Sax on the Web Forum banner

"Vintage Otto Link Mouthpiece Comparison Blues" (played on 12 different mouthpieces)

10K views 23 replies 9 participants last post by  mrpeebee 
#1 · (Edited)
Besides being an intermediate level tenor player I like to collect Vintage Otto Link mouthpieces. Currently I have one or more examples of all the (metal) types produced by Otto Link between 1930 and now.

I recently recorded a simple blues tune (Honky Tonk) with most of my mouthpieces. Out of the different takes I copied some parts of my solo's and compiled one long track of almost 20 minutes out of that (good way to learn Audacity!). This compilation track contains 44 chorusses played with 12 (!) different mouthpieces. Most MPC's are Vintage metal Otto Links, except one, which is a cheap Chinese metal MPC (sounding well and costing about 10% of a Vintage Link!). Almost all takes are recorded with a Selmer SBA tenor of 1952 and La Voz medium reeds. For some tracks I used plastic Fibracell 3 or 3,5.

My main reason for recording was to sort out the differences in sound and to help me to choose my main mouthpiece(s). Recording and listening back helps, because you hear then different things then during playing.

Below you find two tables with information of the "Vintage Otto Link Mouthpiece Comparison Blues" recording:
- Table 1: Track, time-range, number of solo chorusses per MPC and MPC indication ID's (B to N).
- Table 2: List of used MPC's with an identification number in front (1 to 12), sorted by age.

Couldn't post the complete MP3 track in one file on SoundClick (too big!), had to split it into two parts.
See below links to my "Vintage Otto Link Comparison Blues" part 1 and part 2:
- Part 1: http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=10259932
- Part 2: http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=10259916

I would appreciate if some of you could find the time (and patience!) to listen to these long MPC compilation tracks!

Questions:
1. Can you identify the correct recording sequence of the 12 mouthpieces and connect the MPC ID's to numbers (f.i. MPC X=6, Y=11, etc...)?
2. What is your top 3 of these mouthpieces (and why)?
3. Who can identify the Chinese MPC? (EDIT: Q3 added after suggestion of zorrosg)

Let's see who gets the highest score out of it!

After a week or so I will publish the correct sequence of the used mouthpieces.
Have fun (I had it during recording and compilation)!

Peter.

PS: Please remember that I'm not a skilled player. So it's not about the quality of the improvisation, but about the sound differences.

*** Table 1: Recording-times and mouthpiece ID's

Track Time-range Cho Mouthpiece ID
------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1 00:00-00:28 1 - (intro, no sax)
Part 1 00:28-00:54 1 Mouthpiece B (head, mix 2x)
Part 1 00:54-02:42 4 Mouthpiece C
Part 1 02:42-04:30 4 Mouthpiece D (from 2 takes)
Part 1 04:30-05:51 3 Mouthpiece E
Part 1 05:51-07:39 4 Mouthpiece F
Part 1 07:39-09:00 3 Mouthpiece G
Part 1 09:00-10:21 3 Mouthpiece H (fade-out into MPC I)

Part 2 00:05-01:26 3 Mouthpiece I (fade-in from MPC H)
Part 2 01:26-03:14 4 Mouthpiece J
Part 2 03:14-04:35 3 Mouthpiece K
Part 2 04:35-05:55 3 Mouthpiece L
Part 2 05:55-07:43 4 Mouthpiece M
Part 2 07:43-09:31 4 Mouthpiece N

(The MPC used in the head (B) is also used in one of the solo's)

*** Table 2: List of used mouthpieces (12, sorted by age):

# Age Mouthpiece (all metal Otto Links, except 12)
------------------------------------------------------------
1 1930-1935 Master Link 4->6 (refaced)
2 1935-1940 Four 4*->8* (refaced Mojo)
3 1935-1940 Four 8*->10 (refaced Jon van Wie)
4 1940-1950 Tone Master 5->8 (refaced Erik Greiffenhagen)
5 1950-1960 Florida no USA 9
6 1950-1960 Florida no USA 10*
7 1960-1974 Florida USA 11*
8 1974 Early Babbitt 8* (small bore)
9 1974 Early Babbitt 10* (small bore)
10 1975-1980 Early Babbitt 10 (wide bore)
11 1980-now STM NY 7->9* (refaced Mojo)
12 2010 China Metal Gold Plated 10 (cheap 40 USD MPC)
 
