Sax on the Web Forum banner

Roll-Over baffle finishing - what's your technique?

7K views 20 replies 9 participants last post by  MojoBari 
#1 ·
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?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I just did the same to an alto Meyer 6MM, (that had a tip opening like a #4). At first it also was too shrill and thin, then I made the roll over baffle lower, special close to the tip rail (I like the tip rails to be a litte wider than most refacers, not much..).

(My 12 year old daugther tested it today, together with another Meyer 6MM and a stock Vandoren V16 5M, and she immediately put aside the Selmer C* she has been playing for 2.5 years.)
 
#3 ·
Thanks for the input EgilF., that's great to know. Cheers.
 
#4 ·
The amount of curve just behind the tip rail is crucial, and to get it right, is a matter of feel. As some have said (can't remember who exactly), making a great RO baffle is an art. Too much arc, and the piece will be resistant and shrill. As you reduce the amount of curvature, the mouthpiece becomes freer-blowing and the sound less shrill. It starts to get exciting as it sounds/responds better and better. The tone gains depth, complexity, and responsiveness. It's difficult to know when to stop. You think, "just a little more. It's almost perfect." and then, when the surface is almost flat, the tone becomes brittle. You went too far. Ohhhhhh nooooooooo...
 
#5 ·
This is tough to describe without pictures or video. When I was learning the art of refacing I spent most of my time studying great playing pieces and constantly compared my work to them until I started getting great results consistently. One thing that may help you find the angle that works well is to place your file on the inside edge of the tip rail of a great playing piece and notice how far it angles into the piece. If you change the angle of your filing to be more on the plane of the tip rail you'll notice that your baffle will be too high and somewhat flatter. Of course you can angle your filing too far into the piece and end up with a piece that sounds brittle and feels lifeless. Every piece starts in a different place so I always try to take into account the floor angle of the design and how thick the tip rail has become during facing work. Also, some clients of mine (I'll refrain from name dropping) prefer a certain thickness to the tip rail for the way it feels when articulating and that has to be taken into account too. Overall, I'd strongly suggest studying your favorite pieces and the angle the baffle is at compared to the tip rail.
 
#9 ·
Guys,

Thanks so much for the detailed info and suggestions for how to get better at this. That makes a whole lotta sense and I will definitely take your advice about how to study the angles on great playing pieces' baffles. From what I can tell, the ones I like a lot don't have a whole lot of baffle angle, just enough. I'll keep working on it. Thanks,

Matt
 
#10 ·
You know what, I went back and looked at a few pieces that I have lying around, and have noticed the angle difference the the pieces that were professionally finished and the ones I've been leaving too much baffle in. The angle on the ones that have pro-finished baffles is very slight. Compared to those pieces, the ones that I took a look at that I've been leaving a little too much baffle in were noticeably higher when you looked at them right behind the tip and followed the length of the file down the floor of the piece.
So, yeah what you guys have said makes a lot of sense and now that I have a better idea of what to look for in a baffle, I'll try to practice making baffles with that slight angle instead of the much steeper angle that seems to not play well.
Thanks for the help guys.

Matt
 
#11 ·
Rollover shapes are more of an art to me. If a client wants a tip opened up, but otherwise likes the sound of a mouthpiece, I usually let the baffle come up some. This helps to compensate for darker sound of a more open tip. We can always lower it later, but very few clients have asked me to do a follow-up on my first shot at it.

I do not like to use high baffles that are higher than the centerline bore of the chamber. That is, when you gun sight down the baffle or lay a straight edge on it, it projects no higher than the center of the chamber and shank bore. I pretty much do the same with rollovers. Baffles can be a little higher, but too high and the response gets choked off. I always flatten out the rollover in a Dukoff since the rest of the baffle is high enough IMO.

Players who want higher baffles than this usually do not have a very well developed air stream. If they have a health problem, OK. Otherwise, they need practice, not more baffle.
 
#12 ·
Thanks Mojo, that sounds like really good advice and info. Having the centerline of the bore to think about as a limit for the angle on a baffle helps a lot.
 
#13 ·
It is easy, just stop working on the baffle area when the mouthpiece starts to sing. Don't worry about tip opening or other stuffs, people like to write numbers but it is just for marketing pourposes.
All the best,

Stan
 
#16 ·
I am wondering - Been thinking about this a little bit lately. I have been trying to determine a way to measure roll over baffle angles other than just doing it by sight or with a straight-edge. Those methods seem to work fine, but I would like to be able to see if it's possible to measure the angular relationship between the rollover baffle and the floor material of a mouthpiece.

One of my ideas is to make a measuring tool out of wooden sticks - You create a swivel joint at the ends of two sticks of the same length, so that the sticks can swivel from a completely 180 degree straight line all the way across the arc until they're facing the same direction. The sticks need to be thin and short enough to fit inside the mouthpiece, and the swivel joint should be screwed together tightly enough that the sticks will hold position when you move them. So, then, you lay one end of this little device inside the mouthpiece so that it lays along the floor, and then you swivel the other end of the stick the other way until it contacts the rollover baffle area of the mouthpiece. Then, since the sticks will hold position, you take that angle and trace it on paper, and then measure the angle with a common protractor, and there's your rollover baffle angle.

