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
#127 ·
Thomas said:
I've played Links for over forty years--I've owned dozens of them-consistancy or the perceived lack of it with Links is nothing new. My thought is learn to play the piece you've got(usually takes more than a week or two)-if you don't like it that doesn't necessarily mean there's anything wrong with it......find another one and throw the one you don't like in the trash! A $100.00 or more reface on a $75.00 mpc doesn't make much sense to me and besides I think most of this reface stuff is just voodoo anyway. Unless the piece would be better used as a doorstop the gains realized by an outlay of $$ for a reface are minimal-the value to cost ratio is not in your favor. And by the way show me any mpc manufacturer that somebody doesn't have a comment about their consistancy or perceived lack of it, with. Most of the complaints about mpc performance are generally easily attributable to player defieciency and/ or the desire for quick "chops in a box", as old mpc doc calls it.
Links are just fine.
Great stuff here Thomas. By the way, refacing is mostly a waste of money, why RE-do something that wasn't good to begin with. The Link facings are good but the pieces can be improved with chamber work. Phil
 
#128 ·
Thomas said:
Mojo-
in fact in the past I have had Links reworked both by Theo Wanne and JVW and as remarked above the improvement was minimal at best and unjustifiable in the cost/value ,gain ratio. I currently have a bought off the shelf STM 7* ($75.00)and a Tenney 7*S ($300.00+)and the perceivable difference in response,playability, reed friendliness, or tonal pallette is virtually nonexistant. I'm not knocking your craft but I think a lot of players are looking for something that they aren't gonna get from a mpc, refaced or not.
Man, you are so right. Maybe if enough guys like us come out of the closet people will start to smarten up. Every Link I've seen in twenty-five years of working on mouthpieces full time they've all be very acceptable, even, and straight. If you're finding Links that are asymetrical then the tech isn't holding the gaughe correctly. However, it's the reeds that are to blame. So, when you have a really cruddy reed the slight variences in the mouthpieces become insignificant.
 
#131 ·
edit: never mind - my post was a good pun but with martysaxing implications, hence not worth the chuckle. Some of this stuff's Greek to me anyway.
 
#133 · (Edited)
MojoBari said:
If ligature placement makes a big difference, this is often an indication the the table is not flat where it should be. Links usually have concave tables with high heels. Moving your lig back may do things like opening/closing the tip some based on how it bows the reed. If you get good results, no problem.
yes exactly concave table.
when the table is cut, or i think it is cut twice, the center heats up from the machine cutting. when it heats up it expands so the second cut is on hot unevenly expanded metal. later when it cools the table is concave like a bowl. the reed on the concave table not only doesn't seal properly but also causes the reed to swell and warp. Mouthpieces like this don't play properly. This is one of the main reason why hand instead of machine faced mouthpieces play better. The rails also on the modern links are more than twice as thick as the ones on more vintage models. Thicker rails dampen the vibration of the reed and slow down response. The thicker rails also makes the window more narrow reducing the air volume that can enter the chamber. Too short and abrupt baffle causes air turbulence and a nasty lack of controll. I could go on and on but basically
modern links suck as saxophone mouthppieces unless either you or someone else fixes them. To say otherwise is to miss how well a perfectly crafted mouthpiece can drive your saxophone playing to a new level.

edit: just to add my two cents worth on the anecdotal evidence my experience with refacers has been generally an experience of having a mouthpiece i wouldn't play in a million years and would only give to someone i didn't like, transformed into a mouthpiece i
wouldn't sell you for a milion dollars and i would guard with my life. of about the ten or so tenor moouthpieces i play i think only three have not been hand refaced.
 
#134 ·
Link Quality revisited

garyjones said:
yes exactly concave table.
when the table is cut, or i think it is cut twice, the center heats up from the machine cutting. when it heats up it expands so the second cut is on hot unevenly expanded metal. later when it cools the table is concave like a bowl. the reed on the concave table not only doesn't seal properly but also causes the reed to swell and warp. Mouthpieces like this don't play properly. This is one of the main reason why hand instead of machine faced mouthpieces play better. The rails also on the modern links are more than twice as thick as the ones on more vintage models. Thicker rails dampen the vibration of the reed and slow down response. The thicker rails also makes the window more narrow reducing the air volume that can enter the chamber. Too short and abrupt baffle causes air turbulence and a nasty lack of controll. I could go on and on but basically
modern links suck as saxophone mouthppieces unless either you or someone else fixes them. To say otherwise is to miss how well a perfectly crafted mouthpiece can drive your saxophone playing to a new level.

edit: just to add my two cents worth on the anecdotal evidence my experience with refacers has been generally an experience of having a mouthpiece i wouldn't play in a million years and would only give to someone i didn't like, transformed into a mouthpiece i
wouldn't sell you for a milion dollars and i would guard with my life. of about the ten or so tenor moouthpieces i play i think only three have not been hand refaced.
Nearly 2 years since I started this thread and I still play the stock Link with Fl lig and have the MOJO improved Link in reserve. The reason I sent the MOJO Link out was NOT playability, but brightness (it had the unintended slant baffle) AND to just see if it could be made better.