See less See more
#4 ·
Dude - that link to your tunes goes nowhere - when you click it goes here but nothing plays and there is nothing obvious to click on. I'd like to hear your comparison - please check the location of your sound files. Thanks.
 
#8 ·
Al...i had problems man. The link takes me to " soundclick ".All of the op's details are there. You gotta sign in etc. My problem....generic phone. I really doubt however that he has made an error...but?...later man...a
Thanks for your interest guys. I will check the links this evening at home, can't access SoundClick at my present location (work!). I know they worked for me before.

What will work for sure is this: just click on the blue 'SoundClick' link in my signature (it's under each post of me). That should bring you to my SoundClick menu, from which you can choose to play the listed tunes in Hi- or Lowfi quality. Sorry for the inconvenience.
 
#11 ·
Which one? (bad pun!)

Sorry I don't know my links very well (and I'm not a pro sax player either), only recently got one for my alto but don't have one for the tenor. Therefore feel free to take my response with a grain of salt!

If there was one that was not like the others, I think it is MP G? I'm going to guess that it is MP 1?

As to favourites, I've listened a few times and keep changing my mind :S I think my favourite is mouthpiece I (start of part 2) - nice solid sound, a bit of edge but still has the 'furry' lower register.

Cheers,

Dave
 
#10 ·
Oh yea, sorry - you've got to scroll down the page and his clips are on the left. Thanks.
 
#12 ·
This is intriguing. It would be interesting if anyone can identify the chinese $40 mpc in the line-up of 12, as a separate game. When the final identities of the various mpcs are finally resleased, I will definitely go in to listen to how far worse this cheapie mpc sounds compared with the other 11. I have read many horror stories about the chinese mpcs, so this is a great chance to verify just how bad they are. Thank you for a tremendous effort! In the meantime, I wonder if anyone could identify mpc no 12, as a sort of sub-game?
Unfortunatley, I am not knowlegeable enough about Links to play the main game...
 
#14 ·
That's a great idea zorrosg, thanks for your suggestion (and thanks for listening)! So let's make that another question:

3. WHO CAN IDENTIFY THE CHINESE MPC?

I have to admit that I was very very surprised by the GOOD quality of this Chinese mouthpiece, so I guess it will be hard to find it between the Links. I know they are not so consistant in quality: a friend (pro player) of mine ordered a 12 and that tip looks very crooked, it also doesn't play as well as mine. So you probably need some luck with those MPC's. On the other hand, what's the risk for only 40 USD (including shipping)!
 
#13 ·
@eldavo - Hi Dave, thanks for your feedback and taking the time to listen.

Great guess on MPC G (I shouldn't reveal that yet)! Tip is much more closed compared to what I normally play, so more difficult to controle for me. I guess that's one reason that makes it different, besides the character of the MPC itself.

Your current (!) favourite MPC I is one from after 1950. It's a great piece, but not in my own top 5. I will reveal the exact types later in this thread.
 
#18 ·
Yes I know, those are complex questions and it will take some time! What's your hour tariff? When you score 100% I could maybe offer you a free trial of the MPC's and a 20% reduction if you would like to buy one of them :bluewink:!
 
#17 ·
Well, I actually listened to all of them. In the first group, D sounded the best to me. Most of the second group sounded quite similar and better than most of the first group. M in the second group seemed hard for you to control the intonation. I really can't tell which is which. It seems you have alot of nice mouthpieces to choose from. I'd suggest picking YOUR favorite- the one that plays well for you and has the tonal concept or flexibility you enjoy- and working with that one exclusively for awhile.
 
