT QUALITY OF SILVER MOUTHPIECES

One metal which does have the capacity, given the correct alloy, to produce a distinct clarity of sound, is silver. Sterling silver, which is 92.5% pure silver, an alloy with a hardness capable of retaining the specifications of a finely made mouthpiece, which resonates at frequencies conducive to the production of a richness of sound not present in most other metal mouthpieces. Playing one is a unique experience, since they do not produce any of the ‘harshness’ I associate with metal mouthpieces. Of course, to be sure of the purity of the silver, look for the ‘hallmark’ denoting sterling which is stamped into the product.

PLASTIC MOUTHPIECES

Contrary to the effect of a coloring agent in hard rubber, we have used a variety of colors or dyes in plastic or synthetic mouthpieces with no detri- mental effect. One vitally important property which all mouthpieces must have, regardless of type material, is that they are not carcinogenic or injuri- ous to one’s health in any way. Obvi- ously, this eliminates many metal alloys and synthetic compounds.

Now that you have a more complete understanding of the material side of your mouthpiece, please don’t think that any one aspect of the mouthpiece will automatically cure your problems. Regardless of material used, a poorly designed and/or made piece can’t be made into a royal coach from a pump- kin just by this one change. We must still consider all the aspects at length if the “perfect mouthpiece” is to be found. Good hunting! §

[Anonymous]

http://www.kesslerandsons.com/blog/saxophone-mouthpiece-a-sax-players-best-friend/

[john]

Michael, I think of an ebonite mp as a good stepping stone towards a metal. There’s a lot of players with great tone that play on an ebonite. a metal is not for everyone, but it’s for me.
That comparison video I did over a year ago on the Trevor James alto with a Meyer hard rubber and a Cluade Lakey ebonite is a good example…
Many players choose the Meyer for that classic alto sound but I liked the Lakey way better because it was brighter and louder, that’s because of the material. the next progression for me would be a metal such as the Guardala.
So I think your instructor has given you a very logical suggestion, much like I would do. The tip opening of my Guardala’s are in the 118-120 range. I don’t pay much attention to the numbers. they seem to differ too, even on Nadir’s site I think. But if your ebonite is 116 then you’ll be ready for an MBII or Fatboy soon enough. Meanwhile work on that one and have fun with it and keep experimenting with reeds.

[Michael Bishop]

Sounds great Johnny–I like what you say how not all players use metal MPs and they still had a huge tone, look at players like Lee Allen and King Curtis–they rarely used metal MPs and after using these Ebonite MPs that my Instructor has using it is possbile that I may end up being one of those players who rarely use a metal MP too. I’m REALLY loving the Ebonite MP for a variety of reasons. I can get a much smoother, fuller sounding sound and transition from note-to-note without sounding rough; which was a problem I found for many metal MPs. But at the same time I can pop out Altissimo, Growls, etc. in Blues and it sounds bright like metal MPs and my instructor wants me to stay put on this Ebonite MP for a while and he said later this year he and I will both have a better idea as to whether or not I should make that transition to something like a Guardala, things may evolve where metal MPs simply aren’t for me at all but we’ll see. One fantastic thing I’m excited about is that having a pro player like this to work with, he can help me to get to know myself in the sense of what works/doesn’t work for me. I’ll start uploading soon when my sorely-need mic comes in and then you can get a better idea as to how I’m coming along with Ebonite MPs….one thing he is strongly against is a student player making a switch to an MP like a Guardala with the thought that if I don’t get one then I won’t sound good and how our perception of sound varies from one player to the next. He has told me there are valid reasons for making a switch to another MP, but then there are reasons that aren’t good for switching MPs. As time goes along this year we’ll see how things go. Thanks Johnny got your great insights—-AWESOME upload with Soul Serenade! 🙂

[Anonymous]

Sxpoet – thanks for posting that interesting article on MP materials.

[Anonymous]

you welcome Jeff – i put that article in for Michaels benifit.
As i can see he’s going through exactly what i went through 2 years ago.

i was just fortunate in my case, thst i started with a working Pro sax player that taught in his spare time from the moment i bought my sax. So within the 1st six months of playing he had my setup sorted out and me playing in tune.

But that didn’t stop me from buying 2 theo wannes and a guardella king – i bought them as a long term investment to grow into.

I did have to upgrade from my yamaha 4c to a selmar soloist ebonite to get the setup that works for me – under my Pro’s guidance.

My Pro – found the right mouthpiece for me and the correct mouthpiece size! What he then did was leave up to me to test out lots of reeds to find the reed brand & size that i felt comfortable with.

in my case buy a sax , get a teacher immediately – and you can save yourself a lot of problems several years later.

like my grandad used to say – a repair done on the cheap will cost you more than if you paid to have it done properly.

[Bill Mecca]

Material doesn’t matter as much as geometry. that said it is nearly impossible to find a metal and a hard rubber mouthpiece with the same dimensions. The only one I know of is the Runyon Quantum in chromium and Delrin ( I have both, though the delrin is not stock it started life as a #9 and I had it opened to a 12). HR is by nature larger externally because of the material. What really determines the mouthpiece sounds is the internals: the baffle, the sidewals (are they straight or curved) does the throat squeeze to give it an extra pop. check out some of the old Saxophone Journal columns by Ralph Morgan.

All that said, I sound pretty much the same on everything I play be it my HR Berg, Custom Link, Quantum, Rovner. There are slight differences, mostly noticable to the player. For me the deciding factor is mouth feel. How does it feel in the mouth, how flexible can it be. I love the power of my HR Berg, but it wears out my chops, while when I put my Link STM on and its like old home week.

My advice, get something relatively middle of the road, work with it, drain it over everything you can, and if you still want more, then go looking. For something brighter in HR, check out a Vandoren Jumbo Java (I’ve played T45, 75 and 97 and wish I had never sold the last two) Stainless Steel Berg Larsen, ala King Curtis, Jr. Walker in a 0 or 1 chamber and .110 and up facing. Bergs are notoriously mismeasured, and difficult to have worked on because of the material. (It kills refacers hands). Another bright, yet flexible HR mpc is an RPC by Ron Coehlo.
Remember if you go for a higher baffle, go for a larger tip opening. If you stay with a smaller tip, it can form a bit of a vacuum and shut down on you if you try to put a lot of air through.

Just my buck 380 after having ridden the mouthpiece carousel one too many times. 😉

[Anonymous]

i wonder if you can compare seasoned sax players to seasoned road drivers?

Take someone who drives a truck all their life, stick them in a mini car and they will trash round the roads like they are handling a truck.

Where as take someone who has driven a mini car all their life and they will struggle to control a huge truck on the roads.

In the same sense as comparing tonal differences between materials and dimensions.

pure silver sounds completely different to brass.

[Kevin]

Bill, that was one of the more informative MP breakdowns I’ve had the opportunity of reading. Thank’s for contributing! I need to branch out and find the means to experiment with different MP’s instead of having a decent sax to learn to play that has an “uninspiring” MP (talking about the tenor sax I got 2 years back that I’ve only had a $24 Hite MP to put on it), hence I choose to leave it in it’s case. Had a bit of a long dry spell of not having or choosing to spend the dough to have better accessories for my sax, but Uncle Sam is giving me back some of the money I gave him last year so maybe a new MP is in the cards…

[Author]

Posts