Sax on the Web Forum banner

Link Quality Issues

184K views 307 replies 110 participants last post by  larryrph78 
#1 ·
Many of you especially the mouthpiece refinishers have been saying for a long time that all stock Links can be improved. Both isaxman and Sigmund451 have raised the issue of Link quality recently. Here is my recent experience.

I have 2 Otto Link STM NY 7*'s purchased 6 weeks apart from Saxquest and they are different! The difference is greater then I would expect for process variation! The first one (Link "A" which replaced a regular STM ) has a sound I really like but I heard the siren call of an even better piece. I will not part with Link "A" so I ordered a second one (Link"B") hoping! it would be equally as good. It could then be sent to MoJo for analysis and see what he recommends to improve it?

Link "A" has no baffle and a nice smooth floor from tip to bore. . Link "B" has a flat baffle extending out from the tip about ¼ inch before angling to the unfinished floor. At first I was thinking this was intentional, but it just may be sloppy finishing. It looks like it was hit with a grinder at the wrong angle giving it the effect of a short baffle. The suppliers have been constantly out of the popular sizes recently so the factory has likely been under some pressure for quantity which ALWAYS sacrifices quality.

Link "B" has wider rails and from the shank looks like it came from a different mold, but is the same basic design. I have been A-B…ing the two for 5 days. Link "B" does appear to sound brighter and harsher to my ear. I am being very picky here! Just changing rooms makes a much greater difference.

I cannot envision an easier blowing piece or a sound closer to what I am looking for then Link"A" I played Link "A" with a FL lig. for several days including church, concert band, and some jazz and have since switched back to the stock lig.. I thought the FL gave a slightly richer sound! but it was imparting a slightly breathy buzz that is not present with the stock lig. I ran a number of different reeds, but that's another story.

The FL now resides on my Soprano on a HR Otto Link 6* and shows promise of an easier blow and clearer tone.!
 
See less See more
#52 ·
Ol' Mpc Doc said:
You can add Coleman Hawkins, Pete Christlieb, Ricky Woodard, Warne Marsh, Don Byas and Bennie Wallace to the growing list.
Coleman played it for maybe a second, Pete probaly could have sounded better but he played it since he was 15, Warne never played a Berg. I studied with his piano player and the only things he ever played for any length of time was a Hollywood Dukoff and a rubber Link. Bennie I thought always used Links but he's not top flight. I guess it's all relative but I really think there's only a very few truly great players which brings me to another subject. That word great gets overused. Phil
 
#53 ·
This discussion came at a great time for me. I've been playing a V16 since the day I picked up my first tenor. Last month I began to have doubts about my mouthpiece so i ordered a Link and a Ponzol M1 to see what I was missing. I realised that I could be happy with any of the mouthpieces and that I really did not sound all that different on each one. I'm back on my trusty V16. I almost got caught up in the equipment sickness but Phil's comments in some other threads put things in perspective for me.

This is some good stuff here.
 
#55 ·
I'm off to get good with my ebonite link 8 instead of messing about on here talking about getting good!
One reason why I stopped talking about playing and started playing.....hence my current self imposed semi-exile.

Anyway, the comments by Phil and Doc were very good reads. I wish I could see more of that kind of info here. Phil's comments especially re: round chamber pieces and the fact that everyone today sounds the same.....right on, man! Cats today don't have the depth that was present in the past, despite greater choice of equipment.

Anyway.

A good link (modern or vintage) can take you many places. When you find one that works for you, magic can happen.

And I don't personally play one (a link) but I highly recommend them, LOL.
 
#56 ·
"Hey I can think of a few top flight guys that played Bergs: Pepper Adams, Plas Johnson, Joe Farrell, Roland Kirk and Booker Ervin. Those are the ones that come to mind..."

Which just corroborates what Phil said: the mouthpiece doesn't matter as much as how you play your instrument. The top-flight guys were top-flight guys playing dogs of mouthpieces! Give em a trumpet mouthpiece, and they'd still have been top-flight sax players!
 
