Bari mpcs&reeds sealing/POP test

[Subtone Sam]

Is it harder to get a good seal (POP test) with bari mpcs&reeds than with smaller horn's mpcs and reeds?

I have several bari mpcs and most of them start to leak after 15 minutes of playing,no matter which brand reeds I use,making them harder to play and they loose some of the edge in sound.

I have the same problem with tenor and alto too sometimes but not to the same degree as with bari.Is because of larger size mpc&reed of the bari,bigger mpc=bigger problems?

Does anyone have same kind of experiences?

[G.M.]

Sam,you're right.
The pop test is almost impossible if you play a normal bari opening
(I tried now to do it on a Selmer E mpc,and it works,but I can't do it on my
#9 Link)
Maybe the bigger reed has bigger problems,but I think the matter is that we bari players are asking for more on our horn than we do on altos and tenors.

[Subtone Sam]

G.M,I play around .125 pieces and all of them seal at first but after 10-15 minutes the seal is gone,so it must be the reed.Big,natural cane reed changes its shape very easily,I guess.

[jbjazzman]

if the table is absolutely flat and the rails even
and correct you can get as good a pop on a bari piece
as on any smaller piece. I play mostly 110 tip openings
on my links and meyers. they all pop nicely, some as
long as 3 or four seconds, BUT, they've all been perfected
by Doc Tenney. Playing time doesn't matter, and, pretty
much all reeds work fine from the get-go.

[MojoBari]

I dont find the pop test that important. I have played dud pieces that pass the pop test and great ones that do poorly with it.

If it changes in 15 minutes, it is reed warpage against a flat table. Doc's pieces can do this too since he puts on a perfectly flat table. Just sand the bottom of your reeds or use synths if it bugs you.

[jbjazzman]

let's see.......hard rubber mouthpiece, metal ligature that
fits snuggly, and, a warping cane reed is going to be able
to lift itself off a perfectly flat table??........i don't think so.

i'll grant you a piece can pop a vacuum and not play, that
can be a function of the baffle, chamber, etc. BUT, if there
is not a good seal, then it's NOT gonna play well for very long.
reeds get blamed for this all the time, the truth is FAR more
reeds from a box will play if the reed table is FLAT, without
having to sand the reeds, etc etc etc.

[MojoBari]

How do you explain the change after 15 minutes of playing (the original question)?. Sam said nothing about his ligature.

I did not mean to imply a flat table was bad. I prefer flat tables too.

[jbjazzman]

IF the table is NOT flat, i will let the reed go
into it's warp routine. No amount of cranking
down on the lig will get a reed to lay flat
on a table that isn't flat once the reed is hydrated.
If it IS on a flat table, or, for that matter, stored
to dry in a reedguard, it WILL tend to dry flater
and play better for a longer period of time when
used again. This is not to say that some light
sanding of the reed table won't help, but, at least
you eliminate the mouthpiece from the equation.

[Subtone Sam]

I use Rovner ligatures and stock ligature on a metal Lawton.I have experimented with ligature positions and it has some effect but not much.

If there is no sealing with the reed and mpc,the sound loses its edge,its harder to get a proper projection and the mpc becomes harder to play.Somehow,bari seems to be more sensitive to this than smaller horns.

[MojoBari]

Like I said, I prefer flat tables. I think we should encourage our reeds to be flat, otherwise the cycle of swelling and warping might shorten their life and yeild inconsistent results. But I have no proof that fighting this cycle is better than letting it happen.

Many ligatures do not use enough force to fight reed swelling.

I have seen concave table mouthpieces that allow reeds to swell and they always seal around the perimeter of the table. I met a player who stored his reed on his mouthpiece, which had a large concave table. It sealed great and had plenty of pop. He then tried his reed on one of my flat table pieces and it was horrendous. It took me a while to figure out what was going on. Sure his reed was swollen/warped to match his mouthpiece. He sounded great.

So I do not take a hard stand that concave tables are bad. I've seen them work too. Convex tables are all bad.

[jbjazzman]

Seems like we are going in circles here. Mojo, you shouldn't
just "prefer" flat tables, you should insist on them. How can you
modify/correct a mouthpiece without addressing a warped, curved,
convex or concave table??????? Granted in establishing a truly
flat table, one often has MUCH more work in order to get the curves
of the piece to where they were or WHERE they are supposed to be.
To only address imperfections in the curve of the side rails without
giving full consideration to the rails relationship to both the table
and the tip rail is to overlook the major part of correcting or perfecting
a mouthpiece.

