STM Link- projection? My first experience with one

[sinkdraiN]

Ok, let me preface by saying I have played a Vandoren V16 for all of my tenor years. Thats maybe 10 years. I have tried many other mouthpieces but I'm proud to say I stayed true to just one.

I recently bought a new STM Link 8 untrialed. First off- to all of you who worry about your projection with a metal link and ask for louder alternatives (like a V16): These metal links are LOUD! My V16 is a T95 with a monster opening and I find no drop in projection when I blow the STM 8 which is slightly less open. These things can roar. I am also amazed at how bright they are. Based on what people say sometimes I was expecting this real dark soft muffled tone. Not true; these plain-jane STMs can be played real mean.

I know Links can vary from mp to mp and I'm not convinced I have a good one. Some notes don't speak in the lower register and I really have to push certain notes. I'm sure Phil Barone or Mojo would make it play like a dream but I think I'm going to just play it stock for awhile to see what its all about.

I'm not sure if I like it better than my V16. My V16 is just so darn easy to play. It gets out of my way. The STM Link is equally LOUD and can still be played almost as bright. The STM definately has more meat in the sound. The V16 emphasizes the high and low frequences but leaves the guts on the soft side. The Link has emphasis on the guts part the V16 leaves out but slightly less highs. On tape the Link sounds wonderful. At first I thought it was stuffy but realised its just the difference in resistance because the Link played strong bright and clear on tape. There is something too be said though for ease of playing and thats where the V16 shines. I dont have to do anything to get notes to speak- effortless!

Anyway- Links can be played much louder than I thought. The Ponzol M2 was certainly louder than this link but only by a small margin. I feel like I would have no problem playing next to a pleyer with an M2 using this link.

I'll probably be back on my V16 though :)

[Les22]

Thanks for sharing; very interesting. I need to try a link someday.

[DirkW]

I'll probably be back on my V16 though :)

I hope you try a refaced link before you go back permanently to your V16. The reface should clear up the stuffyness and problem notes.

Did you try the Ponzol you mentioned? Ponzol's consistantly have good facings. The M2 is a little brighter than a standard Link STM with plenty of guts. My favorite mouthpiece is a Ponzol II-V-I which is a little darker than a Link with extreme guts. The Ponzol M1 falls between an M2 and a II-V-I. A used Ponzol will normally cost about the same as a used Link STM plus a touch-up on the facing.

[rini]

Thanks for sharing. I've decided to try a V16 quite soon :). T77 or T95.

rini

[sinkdraiN]

DirkW- I am curious about the Ponzol M1 110. I imagine it to be similar to my V16 in terms of brightness. I should try one. I found the M2 a tad too smooth for me. Not enough roughness. almost too alto like. I wonder if the M1 is a little more "ugly."

Way back I was playing a V16 T75 and found something missing so I tried a Ponzol M2 120. The M2 was very loud, clear, and full, and SO EASY to play. For that I loved the piece. However, I and everyone else who listened to me play my V16 and the M2 prefered the sound of the V16. Someone commented that the ponzol had a "white" sound and the V16 had a "yellow" sound. I laughed because I think actually understood what he was saying. I realised from that trial that I liked the V16 best but I needed a bigger facing. The T95 solved all that for me and I stilll play it.

[Super 20 Player]

I came up playing a Link STM 7* (late Florida variety), and I've tried the V16 T95, the Ponzol M1, M2, and rubber Custom, in the 110 facing. The Ponzol M1 is closer to a Link STM in terms of response and sound than the M2, imho. I found the M2 sound too thin for general playing, but wouldn't hesitate to use an M1. It has more cut/projection than the Link or the V16, imho. I liked the Custom (rubber version of the M2) better than the M2. I'd like to try an M2 120, just to see if the bigger tip fattens the sound up some for me.

The great thing about the V16 T95 is that it has a ridiculously long facing curve - something like 30mm. I like that. I could play #4 V16 reeds on it with ease. It's a loud mpc, as opposed to the baffled Ponzols, which create a sound that projects. I get flamed every time I bring up the whole volume vs. projection thing, but I think there's a real difference.

If I had the $$$, I'd like to have a Ponzol M1, M2, and a V16 T95, to go along with my Florida Link. I would swap them out based on venues, musical styles, and my mood. But that's $700-800 that my wife won't let me spend. But if I had to pick just one of the above, it would probably be the M1, in either the 110 or 115 facing.

[DirkW]

Ponzol's are quite clear and focused. My II-V-I is a little grittier than normal because I had Mojo lengthen the facing. The appeal for me is that I have natural overtones and grittiness that I'm always trying to supress. If you're going to get 'ugly' on a Ponzol, you'll have to growl.