#57 · (Edited)
LINK QUALITY REVISITED

This post is turning up a wealth of information!!!

1) "Play the Link you have"

2) "Many stock links can be improved"

3) " A custom mouthpiece maker can make an excellent mouthpiece"

I BELIEVE ALL OF THE ABOVE TO BE TRUE OR ELSE Babbitt, Mojo and Phil would not all still be in business.

With regard to flatness there is no reason for a factory ground piece to not be flatter then and hand made piece. If you want to obsess about flatness a machinists square (less then 10 bucks) is better then a reed or a business card. When I use the square I find the stock mouthpieces to be very good.
A further enhancement is a surface plate and dial mike with a digital readout to a computer.

THE CHALLANGE I PUT FORTH: to the resurfacers is one of consistency and how to make a good Link better if that is even possible?

I had a stock STM which played great. I replaced it with a stock STM NY which is so good I will not let it out of my hands. I ordered a second STM NY that ALSO PLAYS GREAT and sounds shrill to me on my horn. If ithe second NY were called a Link BOSton I would have thought nothing of it.If this were the first NY I had received it would have gone back.

If we are going to exchange information referring to a "Link like sound"
or "Plays like a link" then we have to have some reasonable expectation they are consistent. The reason the second piece sounds shrill is the way it is finished! With a small step baffle? The STM and the first STM NY are closer in sound then the two NY's.
The second NY is closer in sound to the Guardala Crescent which I returned.It (the Link) would scream in a rock band!

If Mojo can make me a Link that plays and sounds better then my great NY link I want it. If Phil can make a piece that plays and sounds better I'll buy that! I am not convinced either is true,but I AM prepared to be amazed and I am prepared to spend some money to find out.

THANKS FOR ALLYOUR INPUT!
 
#223 ·
Re: LINK QUALITY REVISITED

This post is turning up a wealth of information!!!

1) "Play the Link you have"

2) "Many stock links can be improved"

3) " A custom mouthpiece maker can make an excellent mouthpiece"

I BELIEVE ALL OF THE ABOVE TO BE TRUE OR ELSE Babbitt, Mojo and Phil would not all still be in business.

With regard to flatness there is no reason for a factory ground piece to not be flatter then and hand made piece. If you want to obsess about flatness a machinists square (less then 10 bucks) is better then a reed or a business card. When I use the square I find the stock mouthpieces to be very good.
A further enhancement is a surface plate and dial mike with a digital readout to a computer.

THE CHALLANGE I PUT FORTH: to the resurfacers is one of consistency and how to make a good Link better if that is even possible?

I had a stock STM which played great. I replaced it with a stock STM NY which is so good I will not let it out of my hands. I ordered a second STM NY that ALSO PLAYS GREAT and sounds shrill to me on my horn. If ithe second NY were called a Link BOSton I would have thought nothing of it.If this were the first NY I had received it would have gone back.

If we are going to exchange information referring to a "Link like sound"
or "Plays like a link" then we have to have some reasonable expectation they are consistent. The reason the second piece sounds shrill is the way it is finished! With a small step baffle? The STM and the first STM NY are closer in sound then the two NY's.
The second NY is closer in sound to the Guardala Crescent which I returned.It (the Link) would scream in a rock band!

If Mojo can make me a Link that plays and sounds better then my great NY link I want it. If Phil can make a piece that plays and sounds better I'll buy that! I am not convinced either is true,but I AM prepared to be amazed and I am prepared to spend some money to find out.

THANKS FOR ALLYOUR INPUT!
Is a Link in hand worth two in the bush?

I just got an old Tonemaster and it's really nice. But, it doesn't play itself.
 
#58 ·
mountainman said:
With regard to flatness there is no reason for a factory ground piece to not be flatter then and hand made piece.
Yes there is a very good reason and it's due to the expansion/contraction of the mpc material when exposed to the temperatures involved in the factory machining process to cut the table and facing. Hand-facing and leveling of the table is done slowly with no detectable change in temperature of the substrate - just a measurable improvement in accuracy and consistency when done properly.
 