Targets for a range of good rollover baffle angles could be determined by measuring great playing mouthpieces.

Or - you could just trace some angle shapes onto thin wooden board using a protractor, cut them out with a modeling knife, and use those as guides or "frames" for your rollover baffle angles. This method probably makes a little more sense... You'd still need to be able to measure some rollovers initially, though, to get an idea of what angle ranges work well for certain types of mpcs.

I would imagine that the floor height of the mpc would determine a great deal about the angle of the rollover baffle, so maybe this isn't an idea that would work for many different styles of mouthpieces... I could see how it might be beneficial for mpcs such as Meyers and Links, though, where the floor just extends right into the chamber without a drop-off point, such as would be found in a Guardala or a Berg.

What do you think? Too much trouble, not worth it? Does it make any sense? I just thought it'd be nice to be able to take the guess work out of rollover baffles. For me, the angle of the rollover has proven to be something that seems to affect so many things about how a mpc plays, and I think it'd be cool to be able to figure out some way (maybe there's a much easier way than those two ways listed above) to be able to gauge the rollover angle in a mpc better than just doing it by sight. Sight-lining with a straight edge is still fine and what I'll probably continue to do for now, but it would be cooler to me if it was measurable. Work consistency could possibly be aided by a rollover baffle measurement process, at least it'd would probably help my own work.
 
#18 ·
I am wondering - Been thinking about this a little bit lately. I have been trying to determine a way to measure roll over baffle angles other than just doing it by sight or with a straight-edge. Those methods seem to work fine, but I would like to be able to see if it's possible to measure the angular relationship between the rollover baffle and the floor material of a mouthpiece.

One of my ideas is to make a measuring tool out of wooden sticks - You create a swivel joint at the ends of two sticks of the same length, so that the sticks can swivel from a completely 180 degree straight line all the way across the arc until they're facing the same direction. The sticks need to be thin and short enough to fit inside the mouthpiece, and the swivel joint should be screwed together tightly enough that the sticks will hold position when you move them. So, then, you lay one end of this little device inside the mouthpiece so that it lays along the floor, and then you swivel the other end of the stick the other way until it contacts the rollover baffle area of the mouthpiece. Then, since the sticks will hold position, you take that angle and trace it on paper, and then measure the angle with a common protractor, and there's your rollover baffle angle.

Targets for a range of good rollover baffle angles could be determined by measuring great playing mouthpieces.

Or - you could just trace some angle shapes onto thin wooden board using a protractor, cut them out with a modeling knife, and use those as guides or "frames" for your rollover baffle angles. This method probably makes a little more sense... You'd still need to be able to measure some rollovers initially, though, to get an idea of what angle ranges work well for certain types of mpcs.

I would imagine that the floor height of the mpc would determine a great deal about the angle of the rollover baffle, so maybe this isn't an idea that would work for many different styles of mouthpieces... I could see how it might be beneficial for mpcs such as Meyers and Links, though, where the floor just extends right into the chamber without a drop-off point, such as would be found in a Guardala or a Berg.

What do you think? Too much trouble, not worth it? Does it make any sense? I just thought it'd be nice to be able to take the guess work out of rollover baffles. For me, the angle of the rollover has proven to be something that seems to affect so many things about how a mpc plays, and I think it'd be cool to be able to figure out some way (maybe there's a much easier way than those two ways listed above) to be able to gauge the rollover angle in a mpc better than just doing it by sight. Sight-lining with a straight edge is still fine and what I'll probably continue to do for now, but it would be cooler to me if it was measurable. Work consistency could possibly be aided by a rollover baffle measurement process, at least it'd would probably help my own work.
I'd use the table as the point of reference, since it's the distance between the baffle and the reed that is critical. Mount the mouthpiece on a mini/micro lathe cross-slide and configure a dial/digital gauge as if you were measuring the tip opening. Using the x/y axis wheels you can accurately measure/then plot the entire baffle contour to +/- 0.002".
 
#19 ·
Thanks for the advice MFry and MartinMods. You know what, you guys are right, after some more practice tonight it's becoming clearer how to angle the file as you're working to get the desired angle. I've tried to angle down the baffle on a HR Link tonight that has felt too strident recently, and am going to play test it later tonight. Wound up going a little bigger on it, .113", with a sort of thin tip rail at .020". 25mm length. I'm kind of hoping to be able to replace my current set-up with this one, which is a metal Link... Been wanting to switch to hard rubber, and bought this one used from someone a few months ago. Played terrible when I got it, it even measured almost a full "Link" size lower than the number said it was supposed to be, and it was original. We'll see. Might need a tad thicker tip rail. Might take it up to .114" or .115" if that's the case. .115" is about .012" bigger than I'm used to though... Plenty of room to take the table back down to .110" if it feels a little too big, .110" is still an OK size for me.
 
#21 ·
Even poorer poor man: I use a dial tip guage with a pointed probe and take measurements at various distances from the tip to get XY data wrt the table. But I only use XY data as a target when a client wants me to try and duplicate a baffle. Or, I use it to illustrate to a client why onle mouthpiece sounds the way it does compared to another. I tend to shape roll-over baffles by "eye".
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top