[sinkdraiN]

Is the M1 designed like a link- concave walls or designed like a V16- straight walls

[sinkdraiN]

haha, I just had my 7th grade trumpet lesson decided which they prefered- the link or the V16. 4 loved the link and the other 4 loved the V16 :D

[Super 20 Player]

Is the M1 designed like a link- concave walls or designed like a V16- straight wallsStraight sidewalls, step baffle with a wee bit of concavity to it. Here are pictures from the Saxforte website:

soprano: http://www.saxforte.com/accessories/play/mouthpieces/peter_ponzol_soprano_mouthpieces.jpg
alto: http://www.saxforte.com/accessories/play/mouthpieces/peter_ponzol_alto_mouthpieces.jpg
tenor: http://www.saxforte.com/accessories/play/mouthpieces/peter_ponzol_tenor_mouthpieces.jpg

And here's a pic of the II-V-I that I found on ebay:


Personally, as an old Link player, I wouldn't say any of the Ponzols play like Links. I'd say they play like a good baffled mpc should.

[mountainman]

In my nine mouthpiece test on an earlier thread the STM 7 was fine on the B&S2001, but I wanted more power on the JK Shadow.The stock STM NY 7* has done the trick. Nither the V16 T75 nor the SR Technologies Titan play as clearly throughout the range. I am still looking but I'm not sure for what? It's the easiest blowing setup I have ever played with a Superial #3 reed. I have looked hard at the II-V-I , but it appears to have some baffle which makes this horn go bright. I would love to hear from some other JK black nickel and Shadow players.

[rini]

I agree with Super 20. I have played II-V-I, ML, M1 and Custom (the HR M2 piece).
I played M1 for a while. It was a .105. They were available when the model was introduced, but later Ponzol has not made that tip opening.

M1 was not like a Link. Not the sound nor the design. Not so robust and full sounding as a good Link. But easy and kind of louder. Depends on the player of course.

ML I liked actually more than M1. It was little bit more coarse and aggressive sounding than M1. For me at least. But it was not Link-like.

II-V-I I didn't like at all. Not my type of a piece.

Custom was rather nice, actually. Quite clean and smooth sounding. But in a pleasing way.

The problem with all the above pieces (except M1) was that our local shop had just one facing - .100 - available. I would have liked .110, at least, with these pieces.
I can play a Link 7*, but higher baffle-smaller chamber pieces are, for me, better with more open tips.

The shop had also Millenium 2000 piece with adjustable metal baffle. Nothing special, but the price they asked for it was something: 500$ :shock:

rini

my horn is a Mk6, ´65 vintage.

[rini]

Mountainman,

The guy in that shop of ours got an ashtonishing good link-like sound out of his JK horn with a Ponzol II-V-I.
I'm not 100% sure but I think the JK was a Black Nickel model.

You have to test that piece.

rini

[Super 20 Player]

The shop had also Millenium 2000 piece with adjustable metal baffle. Nothing special, but the price they asked for it was something: 500$ rini: did you happen to visually compare the chambers of the M2000 and ML? I also tried the ML, and have a theory that it's simply the M2000 without the removeable baffle. But I've never compared them side-by-side.

[dirty]

I have both a Link STM 7* and a Ponzol II-V-I 110. They are both great mouthpieces, but for me, the Link is a little more comfortable and sounds fatter and more spread. I tend to get a naturally bright tone, so the sound I get out of the II-V-I is a little more focused than i usually like, although I often pull it out because it's just so fun to play. I'm jamming with a a rock band that a few of my friends are in in a couple weeks, and I'll bring both to see which one works best there.

Moral of this story, I highly reccomend both.

[rini]

Super 20,

Sorry, I played them both, but not side by side.
To my eyes those pieces looked very much alike, so I expected them to sound almost identical. Well, I liked ML more.

Anyway, I did play them within couple of weeks, so I could remember how they worked.

For me the M2000 was kind of a combination of Ponzol pieces. The movable baffle removed it was kinda like the II-V-I and the baffle inserted and in far front position it felt like, well, brighter than M1.
But for me it didn't feel quite natural. A little bit uncomfortable intonationwise, and I regarded it as...one more toy among the other overpriced toys the shopkeeper tried to sell me :)

ML was actually a more positive experience.
I could have bought one had they had more open pieces in stock.

ML is no Link, it's certain, but has some nice qualities of it's own. More robust and earthy sound than M1, for me at least.
I would describe the ML the way 'dirty' describes his II-V-I.

M2000, I wouldn't bother. An overpriced toy.

rini

[mountainman]

I read and appreciate and try to utilize all the comments all of you make. I do not have experience designing mouthpieces or of testing dozens of them, but I am trying to relate what we hear to physical acoustics to better understand why we hear what we hear and help us get where we want to be.