Sam, I have a Lawton 6 special that I used off and on, but it didn't
seal well or play consistantly. Geoff's finish work was one of the best,
BUT, the table on this piece was NOT flat either. Once it was corrected
and adjustments made to refine the side rails, it plays like I had
originally expected.

A flat table by itself is not going to solve all your problems with reeds
warping and all that, BUT, if you don't start out with a flat table, you
will only get a small part of the potential out of your mouthpiece.

[MojoBari]

I will explain my opinion, but I will rarely impose it on others. If our explanations repeat themselves, then we are going around in circles. I do not expect everyone to think like me and you should not expect me to think like you. I'm sure we will agree on most matters.

Every piece I have reworked in the past had a flat table on it when I was done with it. Convex and warped tables must be fixed. I'll insist on that. But a nicely made concave table with a flat perimeter is not a defect. I have a very nice Meyer/JVW with a slight concave table. It is a different philosophy on how to get the job done. If a client insisted he wanted this type of table, I would discuss the merits of both options and do whichever he wants. I think concave tables are easier to make than flat tables. You dish it out and lightly face the table until the perimeter is flat. There are no high spots in the middle to spoil the flatness.

In fact, Subtone Sam may want to consider trying a concave table to see if it lessens his problem. Lawtons usually have pretty good flat tables. So far, no other solutions have been offered other than sand the reed table or clamp it down with more force than his Rovner can deliver. Maybe he should try a different metal lig or a Fibracell reed first.

[coufplayer]

I would appreciate it if someone explained what the "pop" test is.
Thanks

[MojoBari]

See

http://www.unitedmusical.com/accessories/rousseau.htm

and scroll down.

[Super 20 Player]

If a client insisted he wanted this type of table, I would discuss the merits of both options and do whichever he wants. I think concave tables are easier to make than flat tables. You dish it out and lightly face the table until the perimeter is flat. There are no high spots in the middle to spoil the flatness.Mojo - in your opinion, are there any noticeable differences in the playing response of mpc with a convex vs. a flat table? That is, if you took one of Doc's mpcs with a pefectly flat table, and made the table convex, would I notice any difference in how it played?

That's kind of a loaded question, since I already have an opinion on the matter. I'm just curious what your opinion is. I promise not to debate it with you.

[Joe]

Super20player, I'm not Mojo, but I would like to respond.

A flat table offers the assurance that, once the back of a reed is flattened, the reed will always seal provided no foreign matter (like dirt) gets in the way. There is the occasional wacky reed that will swell unevenly and have to be flattened again. JVW liked concave tables because they avoided these problems. Some mouthpiece makers and refacers (I believe Frank Wells was one of these) prefer concave tables because they claim that it allows the back of the reed more freedom to vibrate sympathetically and thus helps low note response. The trick with concave tables is in making sure that there is a completely flat surface on the table adjacent to the window and rails so that no air can get by. Mojo is right, reeds played for a while on a concave table just won't play well on a flat table. I can't switch tenor reeds between my two favorite tenor pieces because of this.

Now, as to response, you shouldn't notice a big difference between a flat or concave table as long as they both seal well. As I said, some do believe the low register is better with a concave table. I've also known players and refacers that think that concave tables get a fuller, rounder, less reedy sound while flat tables get a solider, brighter sound. Certainly it's not a major factor in the tone either way. Making a flat table concave is about the only thing I've never done to a mouthpiece. I'll play around with this sometime to see the effect on sound. I'll let you know after I do.

[MojoBari]

You are making me think more about the subject than I think is warrented, but that's OK. I use Fibracells, so my first thought is that it does not matter on flat vs. concave as long as they both seal. I've removed many concave tables as part of refacing jobs and pieces are great when I'm done with them. If they are not, I tweek the facing curve until they are. I have never been inspired to make a concave table to make a piece "better". It just seems like a fruit-less path.

However, thinking about it more, I can not rule out that a piece will feel a little different to a player after just a table change. Heck, we change ligatures in that area and they make a subtle difference (but some say lots, some say none). So I'll say the effect is less than a ligature or reed change in my opinion.

I just reworked a sop piece supposedly set-up by F.Wells. It did have a nicely made concave table. It also had a very poor facing on it. Uneven and a bad curve. The tip and length were on spec, but in between was a mess. It was from his later years.

