***Clarifications about mouthpiece works***

[KennyZ]

Hello to everybody,
regarding the mouthpiece modifications, I would like ask to the technicians frequenters of this Forum and also to whoever has more experience in this field some clarifications on some points:

1) Speaking of a not very exaggerated work, around 0.20 (from 0.70 to 0.90 for example) a mouthpiece n. 5 opened to n.7 play like an original n.7? Is it more brighter? An adaptation of the baffle is necessary?

2) Maximized opening of the window (in Rovner style)
Forgetting the request of the client and leaving this decision to the technician, this type of work it is ALWAYS useful and necessary? Is it in accordance with the models? Which are, if there are, the discovered improvements?

3) Correlation among the lowering of the baffle, the increased opening and air pressure.
It is known that for a more wider opening is necessary a more soft reed
When the mouthpiece is opened but contemporarily the baffle is lowered the same strength of reed can be used?

4) According to which criterion the baffle is lowered to avoid problems of intonation?

5) For ebonite mouthpieces 'duckbill' the beak is necessary only when these are physically large or not? Is it also possible to thin the body?

Thanks, regards

[MojoBari]

It will take a lot of typing to answer all your questions. I'l take a shot at them one at a time.

1) You probably mean opening a piece .020" (.070"-->.090"). This is a fairly large change. On a Meyer alto scale, it would be from a 5 to a 9. On a Link tenor scale it would be from a 4 to a 6. You would need to use a much softer reed to get the open piece to play with a similar resistance to the close piece. When you go to the softer reed, the sound can have more buzz in it. You may or may not like this. Also, with the same baffle shape, the sound will be louder and a little darker. But some hear the reed buzz as brighter. It is usually good to let the baffle become higher as you open a tip up. This helps the reed to speak and it also compensates for the dark effect of opening a tip. It is easier to lower the baffle later to adjust the tone than it is too raise it.

[KennyZ]

Thanks for your very exhaustive answer about point 1) :D
Indeed I meant a change of 0.20"
sorry for the small confusion on the numbers, I have not checked the difference of 0.20" among two numbers

I await with a lot of interest your answers on the other points

Thanks for your time :)

[MojoBari]

Again .020", not .20".

[KennyZ]

Oops...

Yes, surely .020", like for Link 5* to 7* (Alto)

:)

[MojoBari]

Someone else can take a shot at these too...


2) Maximized opening of the window (in Rovner style)
Forgetting the request of the client and leaving this decision to the technician, this type of work it is ALWAYS useful and necessary? Is it in accordance with the models? Which are, if there are, the discovered improvements?Widening a window from side to side can give a bigger sound. More of the reed is participating in generating sound instead of flapping away on the side rails. Guardalas and a few others take this to the extreme. Articulation may be a little quicker. Reed edges may wear out sooner.

Several Rovner designs lengthen the window into the table. Jody's DV does some of this too. In my opinion, this does very little, if anything for a mouthpiece. It opens the chamber volume some, but this can be done in other areas of the mouthpiece.

[Bootman]

All of these techniques can be done, it just takes time. When a mpc is refaced, it is usually best to let the refacer do what they feel is necessary to the mpc to make it respond as you wish it too. A good reface will include rails, (tip and sides), Baffle, Window, side wall mods as needed plus a few other needed fixes dependant on the mpc. It is different for every mpc.

A finished mpc can be replated as necessary too. The big issue here is how much do you want to spend on refacing a mpc? It is similar to fixing or sooping up a car, anything can be done if you are prepared to through the money at it.

[KennyZ]

I agree completely regarding the price...

But also for this it is opportune to know which changes involve some modifications and how they work...

[MojoBari]

3) Correlation among the lowering of the baffle, the increased opening and air pressure.
It is known that for a more wider opening is necessary a more soft reed
When the mouthpiece is opened but contemporarily the baffle is lowered the same strength of reed can be used?When you open a mouthpiece, and raise the baffle (toward the reed), you may compensate enough that you may use the same reed strength as before. This usually only works if the tip opening change is small. Like .005-.010" on tenor, .003-.006" on alto.

