Bergs and metal Links

[Balladeer]

When listening to tenor players who I know to have been using a Berg, I hear some grit or dirt, a lot of midrange frequencies, and the absence of extremely high frequencies. On the hand, when listening to players using a metal Link (including myself), I hear a smoother, less gritty sound with a definite presence of very high frequencies. To me, the Berg sound is to the metal Link sound as Lou Rawls is to Vic Damone.

Do any of you hear differences between Bergs and metal Links? Can any of the more technically astute provide a reason for these stereotypical sound differences between Bergs and metal Links?

[wersax]

There are lots of differences between Bergs and Links......the problem is, there are lot's of differences between Bergs and Bergs and Links and Links, too! Links and Bergs have changed a lot over time.....see Theo Wanne's www.mouthpieceheaven.com for the details......also Berg has four different chamber/baffle sizes, and to confuse matters more, metal Links are brass, metal Bergs are stainless steel.......the material may or may not matter, but you get my drift......I don't know if you can compare the general tone of mouthpiece brands realistically, or not. You really have to compare individual mouthpieces, and considering the lack of consistency with these brand's facings, this can be difficult....I mean, most of us have a general idea of the Link sound and the Berg sound, but it kind of breaks down from there.....IMHO....to my ears current production Bergs are much brighter than older Bergs and current model Links are darker than older ones. And almost all Berg "0" and "1" chambers are too bright for my tastes, and a whole lot of Links sound stuffy to me. I recently picked up an old Berg SS 130/2 and It's the best Berg I've ever played. But I've played a lot of Bergs that were "dogs"........'hope my rambling commentary helps!

[dirty]

I've only played a couple of modern bergs and links and have never played an old Berg. I got to play my clarinet teacher's 50's Link ToneEdge (purchased new 50 years ago and only lightly used since then, with a toothguard most of the time. BEAUTIFUL! PERFECT!) but that's not metal.

Based on my (extremely limited) experience, berg #2 chambers are nice and fat, #1 chambers are edgier and more aggressive, #3 chambers are kind of boring (The one I played anyway). I've never played a 0 chamber before.

Links tend to be a bit mellower than bergs because they have much less baffle. To my ear, they sound a little sweeter with a less aggressive buzz and are quite a bit darker.

It's hard to go wrong with a good example of either.

[-TH]

I've been messing around with metal Links and Bergs for few years now. I've only owned/played #2 chamber Bergs (vintage ones and modern ones). Currently I have a custom Mojo NY Link STM 7 (with baffle), a 6* Florida STM, a modern STM NY 8 and a Berg 120/2M. Links do indeed have a "smokier", deeper sound to them. The Mojo Link does have a little more edge and "grit" than the other Links (due to the baffle) but not so much as the metal Berg (or Bergs that I've played).

Links do have a smoother, silkier sound quality to them. The Florida Link, especially with Java reeds, sounds very brittle, crisp. The modern ones tend to sound more smooth. But the Bergs are different animals. They sound as fat as Links but the "core" of the sound is very different. It's the "grit" or the "roughness" of the tone that IMO makes Bergs so unique. I've recorded my playing with different mpcs and my findings are that Links have a deep, dark, smoky and smooth sound. Bergs' sound is more "in-your-face" and they seem to have some "distortion" to the sound (grit?).

-TH

[Balladeer]

Thanks for jumping in. Wouldn't it be nice to have a design reason why there is a difference. I group the sounds of players like Plas Johnson, Mark Shim, Gato Barbieri, Sonny Rollins(some), Jay Corre, and David 'Fathead' Newman versus Joshua Redman, Chris Potter, Eric Alexander, Dexter Gordon (post Dukoff), George Coleman, Stanley Turrentine, Ben Webster, etc.

What I hear is a different mix of frequencies. To my ear, Bergs yield more volume to frequencies in the 2khz-4khz range. This is typically denoted as the midrange. I have seen the sound of Links described as 'hollow'. A reduction in volume in the midrange results in a sound that our ears hear as 'hollow'.

When adding a baffle to a Link, the Link can become quite bright in the upper frequencies, perhaps around 8khz. Even the sound of Michael Brecker is basically a Link sound with added brightness around 6-8khz.

What I would like to learn is why. On a Berg maybe that little depression behind the tip, before the baffle begins, dampens the 8-10khz range while the baffle increases the 4khz range. I have been hoping that the mouthpiece techs would have the answer.

[-TH]

How much the material (steel vs. brass) affects? But I understand that you're talking about metal&HR Bergs versus brass&HR Links? Links have a small roll-over baffle and Bergs have either a ramp or a bullet baffle. Much the baffle affects the frequencies that we hear?

'Hollow' is a good term to describe the Link-sound. I was trying to mean that by 'deep'.

In my experience Bergs (especially metal ones) have that small distortion to their sound. Sometimes sounds like the player is growling although he/she isn't. The sound is that way 'dirty'. Links sound quite clean. Vintage Fla Links, as I mentioned before, have a more crispier sound what makes them sound more like a Berg.

Hope this makes some sense..