#19 ·
Thanks for taking the time to listen and your comments, really appreciate it.

Great you liked MPC D the best, it's my favourite piece for some month now! Mouthpiece M is also great, but the high register is less 'strong' then D. When I remember well I had some reed issue when playing that track, not sure anymore. It plays normally easier then D. When making those recordings I swapped quite quickly between the pieces, without really taking some time to adjust. Normally you should adjust for at least 30 minutes, but I don't have that much time to play!

Indeed I play mostly on my favourite piece, swapping much doesn't make sence.
 
#20 ·
Here goes, first impressions, listening to sound, didn't really pay atention to articulation.
Head B - sounds cool
C piano, subdued
D sounds good but doesn't convince me
E nice subtone but difficult to control when you open it out
F unpleasant
G as F
H sounds nice, there's a great sound in there trying to get out
Part 2 I sounds difficult to control it'll be a Link
from 1.00 to 2.25 I then J rough sound but virile, wouldn't be my choice but fun to rock
2.28 to 3.14 J strong
K strong and expressive 4.10 nice sound, needs to be more open
L lovely subtone, then after the sound breaks, not a sound to inspire improvisation
M lots of charachter but has sometning closed in the top of the sound ,few upper partials except for stray ones
N for no!

This reminds me of struggling to learn sax on soprano with a rubber Link. I was so happy in the end when I got a Vandoren V25, and it gave me a fair chance to
articulate and blow correctly, it rewards, and also is less tolerant of bad embouchure.
I take my hat off to the jazz greats who changed the world with Otto Link mouthpieces, I doubt they would use them today (IMHO).

I thought it a crazy idea what you did, but having listened I'm not sure,

cheers Declan,

you can play quite alright by the way
 
#21 ·
Hi Declan,

Thanks for your reply and effort to 'wrestle' yourself through my takes!

Agree fully with some of your findings (B, E, J1, M) and on others less (D, F, G, H, I, J2, K, L) or not (C, N). Ofcourse that's how it is, we all have our own opinion and taste, nothing wrong with that!

About the jazz greats: most of them played older Otto Link types (from {far} before 1980), and I can tell you from experience that most of the old ones are completely different pieces then the current Otto Links. Could be that they wouldn't have choosen for Links in present times, you never know. Could be nice to discuss that a bit further in another thread!

Again thanks for your appreciated comments.
 
#22 ·
I've given it another listen as I felt a bit bad about slating some of the mouthpieces, so I,ve relistened to part 2, blind as it were without referring to my previous notes. The first time round I had my critical faculties turned up giving a more polarised review with a view to fuelling a recommendation on which would be the best for you, although it's clear that you already have quite clear opinions.
I've noticed there is very very big thread on Otto link quality issues. Obviously the trick is to get a good one.
This is a more emotive good humoured listen, so here goes.

I
to '32 Nice sound with a hot edge, smudgy articulation
'32 to '59 less full more hot less stable
'59 old time kooky sound playful
J
1'26 to 2'10 stronger, notes start with a blup
2'10 stepped riff, I like these
2'20 blurry smoochy subtone
2'40 too hot to handle out of control
Hot sound a a Jackie McClean, can tire the listener, I was getting it when stressed in the summer heat. It's due to embouchure, it's not obliged by the mouthpiece. ?
K
3.15 dirty sound powerful
3'40 like this bit
4'07 sound closes in and struggles, don't like this bit
L
4'25 sweet subtone
5'02 more broken subtone, interesting
5'30 this is the one with the incomplete top end
M
5'56 you do nice subtone
6'22 uncomfortable to listen
N
7'44 uneasy subtone at first then sings more
8'10 rough when open but with charachter
8'35 hot tight sound better articulation 9'02 ditto
at end experimental flourish!
 
#23 · (Edited)
Hi Declan,

Thanks for your second and detailed reaction, really appreciate that you took the time for that.