#59 ·
PhilBarone said:
Personally, I honestly and truly believe that everything out there maybe with the exception of Links and Meyers sucks and we'll talk about them in a minute.

Links, my mouthpieces, SR Technologies "Legend", and Feddie Gregory's are the only mouthpieces made today that have round chambers and I'm sorry to say that mine are unavailable right now.
Phil, the Hite hard rubber sax mpcs have a very nice round chamber, and work very well. Unfortunately, Mr. Hite passed away recently, so I'm not sure what the future holds for the company.

PhilBarone said:
Ya see, modern, high baffle mouthpieces are like fast food. It tastes good at first but it gives you coronary heart disease, dig?
:sign5:

PhilBarone said:
Okay, in an interview with Dave Guardala he said "The mouthpiece should do all the work" and to be quite honest, I think everyone pretty much sounds the same on them. At least that's what I think.
Ditto.

PhilBarone said:
On the other hand when I studied with Joe Lovano he once told me that the harder he has to work the more individual he'll sound.

Joe? Well if you have to work as hard as he is then there's no way your ideas can flow entirely freely because you're straining yourself. Joe has a difficult time getting low notes out if you noticed.
I've noticed. I've also noticed that since about he time he went to the FL mpc, he sounds like he's straining to get his ideas out. It's one of the things that has bothered me about his playing. I was a big fan of his playing when he was with the Herman band (when he was playing a Link :shock: ), but ever since his solo career took off, I've had a hard time listening to him. I'm just glad to see I'm not the only one who has sensed this.

PhilBarone said:
Somewhere in the middle is the answer, at least that's what I think so when you are looking for your individual self, look no further than a Link or round chamber piece and if you can't play it then look at yourself because no matter what mouthpiece you choose, sooner or later you're going to be challenged by your music in some way and if you let a bunch of stuff get in the way like mouthpieces, reeds, horns, obsessions like the internet, or any thing else, you'll never play even good. Phil
'Nuff said.
 
#60 ·
"Hey I can think of a few top flight guys that played Bergs: Pepper Adams, Plas Johnson, Joe Farrell, Roland Kirk and Booker Ervin. Those are the ones that come to mind..."

Which just corroborates what Phil said: the mouthpiece doesn't matter as much as how you play your instrument. The top-flight guys were top-flight guys playing dogs of mouthpieces!
Eh???? I don't suppose any of them thought "I'll put this lousy mouthpiece on my horn because I'm so great I can play anything" or "playing this second-rate piece will prove how deep my talent is." Surely if players choose to use particular pieces it's because they enjoy playing them, or they actually LIKE the sound, or the feel, or whatever. Maybe they even LIKED the "too-long" "put-on-by-a-three-year-old" facings.

Berg Larsens have one great thing going for them, it seems to me -- they don't (usually) sound like Links. I once said that a metal Link on a Mark VI was such a classic setup that it's probably what Mozart played. The Berg gave another alternative to players who didn't want that particular sound world coming out of their horn.

If you don't like it, fine; you don't have to.
 
#61 ·
Stretch said:
Hey I can think of a few top flight guys that played Bergs: Pepper Adams, Plas Johnson, Joe Farrell, Roland Kirk and Booker Ervin. Those are the ones that come to mind.
I made this statement because, in my opinion, the aforementioned sax players are or were elite saxophone players that used Berg mouthpieces. These artists had a choice and they chose to play Bergs for a considerable period of their professional career. A Berg with a good facing is an alternative to an Otto Link type mouthpiece.
 
#62 ·
Wow! This kind of thread is exactly why I read this forum. I firmly believe in and agree with the concepts set forth here, and these beliefs are supported by my own playing experiences. But occaisionally, it is wonderful to have these beliefs confirmed by those whose opinions I respect so highly! Thanks Doc, Phil, and all who have contributed to such an informative dialouge!