-TH

[Mike Ruhl]

That little depression behind the tip on the Bergs is a recent design development, done more in the name of manufacturing efficiencies than anything else, I think. In any event, the old ones didn't have it, and the players you mentioned wouldn't have been using Bergs with it.

[sopsax]

It's gotta be the bullet. Here's my personal theory (based solely on playing one deliciously deep, rich, cracked/banded vintage 85/2 alto Berg with tenor reeds for years & years, uncontaminated by any actual knowledge of acoustic physics): The added depth of the bullet chamber emphasizes a note's lower partials, while sound-wave reflections off the bullet's arc-within-an-arc create interference patterns that color the note's upper harmonics with a chorus effect.

Basically, with a bullet-chamber Berg, you sound dark AND bright AND you sound like a player-&-a-half.

[mwhaa]

ok so for a while i played a very vintage duck bill 95/2 m with a bullet chamber that thing was power the sound was just fat brightness. Then a little while ago i tried out 3 bergs and 2 links, the bergs were 95/2(new), 100/2(used modern that i bought), and a 110/2(too big could barely get a sound), i played two links the modern new york one(its a little thinner), and a regular modern link, the 2 smaller bergs were both brighter sounds but i could still play them dark, the normal link was jsut stuffy and hard to get MY sound out, the new york was less stuffy and a little brighter but not ever close. So for me i prefer bergs, for me and two my ears, they have a huge fat sound that is rich in overtones that i can mold to almsot any sound i need.

-mwhaa

[FtLaudSax]

Hi,

Can anyone tell me what year and/or serial number Berg is considered to be vintage vs. modern?

Also, did they make metal other than stainless steel before 1965?

Thanks.

[wersax]

I've never seen a Berg with a serial #; maybe someone else can chime in if they've seen one......I know there were some brass pieces made, I've seen one from the 50's and I've heard of them from the 40's. Bronze Bergs are available now and have been made for a while, but I'm not sure when that started. I've seen a bronze Berg from the 70's. As far as vintage goes, that's more speculative; what is considered vintage seems to be tied to collectors and eBay and all that. I think things changed when Berg died, circa 1970.......quality control appears to have been better before his passing, for one thing.......I like the feel of the 60's Bergs. They're a little bigger than later models, and the side rails are thinner, baffles not so high.....they've got a bigger chamber, in general, (this varies with chamber size, of course), and I believe you can get a more "personal" sound with them. Super small chambers all sound the same to me. But that's just me..........

[FtLaudSax]

Thanks Wersax,

I play on a modern Berg 130/0 M, and have decided to switch to a more practical and darker 120/1 M. While shopping I have heard several times that the vintage pieces were better made, more consistent, etc. So I have decided to go vintage. I'm looking at a piece now, allegedly pre1965. I expect that this piece can be considered 'vintage', or at least, before Berg's passing so perhaps a better piece than a modern 120/1 M.

Thanks for your input.

[wersax]

Just make sure you like the mouthpiece, ya know? Even while Berg was alive (he died in '72) the pieces could be hit and miss. My point is, if it's vintage you've got a better chance of it's quality being higher, but, certainly, no guarantee.....

[Rahspeak]

man, I've got what I think might be one of the best Bergs on the planet! It's actually not really a Berg--it's a Lost Wax resin copy of a HR Berg, I'm guessing a 105/2 from what I can see of the baffle. Ted Klum's work is so so good, and this is the most flexible mouthpiece I've ever played.

I've been trial-ing a Tenney Link STM lately, 7*, and that's a terrific piece as well, but I find the size of hard rubber pieces more to my liking, so the tenney link was at a disadvantage from the start. But the Berg-copy is hands down the winner for me amongst my recent shopping spree, which included RPCs and Morgans as well. no doubt all of these pieces are terrific, and there are gonna be people who feel (rightly so) that any of those pieces could be their "the one". but I'm sticking with this Lost Wax for a WHILE and when I do look into new pieces for alto and soprano, I'm gonna look for some Bergs...

[FtLaudSax]

Hey,

I got my latest piece yesterday, a 120/1 M Vintage Bullet. I was surprised how similar, and how much better, it is to my late model 130/0 M. The vintage piece is just as bright, and just as powerful. However the vintage responds better in the upper register and the altissimo. The bottom end is a little more difficult to support, for now. I'll definately keep it but for a darker tone than my late model 130/0 I would have to try a number 2 chamber in a vintage piece. I'll probably back off the volume a bit more to a 115 or 110, since I can put just as much air through this 120 tip than my 130 late model tip.

Incidentally there looks to be a serial number, perhaps it's a patent number instead. Don't know. Here is a link to a picture of a 110/2 M Vintage Bullet on Saxquest showing a number: http://www.saxquest.com/images/prod/MetalBerg110Tenor7072.jpg

[wersax]

That's a patent #; it says: "REG.DESIGN", then there's a # directly below it..........

[FtLaudSax]

I've only played a couple of bullet chambered bergs, one modern and one vintage duck bill. But I'm interested in a vintage scoop bill. Anybody know the difference between the response and result of the scoop bill as compared to the duck bill?