I know that thread on Quality Issues on Links. I own a more then avarage number of them and hardly found those issues. I think it's more about the player then about the Links: a given fact with them is that you have to work on them to get a sound. And they sound a bit stuffy or dark sometimes. Some of us like that (me!) and some don't. But that doesn't make Links bad in my opinion! I think I own some very very good Links (regardless from how I sound on them, that's just me!).

About your remarks:
I (= 5) - Fullly agree with you. IMO strong in the bottom, weaker in the top. I think it needs a harder reed then what I played during the recording. But it's a great mouthpiece.
J (= 11) - Agree on most of it. I like to play a bit smoothy subtone and also sometimes a bit out of controle. It's a part of Texas Tenor style, check guys like Arnett Cobb or Illinois Jacquet when you don't know that style. Ofcourse those guys are really top of the bill, I can't compete with them, but still I like that style and try to copy it (with variable success!). This piece is a modern Link, it's a bit stuffy and less open.
K (= 12) - Agree on most of it. This piece is the cheapo Chinca MPC! It's dirty because it has a much higher baffle then a Link. But it makes it also a bit cheap when pushed or played very loud (like at 3'40, but you liked it!). Also the highs are more thin because of the baffle. I like this piece, but IMO it's less then a real (good) Link.
L (= 12) - Agree on most of it. This was my main piece for about 20 years! It's a piece from 1974 with tip 8*. The top can be full and dirty, but it depends on the reed. My reed at this recording was a bit old, on fresh ones this MPC kicks! Check this recording (my solo starts at 3:03, it's on this MPC): http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=10037993
M (= 10) - Agree on most of it. This is a piece as L, but with a 10 tip instead of 8*. It also has a bit more baffle, making the highs a bit thinner. But also here the same story on the reed: with a good one it kicks, it's a great piece.
N (= 9) - Agree on most of it. This is a piece as M and L, but with a 10* tip (very open). Tried to play in each track soft subtones to compare, here it's stuffy because of the big tip (but I like it that way!). The highs of this one are very strong, but also a bit sharp (because of the baffle in this Early Babbitt model).

Again thanks for your time! Will publish later this week the final list of mouthpieces in the correct order.

Of topic: I will visit your nice country begin of March, we (my girlfriend and me) will stay in Nerja. Looking forward to it!
 
#24 ·
Here is the correct sequence of the mouthpieces:

X = # Track Time-range Cho Age Mouthpiece
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A = - Part 1 00:00-00:28 1 - Intro (no sax)
B = 6 Part 1 00:28-00:54 1 1950-1960 Florida no USA 10* (2x, head)
C = 7 Part 1 00:54-02:42 4 1960-1974 Florida USA 11*
D = 6 Part 1 02:42-04:30 4 1950-1960 Florida no USA 10* (from 2 takes)
E = 3 Part 1 04:30-05:51 3 1935-1940 Four 8*->10 (refaced Jon van Wie)
F = 2 Part 1 05:51-07:39 4 1935-1940 Four 4*->8* (refaced Mojo)
G = 1 Part 1 07:39-09:00 3 1930-1935 Master Link 4->6 (refaced)
H = 4 Part 1 09:00-10:21 3 1940-1950 Tone Master 5->8 (refaced Erik Greiffenhagen)

I = 5 Part 2 00:05-01:26 3 1950-1960 Florida no USA 9
J = 11 Part 2 01:26-03:14 4 1980-now STM NY 7->9* (refaced Mojo)
K = 12 Part 2 03:14-04:35 3 2010 China Metal Gold Plated 10 (cheap 40 USD MPC)
L = 8 Part 2 04:35-05:55 3 1974 Early Babbitt 8* (small bore)
M = 10 Part 2 05:55-07:43 4 1975-1980 Early Babbitt 10 (wide bore)
N = 9 Part 2 07:43-09:31 4 1974 Early Babbitt 10* (small bore)

I also posted the two parts on YouTube, with some pictures of them and an index via which you can jump directly to the piece you want to hear (you have to open the description first). See these links:

- Part 1 :
- Part 2 :
 
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