With a baffled piece like the Crescent on the Shadow low B flat-B-C are relatively clear. D-E-F are muffled-- improving up the horn until you reach 2nd register D when the notes blurr somewhat again and as you approach the upper end it becomes brighter. This must be true on ALL horns with a baffled mouthpiece! to a greater of lesser degree depending on the player, the REED, and the specific mouthpiece.

When playing D either 130 or 260HZ a baffled piece produces stronger harmonics in the 2000-4000 Hz region according to test data I have seen. It appears that by acting as a selective filter the mouthpiece "starves" the horn of the harmonics it needs to produce a good clear tone in the D-E-F region?

An open piece like the Link is pretty uniform in harmonic amplitudes above the third harmonic. The link sound is very uniform in tone from the bottom to the top of the horn. I believe the reason some of us like the Link peices above and beyond their "darkness" is that they uniformly pass the reeds frequencies and allow us, if we wish, to have more effect on the sound by reed selection, embroucshure shaping, and overtone production.

The II-V I looks like a baffled piece to me and should do exactly what a baffled piece is designed to do!

[gary]

Well, I don't know nuthin' from test data and scientific speculations, but I can say unequivocally that the high-baffle Charlie A's BBQ has no dead spots. As a matter of fact, Keilwerths are known for stuffy D's and with the BBQ it actually opens up this note. So I don't know where that leaves the theory that high-baffled mpcs muffle D-E'-Fs.

I played on a date Thursday night with the BBQ and it kicked a** throughout the entire range of the horn.

I think it might be better to leave scientifica in the laboratory and just let your ears do your work for you.

[sinkdraiN]

After a lot of recording myself and playing the STM 8 with the V16 T95- I'm back on the V16 again.

I learned why link players love them. And I also see why Link players tell other link players to stick with their link when they feel they can not project. Because they get VERY loud when you play it like you hate it! While the design is very different, the V16 and Link sound very similar on tape. The V16 has a slight buzz or edge on top of the sound. I used to play a T75 and that mouthpiece would sound very thin compared to the Link. The T95 with the LONG curve fattens the V16 up enough to sound and speak very link-like with a slight edge. I can definately see how a player playing a link for a long time would become addicted to the sound and the feel of a link. Its a wonderful mouthpiece.

As for now, I'm still happily playing my V16 T95- and playing the link helped me add a few new colors to the sound of my V16.

Down the road I'd love to try an M1

[rini]

sinkdraiN,

Have you tried a V16 T77?

rini

[Super 20 Player]

With a baffled piece like the Crescent on the Shadow low B flat-B-C are relatively clear. D-E-F are muffled-- improving up the horn until you reach 2nd register D when the notes blurr somewhat again and as you approach the upper end it becomes brighter. This must be true on ALL horns with a baffled mouthpiece! to a greater of lesser degree depending on the player, the REED, and the specific mouthpiece.Don't forget the design of the baffle itself! Its height, length, angle, and contour all play into it's effect. I've played some that were just obviously ill-designed for the task. I think Peter Ponzol has it pretty well figured out.

Anyway, hope you get it figured out. I'd love to try one of those JK Shadows. I'd also love to try one of Charlie A's BBQ mpcs. That looks like a great design to me - actually looks a lot like the old Ponzol Super.

[sinkdraiN]

sinkdraiN,

Have you tried a V16 T77?

rini

No, Rini, I have not tried the T77. The T77 has the same long facing that the T95 has so I would imagine that they play very similar. The T75 has a shorter facing. If I ever find the T95 opening too much work, I'll probably switch to a T77. But the long facing makes my T95 at .116 feel no more open than the Link 8 at .110 with the short curve.

[mountainman]

I'll have to checkout both the BBQ and the II-V-I. The baffle shape and location are precisely what I am trying to get at in another post under resurfacing to see just what can be done to improve a Link?

[rini]

Thanks, sinkdraiN.

V16 T77 and T95 are on my list because of their long facings. I've tried V16 T45 and T75, both too thin sounding, both with shorter more "normal" facings.

My main pieces are Pillinger NYT's with tip openings .108 and long facings, 27mm.
Good for jazz. Excellent players for me, like custom made, really.

Now I would like to have an alternative piece for more contemporary sound. That's why I am interested in these Vandoren pieces.

I did have for awhile Ponzol M1 (.105 tip, no more in production). Nice piece but maybe too small tip opening and definitely with too short facing.

rini

[Super 20 Player]

I'll have to checkout both the BBQ and the II-V-I. The baffle shape and location are precisely what I am trying to get at in another post under resurfacing to see just what can be done to improve a Link?The Wanne knows a thing or three about working on Links. I'm sure what he does to them works, but whether it's an improvement is a matter of opinion. I would rather just buy a different mpc.

http://www.mouthpieceheaven.com/misc/custom.php#link