[MojoBari]

4) According to which criterion the baffle is lowered to avoid problems of intonation?Baffle shape has little or no effect on intonation. Tip opening has a big effect on control. Chamber volume has a medium effect on intonation between octaves and palm keys vs. low notes.

5) For ebonite mouthpieces 'duckbill' the beak is necessary only when these are physically large or not? Is it also possible to thin the body?Custom duckbilling would only be neccessary if you have a medical condition causing pain with standard mouthpieces. There are plenty of mild duckbill mouthpieces out there to try. I would not get into custom duckbilling your pieces. Just get used to playing them the way they are. They probably sound better with a more open oral cavity anyhow. It is possible to thin the body. Again, there are plenty of thin body (streamline-shaped metal) mouthpieces to try without getting into custom work.

[KennyZ]

Thanks Mojo for all explanations!!

:toothy7::cheers: :toothy7:

Regard to the last point, I have asked because I have in mind this work (over to increase the opening to 0.085) for a Berg Larsen Alto in 2 tones of ebonite, opening 0.070 chamber "1" (bright according to the Manufacturer) and "M" lenght of facing.
The piece (the beak and the sides) it is physically large and it doesn't allow me to support my blow on the palate as I use to do.
Comparing the external dimensions with a Morgan (that I find absolutely fantastic) the profile and the sides are indeed larger, not very comfortable for me.
Even if I don't use anymore the 0.070 opening I am reluctant to sell it, it is beautiful and a piece of good quality...
I have looked a lot for it and I have directly ordered to the Factory through Bill Lewington, but I have to say that it has been a disappointment for me
First, I had to work (with care) inside the shank to fit on the cork
I knew about this "particularity" of the Bergs but I didn't believe that it was so tight

The emission is "hard" on the low registers and the sound in general it appears enough shrill and suppressed.
I have compared it with other pieces like Rousseau S J, Rovner and Morgan and it always has lost...

Have you had requests for this type of modification on this Berg model?

[mpcguy]

hey kenny z i have found in the work that i've done on bergs that in general the facings are all over the map and frequently not even close to what they are supposed to be. perhaps having your berg measured for accuracy of curve and correct tip opening will give some idea of why the piece isn't
performing up to your expectations.... erikgmpcguy...mouthpieceguys.com

[MojoBari]

HR Bergs do often have large bites. Some of the HR Sop MPs are really akward to play. Tip openings are usually .010" smaller than marked on Bergs. But I have seen from .025" small to .010" large. The M vs SMS seems to be randomly stamped on pieces. I have not been able to recognize what Berg is trying to do in one vs the other.

Like Erik says, the next step is to have someone measure the piece up to see what you have.

[KennyZ]

Many thanks for your informations!!

Evidently Berg is not accurate in the realization of the pieces and has an excessively disadvantageous cost for the accuracy (the quality of the ebonite however it seems good)

When I try a new mouthpiece I also try all the brands of the reeds that I prefer, also of different strength: each of them responds different for every mouthpiece and every mouthpiece responds different for every type of reed.

For this I say that perhaps the defect is not on the opening (different from declared) or, perhaps, even on the different lenght of facing, thinks that the problem is more technically type structural.
I also have a Berg in steel, chamber "0", 0.070, same result, unfortunately :x

What I know, a mouthpiece is developed according to an original concept, called (I don't know if I am wrong) original standard facing that optimizes all the correlated aspects among them.
I think that, when the piece enters the mass production, all the other openings (more closed or more open in comparison to this standard) are "adaptations" that move away more and more from the original one up to become a different thing, like a simulation.
This simulation can play well or not, according to the various combinations of all measures.
Some brands indicate this standard, many others, (too) not and I find it not correct for the buyer.

Now I understand why some manufacturers offer a limited tip openings series or only one...