[Nefertiti]

I had a ponzol ML awhile ago that would play great at first but then the reed would get all wacky and it wouln't get suction. Sometimes this would make it skweek or sometimes it wouldn't play at all. I would take the reed off the piece and could see saliva on the table of the reed. I figured the saliva was getiing between the reed and table somewhere along the window and then was warping the reed or something. I now have a new alto piece that I love but it's doing the same thing. When I take the reed off theres saliva on the table. The guy who worked on it says he does concave tables and that flat tables aren't as good and that my problem is common. He offered to make it flat if I wanted. The thing I'm wondering is that I've had 4 JVW pieces and none of them did this so maybe it's not a matter of the convcave table but the fact that the space on the table near the window isn't flat? On the other hand I don't do anything to ensure that my reeds are flat so maybe it's the reeds. So far out of 6 RJS reeds I've used 3 have had this problem and 3 have been fine. What do you think Mojo? By the way, I sent that ponzol piece to Ponzol to fix. He worked on it and replated it. I got it back and sure enough it did the suction test great but guess what? I didn't like the way it played? Go figure.

[Dr G]

From Fred Lamberson's website:

http://www.fred.lamberson.com/on%20facings.htm

"The first thing a piece needs is flat table, without it no facing can have any reasonable degree of efficiency. I put a slight depression beneath the window, this allows for some swelling which naturally occurs with bamboo. With the depression there it gives the reed a 3 point surface to rest on and this results in a much more stable reed that won't rock back and forth or off to one side so that if you put the ligature up on the piece it can shorten the facing (also known as the lay) and if you put it further down it will rock back a bit and lengthen the lay."

I play an 8J (.120") that is incredibly reed friendly and forgiving. I don't crank down on my Francois Louis lig - only enough pressure to hold the reed in place.

[Ol' Mpc Doc]

The assumption seems to be made that troublesome reed warpage only occurs on the butt of the reed where it is supported by the solid area of the reed table. It seems to be generally recognized that the reed will conform to the surface supporting it and will "deform to conform" with that surface if the surface is concave. Since the reed "table" extends well up the side rails toward the tip before the facing curve itself "breaks" away from that surface, I wonder why reed warpage is apparently thought to only happen on the solid area of the table. What do you think is happening to the area of the reed over the window supported only by the part of the side rails which are an extension of the (hopefully!) flat solid reed table? Does it matter? Possibly not since it is not having to "conform" to anything except the perimeter of the window, but this may be a source of oft-overlooked problems. The idea of putting a concavity at the bottom of the window extending into the solid reed table having any influence on the ligature position as it would alter the effective facing curve length is pretty "far out" in my book. The part of the reed below the facing curve "break" from the ostensibly flat surface offered by the solid reed table and the continguous side rails simply doesn't vibrate if the ligature is properly placed and tightened. Otherwise, why bother with carefully establishing a facing curve "break" from flat in the first place? And, anyone trying to establish a correct facing curve on an alto or tenor mpc whose thickest feeler gauge is only 0.050" is failing to measure what is arguably the most important part of the facing curve which is nearest the tip. It's only my opinion, of course.

[Subtone Sam]

Lamberson bari mpc I have is one of the few ones that do seal well,Fred knows what he is talking about.

[MojoBari]

I think Fred does a nice job on his pieces (except the chamber finishing). But what he wrote may not be what he meant. I think his "3 points" are the 3 straight edges of the mouthpiece table. If the reed was really supported on 3 points there would be a lot of air leakage.

I think when he is talking about ligature placement changing the effective lay it is on a convex table or swollen reed, not his pieces.

[Super 20 Player]

You are making me think more about the subject than I think is warrented, but that's OK.Isn't that what this forum is all about? :wink:

However, thinking about it more, I can not rule out that a piece will feel a little different to a player after just a table change. Heck, we change ligatures in that area and they make a subtle difference (but some say lots, some say none). So I'll say the effect is less than a ligature or reed change in my opinion.Pretty much my opinion, too.

So who here remembers the old, old Meyers with the hollowed-out tables? What were they called? Tru-Flex facings? Doc?

[Ol' Mpc Doc]

Yeah, I remember the Meyer "True-Flex" mpcs. I also remember how quickly the Meyer Bros dropped the design - and why.

[Super 20 Player]

I guess it didn't work too well, eh?