How to improve new Rubber Links?

[CMS]

Hey anyone have some ideas on how I can improve the sound of a newer production tenor rubber Link without sending it away to a refacer? I like the overall sound but mine seems a little dark or stuffy; I want a little bit more clarity to it's sound. I know that adding a baffle will help some but what shape and in what location do they work best on this particular mouthpiece? Thanks everybody.

[MojoBari]

For Links I usually start with a pea-sized ball of putty. I make a speed bump-like mound of putty out of it. I start it 1/3" away from the tip and end it 1" away from the tip. This type of baffle preserves the large round open chamber sound of Links while adding some projection to it.

After you find a baffle you like, you can make it more permanent by using plumbers' epoxy putty.

[Mike Ruhl]

Mojo, have you ever messed around with removing the funky little rollover baffle from a rubber Link for tenor? If so, what was the effect?

[MojoBari]

They all dont have it. Many have a small ledge or shelf, ending 1/4" away from the tip, then it angles away. I usually get rid of roll-over baffles, but keep the straight ledge. Many of the good FL Links have it.

[CMS]

MojoBari, does the baffle "speed bump" run with the rails inside the baffle area or does it run across the baffle area from one rail to the next?

In others words, do I create a drop off ledge from wall to wall across the baffle area or do I just center the ball of putty down the center of the baffle running from the tip to shank (looking like a small hill in the baffle area)?

Thanks ALOT!

[MojoBari]

Closer to "a drop off ledge from wall to wall across the baffle area".

Its a speed bump shape, your air stream is the direction the car is driving over the bump. A mound perpendicular to the flow.

[Ol' Mpc Doc]

My advice is don't mess with this part of the baffle unless you're willing to risk totally trashing the mpc. The relationship of the tip rail and the rest of the baffle to this "speed bump" in the current Link chambers is VERY critical to response and tonal color.

[Mike Ruhl]

See post below.

Mike

[MojoBari]

Is not "Blue Printing" a variation of messing with the baffle to suit the needs of players?

I only change them help a player meet their goals. There is no reason to change anything if the player is satisfied.

[Mike Ruhl]

Well...yeah. If you look at the pics of the Tenney rubber Links out at saxquest.com, it looks as if the speed bump got flattened. So I guess I'm a little confused by Doc's reply, too.

What got me thinking about this ir the fact that I had a new rubber Link 5 that I greatly enjoyed playing. One of the things I enjoyed was the bite, and the steeper table angle that they put on the smaller-tipped Links. I'd like to have that table angle on a mpc with about a #7 tip. But to do that would likely require filing into the speed-bump baffle.

[Ol' Mpc Doc]

I wasn't offering arguments, just advice. The risk I alluded to is most certainly there if you don't know exactly what you're doing and how to do it properly. "Blueprinting" is exactly that, not "hotrodding" an already excellent design.

There is no difference in the raw castings or exterior dimensions of a HR Link #5 and #7 and the beak angles are identical.

It is entirely possible to open the mpc without any cutting at or near the tip at all by cutting the table at an angle to tilt the reed away from the tip rather than cutting the tip away from the reed plane. This is how I do it exclusively. This preserves the relationships I mentioned in my earlier post.

[Bootman]

What if you wished to go wider on the Tip than a 7*? Are there any measurements to follow or is it all by dead reckoning?

[Ol' Mpc Doc]

Hi Richard,

The most I've ever opened a mpc using my "biased butt-cut" method is 0.040" and this was on a Steve Broadus New York "Perfected Model" S4** that was on display - and test- played by several players at the WSC last week. Until shown the small flat spots on the shank under the reed table, they had no idea the mpc had been modified since the tip was totally uncut, the table and rails were original width and the "cheeks" radiused and polished like new. There are no "formulas" for doing it this way but a lot of experience in perfecting the technique is essential. Knowing the "target" tip opening and the correctly-coordinated facing curve for that tip opening is where you start. The rest of it is the "trick".

Doc

[CMS]

Hey there guys, I tried MojoBari's "speed bump" suggestion on my Link. The results were very interesting in that the baffle I created gave my sound more presence but still retained that dark Otto Link sound. I used dental wax for the baffle material which seems to be just the thing to try different ideas out. It holds the shape well but is not permanent. I still need to play on the set up some more but I think for me it is a step in the right direction.
BTW, why did Otto Link put the funky little tip baffle in there anyway? Doesn't the concavity after that baffle create a darker sound with less edge? My Rousseau NC5 has a slight concavity area after the tip baffle and it seems to have a dark "legit" distant presence to it's sound. However, my alto Florida Tone Edge has the earlier angled tip baffle which seems to have that brighter more present sound that I am after. I wonder why Otto Link changed a good thing?

[Mike Ruhl]

Doc - I wasn't offering an argument either, just trying to understand what you were saying, and balance it with my observations. I have great respect for your opinion.

With that rubber Link 5, I first noticed that the bite felt "bigger" in my mouth - my jaw was being forced more open than I have ever experienced before. Then I noticed that, when I laid the mpc on a flat desktop next to another rubber Link (a 7*), both mpcs laying on their tables, the bore hole was up higher from the desktop on the 5 than the 7*. Side-by-side comparisons revealed that the table on the 5 was cut at a greater angle relative to the line of the bore. I assumed that this was done to maintain consistency of the size and shape of the speed-bump baffle for all tip openings - basically the same reasons you cite for using your "biased butt-cut" technique.

So, are you saying that Babbitt does NOT vary the angle of the table (not the beak) relative the bore line for the various tip sizes of rubber Links?

[Ol' Mpc Doc]

Your observation about the shank bore entry centerline relative to the table is correct. There is a difference because the table IS cut at a different angle to obtain the different tip openings which results in essentially identical tip facet thicknesses, tip rail width and tip rail/baffle relationships for the different tip openings. Otherwise, a Link 10 would be much thinner at the tip than a Link 5. The point so many miss is that the Link mpcs are originally manufactured in different tip openings by using what is essentially a "biased butt-cut" such as I use for increasing tip openings. Subtle differences in tip facet and/or beak thickness and angle are the result of the mpcs coming off different casting molds. Similar differences can be present regarding the baffle profile depending on the core mold used in making the mpc. This is why I "hand select" the mpcs I "Blueprint" for sale. Customer-owned mpcs will invariably have some "production tolerance" variations that can usually be successfully "Blueprinted". In my experience, the last thing requiring attention is the chamber itself. Correcting the reed table concavity, tip opening and and facing curve usually provides dramatic improvement and, IMHO, should precede any material removal in the chamber. My earlier cautionary remarks regarded only the irreversible removal of material from the tip rail & baffle areas.

[Mike Ruhl]

Thanks again, Doc and Mojo!