Hi,
I've been researching this a bit on the yahoo group, but wanted to ask here as well.
So, I'm a little bit in the dark about the correct way to approach forming roll-over baffles. What I've noticed is that when you take the area down right behind the tip rail (by hand-filing), this allows your tip rail to become better-defined upon final tip finishing, and it also dramatically improves response.
When I finished a HR Link for tenor recently, I completely removed all the roll-over baffle. Strangely enough, I really liked the way it responded and sounded. It had a little less projection than my regular STM Link with a bit of roll-ver left in, but it had a warm sound and was easy to articulate on.
When I finished a Meyer HR for alto, I decided to only file down the area right behind the tip rail a little bit, and still left in some of the roll-over baffle. What I found is that the piece is a little too shrill and thin sounding than I normally like. At first, I'd finished it without doing much to the baffle at all and what it ended up with was a high roll-over baffle that sorta blended into the tip rail, and that didn't play well at all. It played really badly actually. So, I removed a bit of material from right behind the beginning of the tip rail and finished the tip again. I'm tempted, though, to go ahead and remove it all like it was on the Otto Link, and see how that plays.
Any suggestions or tips about how to deal with roll-over baffles on mouthpieces? Maybe some people really like them, but more and more I'm finding that I kind of like the roll-over area to just be flat and the same height as the floor of the mouthpiece, basically a smooth transition from tip-rail to floor without any roll-over. What do you guys think?
I've been researching this a bit on the yahoo group, but wanted to ask here as well.
So, I'm a little bit in the dark about the correct way to approach forming roll-over baffles. What I've noticed is that when you take the area down right behind the tip rail (by hand-filing), this allows your tip rail to become better-defined upon final tip finishing, and it also dramatically improves response.
When I finished a HR Link for tenor recently, I completely removed all the roll-over baffle. Strangely enough, I really liked the way it responded and sounded. It had a little less projection than my regular STM Link with a bit of roll-ver left in, but it had a warm sound and was easy to articulate on.
When I finished a Meyer HR for alto, I decided to only file down the area right behind the tip rail a little bit, and still left in some of the roll-over baffle. What I found is that the piece is a little too shrill and thin sounding than I normally like. At first, I'd finished it without doing much to the baffle at all and what it ended up with was a high roll-over baffle that sorta blended into the tip rail, and that didn't play well at all. It played really badly actually. So, I removed a bit of material from right behind the beginning of the tip rail and finished the tip again. I'm tempted, though, to go ahead and remove it all like it was on the Otto Link, and see how that plays.
Any suggestions or tips about how to deal with roll-over baffles on mouthpieces? Maybe some people really like them, but more and more I'm finding that I kind of like the roll-over area to just be flat and the same height as the floor of the mouthpiece, basically a smooth transition from tip-rail to floor without any roll-over. What do you guys think?