I have 2 issues:

1. Is it possible to determine if the position of the reed plane relative to the tip, baffle, chamber, and bore centerline (as Doc has spoken of) is appropriate through visual inspection? Can you tell this just by looking? Is checking the thickness of the table a good judge of this?

2. The info from Phil on Bergs explains alot. EVERY time I hear an alto player on a Berg LIVE, I think they get a really thin sound. Not like a baffle-too-high thin, but a reed-too-soft sound, which might be explained by the really long facing. At least that's my experience.

I'd also like to add Morgans to the list of round chamber, low baffle pieces.
 
#63 ·
amg said:
Eh???? I don't suppose any of them thought "I'll put this lousy mouthpiece on my horn because I'm so great I can play anything" or "playing this second-rate piece will prove how deep my talent is." Surely if players choose to use particular pieces it's because they enjoy playing them, or they actually LIKE the sound, or the feel, or whatever. Maybe they even LIKED the "too-long" "put-on-by-a-three-year-old" facings.

Berg Larsens have one great thing going for them, it seems to me -- they don't (usually) sound like Links. I once said that a metal Link on a Mark VI was such a classic setup that it's probably what Mozart played. The Berg gave another alternative to players who didn't want that particular sound world coming out of their horn.

If you don't like it, fine; you don't have to.
It's not that I don't like it but it's not that simple. Berg's were louder so some players were temporarily attracted to them just like we are but end up switching back. Bergs were the only higher baffle piece available so essentially there weren't many choices. Sonny Rollins told me himself that the only reasons he played it were because of the volume and the trouble he had with his teeth. Listen to Sonny on Live at the Village Vanguard and now. I don't think I'll get too many arguments about his sounding ten times better on the Links. If fact the Berg sounds kind of crappy.

I think you misunderstand my point-Links don't have a particular sound, they reflect the sound the player has in his head. I admit, sometimes the player doesn't have a sound concept so the result isen't good but with time it can be refined. Also, Links are a little harder to play and you have to know how to play them. You have to take a ton of mouthpiece in your mouth and put a lot of air in the horn. That means playing with your diaphram something many pros that come to me don't even do. These two things take getting used to but it's worth it. Phil
 
#64 ·
badreed said:
Wow! This kind of thread is exactly why I read this forum. I firmly believe in and agree with the concepts set forth here, and these beliefs are supported by my own playing experiences. But occaisionally, it is wonderful to have these beliefs confirmed by those whose opinions I respect so highly! Thanks Doc, Phil, and all who have contributed to such an informative dialouge!

I have 2 issues:

1. Is it possible to determine if the position of the reed plane relative to the tip, baffle, chamber, and bore centerline (as Doc has spoken of) is appropriate through visual inspection? Can you tell this just by looking? Is checking the thickness of the table a good judge of this?

2. The info from Phil on Bergs explains alot. EVERY time I hear an alto player on a Berg LIVE, I think they get a really thin sound. Not like a baffle-too-high thin, but a reed-too-soft sound, which might be explained by the really long facing. At least that's my experience.

I'd also like to add Morgans to the list of round chamber, low baffle pieces.
I think it's possible to visually tell if the table is low just by looking inside but you should never buy, play or not play a mouthpiece based on it's looks. Especially since in this case the window could have been cut back causing the appearance that the table is high. Phil
 
#65 ·
badreed said:
1. Is it possible to determine if the position of the reed plane relative to the tip, baffle, chamber, and bore centerline (as Doc has spoken of) is appropriate through visual inspection? Can you tell this just by looking? Is checking the thickness of the table a good judge of this?
It is possible determine all those things through a visual inspection, but only if you know what you're looking at and looking for. And the only way to gain that knowledge is by playing a lot. So pick a mouthpiece of a certain style, and commit to it for the next two or three years. And don't play anything else.

badreed said:
2. The info from Phil on Bergs explains alot. EVERY time I hear an alto player on a Berg LIVE, I think they get a really thin sound. Not like a baffle-too-high thin, but a reed-too-soft sound, which might be explained by the really long facing. At least that's my experience.
More likely it's the high baffle.

badreed said:
I'd also like to add Morgans to the list of round chamber, low baffle pieces.
Agreed.
 
#66 ·
PhilBarone said:
I think you misunderstand my point-Links don't have a particular sound, they reflect the sound the player has in his head. I admit, sometimes the player doesn't have a sound concept so the result isen't good but with time it can be refined. Also, Links are a little harder to play and you have to know how to play them. You have to take a ton of mouthpiece in your mouth and put a lot of air in the horn. That means playing with your diaphram something many pros that come to me don't even do. These two things take getting used to but it's worth it. Phil
This is exactly what I mean when I say learn to play the piece(Link) you've got. This can't be done in a short amount of time-ya gotta live with it,work it, understand what it takes to get what you're capable of getting with the piece. Blowing from the diaphram not only creates projection but facilitates control of your airstream at any volume level. Sad but true Phil, many of the players I hear and have worked with don't do it-or are even clued to what an important physical aspect of playing the horn this is.
 
#67 ·
If only this discussion took place 3 years ago, when I started taking the horn seriously... I thought my Meyer 5 sucked when I first got it. Only after spending about a year and a half with it did I really even start to get a sound, overcome my terrible embouchure, develop a breath support. Most of these were my own problems; a lot of it was getting used to one mouthpiece and developing my sound.

Phil Woods may have changed horns but did he change mouthpieces? Bet your **** he didn't. Now I know why.

Earlier the issue arised of addressing student deficiencies, whether the student is not playing correctly or the equipment is indeed holding him back. My equipment held me back for so long, but I think half my problems were of my own inexperience. Still, might those problems have been more quickly alleviated if I wasn't fighting the horn, fighting the huge tip opening? Most likely. This is why with my students I address immediately the aspect of equipment and what needs to be changed; I let them try my horn to feel what a well-setup instrument should feel like. I don't want them to be impeded the same way that I was.

On a more advanced level, the "mouthpiece frenzy" can be prevented by having learned everything that was said here. Sometimes, though, we fall into a rut, and progress seems to come to a standstill. This is when I think some players just get bored and therefore go looking for better equipment. Some of them also probably want to hear a sudden, brand new sound coming out of the horn. For the layperson, hobbyist, and anybody not striving to become a professional this is totally understandable and warranted in most cases. But for an aspiring professional, this is some really sage advice. Experience rings true and even my limited experience validates everything that has been said here. Practicing 6 hard hours a day for 3 years will bring some of these conclusions to you, but I had to be careful not to learn in a void. Thanks guys for everything that was said.
 
#68 · (Edited)
PhilBarone said:
I think you misunderstand my point-Links don't have a particular sound, they reflect the sound the player has in his head.
I don't misunderstand your point, I was just avoiding coming right out and saying "I don't agree". To my ears (metal) Links DO have a particular sound -- at least on tenor. Especially (it seems to me) when coupled with a Selmer Mk VI. If I wanted to make enemies and exaggerate a lot I would characterise the "Link sound" as rather metallic, boomy, nasal, hollow, and pompous. (In fact I think the world has enough tenor players who play Link STMs, we've reached the quota already ... I'm just being provoking ... up to a point). I've heard records on the radio and thought "Don't know who that is but I'll bet he's playing a Link on a Selmer" ... and then the announcer says "Ah, the wonderful Hank Mobley/John Coltrane/A N Other from his album blah blah blah ..."

Players who have strong musical personalities easily overcome the inherent tendencies of their equipment (assuming there are such tendencies). Players who don't, don't. Of course, Coltrane (durr!) and Mobley had strong personalities, I'm not sure about A N Other.

By the way, although I think Links sound metallic, boomy, nasal, hollow and pompous that doesn't mean I don't like them. Bergs are bratty, thin, croaky and they squeak and I like them too.
 
#69 ·
I've never head a link described as "pompous". LOL.


Links do have a certain core quality, but so does every other mouthpiece I've tried.

My Hollywood Dukoff certainly plays differently than my Tonemaster. But I can make either sound the way I want. It's just easier on my Dukoff, so that's what I use.

Were I forced to use the Tonemaster exclusively, I'd have no problems. It's a good mouthpiece. And ultimately, as long as you have a good mouthpiece and a good horn, you will sound the way you will sound, provided you know what that is in the first place...LOL.

Had I started really practicing on a link instead of the Dukoff, it probably would be a reverse, should I happen to be playing the same equipment.

btw, I did half a gig with the tonemaster and the other half with the Dukoff. Noone could tell I changed pieces. Or perhaps noone cared. HA. Just food for thought.

I still like that Dukoff better though, ha.
 
#70 ·
I have an old stainless straignt walled Superpower chamber Dukoff (no high step baffles in the early models). I can play it next to a link, it sounds different at first but when I record the differences are more subtle than one would think. If I put more of the Dukoff in my mouth and open my throat it begins to become close to the Link. If I mess around with reeds enough I can find two combinations that sound close to identical, despite the different design and different embrochure. The same holds true for my Barone. I think its better than a link but I can get them pretty close.

We play the mouthpiece, not the horn.

Maybe I should repeat that....

We play the mouthpiece, not the horn.
 
#71 ·
My V16 is half dukoff(no baffle) and half metal link. The V16 blows differently than my STM 8 but on tape they are difficult to tell apart after about a half hour of playing. I think the nice thing about round chamber pieces with no or little baffle is that its easier to sound like YOU. I find that players using big baffled pieces all sound the same. When i see a sax player pulling out a guardala before a gig, I can predict the guys tone. At that point, I pretty much get in the mindset of using lot's of mouthpiece, fast air, and an "eee" vowel on my V16 to blend. When I see a guy pull out a link or other round chambered low baffled piece I have no idea what to expect. Its exciting to hear whats going to come out of the horn.
 
#72 ·
You can badmouth Bergs all you want I have played a "decrepit" second hand HR Berg 2M .105 opening on Bari for the last 15 years and would really like to be able to duplicate it when it dies!!!!
 
#73 · (Edited)
Link Consistency

I agree with O'l Mpc Doc. Equipment matters. When Thomas says learn to play the mouthpiece you've got does that presume you have only one? Some of us in the hinterlands have to do all our business by mail and do not have the luxury of being able to select "from a boxful of mouthpieces". WWBW might bock at sending us 20 Links?

If you have 2 Links which are supposed to be the same and are visually and soundwise different then there is a problem! It's all about the sound and playability Nowhere have I complained about the playability of Links HR or metal except to say I will be impressed if any small shop can produce an easier blowing more harmonically colorful MPC then my great NY Link.

If Babbitt uses a little fixturing and a cylindrical grinder there is no reason why the table should not be perfectly flat and the facing curve uniform from side to side and perfect every time! If they use a fixture, a milling machine, and quality control; OR a CNC machine there is no reason why the baffle and throat leading to the bore should not be consistent. Automation cuts costs.

If the Japaneese decide they want this business they will take it just like they have in any other area where consistency and quality matters.

Many of us have played "WHAT WE HAVE" for many years. Those of us who will never be "giants of the saxophone world" need every advantage we can get! And! Practice, practice, practice!
 
#74 ·
Yeah, there's a very few good Berg's for bari. Ronnie Cuber gave me two on of which he used on "The Cookbook" with George Benson and "Uptown with George Benson". He gave them to me after I worhed on his Link. One was pretty bad and the other I used for a few years then I made myself a Link.

The reason why the Links don't work on alto and bari that well is because the chambers are too big. Oh, and the facing is way too long on the bari pieces too. Phil
 
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