We thinned the rails, corrected the facing curve and took out some of the brightness. (He would have taken out more if I had asked). The result was a piece much easier to blow with reeds that I would not play before.

After waiting 6 months (from WWBW) I got to compare my Links to a Barone Jazz. Very close!! The barone was not quite as loud and less harsh. I characterize it as more refined and softer around the edges. Had I not 2 perfectly good Links and the Barone not been a 7 instead of the 7* I ordered (%$#@& WWBW) I would have kept it.

Conclusions: 1) A stock Link can play great. 2) A problem Link, perhaps any Link, can be improved! 3) We play what we have until we find something better!
 
#135 ·
Thanks Mountainman for sharing your experience. It's very interesting.

I'm in a similar situation. I have a wonderful stock STM 8 that I use for everything. It banished my beloved V16s and Ponzol M1 to the drawer.

So I purchased another STM 8 and sent it to Ed Z. with a "wish list." I'm excited to see what can be done to an already great design.

Before I sent it off I played the two stock STMs back and forth and found they played similarly in sonority but they responded very differently. My main STM is easier to play. They both certainly looked different...the new one was actually significantly longer! What's up with that?

When my EZ link is completed it will be fun to note the differences.
 
#136 ·
Phil Barone said:
perfectly flat. What matters is if it gets suction. Anyway, everyone has the right to believe what they want and I respect everyone's opinion.

Thanks for the what matters--- Otto sent me 5 links for my tenor in the 60's picked out the one that "pop---ed" the best.
It also played the best. It was Stolen in Korea while i was in the army band- that persone hurt me---

I found a newer knockoff that played well but would not pop- Changed to a 2 screw ligature and it works great---

now if only i could find a 2 screw ligature for my link soprano----

Red violin definitely yes
 
#137 ·
sinkdraiN said:
Thanks Mountainman for sharing your experience. It's very interesting.

I'm in a similar situation. I have a wonderful stock STM 8 that I use for everything. It banished my beloved V16s and Ponzol M1 to the drawer.

So I purchased another STM 8 and sent it to Ed Z. with a "wish list." I'm excited to see what can be done to an already great design.

Before I sent it off I played the two stock STMs back and forth and found they played similarly in sonority but they responded very differently. My main STM is easier to play. They both certainly looked different...the new one was actually significantly longer! What's up with that?

When my EZ link is completed it will be fun to note the differences.
I too had a great STM before I switched to the NY for slightly more darkness. Sold the STM to a friend and he loves it. Wonder if I should have kept it? His Martin with the STM and The Shadow with the NY sound almost identical.
 
#138 ·
Lack or presence of suction is a common factor I've seen in mouthpiece that lack or have good response and feel. Phil (the expert ) says what I've heard from other experts that the baffle and chamber are the elements that affect the color. Ironically, mouthpieces with no suction seem to provide the wrong kind of suck. Seems to be a key indicator other than actually playing.
 
#139 · (Edited)
Pgraves said:
Lack or presence of suction is a common factor I've seen in mouthpiece that lack or have good response and feel. Ironically, mouthpieces with no suction seem to provide the wrong kind of suck. Seems to be a key indicator other than actually playing.
if the mouthpiece and reed don't seal then you have a leak just like any other leak on the horn.
it may not be absolutely necesary to have the mouthpiece be "perfectly flat" as others have sugested but how would you do that.
Its easy to mate two perfectly flat surfaces. If the mouthpiece table is perfectly flat then after 30 seconds with a reed knife the reed is perfectly flat and then you are good to go. otherwise if you are getting the seal it's by having the wet reed fibers swell and distort to fill the not flat space. Unfortunately these are the same reed fibers that run all the way to the tip of the reed and having them warp and distort is a bad thing period that will mess up their ability to vibrate freely. It may also be possible to actualy cut the reeds not flat by banging the knife blade on the mouthpiece to made it equally not flat or something crazy like that but its just easier if the mouthpiece is perfectly flat. its just basic common sense to mate flat surfaces instead of distorted ones.

let me repeat this one more time so it sinks in because this is a large part of this issue.
the lower reed fibers on the flat side if the reed are the long ones that go all the way to the tip of the reed.
that is, the reed fibers against the table of the mouthpiece are the ones that are making the sound.
if your mouthpiece table is not perfectly flat these fibers get messed up. even if they create a seal by swelling.
i simple test to get the basic idea is to play with a ruler on the edge of a marble table or something.
just because it catches an edge (seals) is not 100% of the game. It sounds best if its flat tight against the table all the way back.
 
#141 · (Edited)
MojoBari said:
Doc tried to tell you why a few pages up. The metal heats up and expands, the table is cut flat, the metal cools and contracts more in the middle of the table. Plus, there can be small problems with the fixture (slop) , mill (slop, wear), and QC.
This doesn't really hold water when you consider the aerospace industry is consistently machining difficult materials to tolerances in the 0.0001" range. Almost all production mills and lathes us coolant to prevent the material being worked from overheating.

EDIT: Note to self - When you think you have a great thing to say, finish reading the thread to see if the same point was brought up 5 posts after the one you are quoting.....
 
#143 ·
Here's my addition to the Link discussion. Sorry if some of these have been covered before...

* With a price point of about $120 and annual sales is the five digit range; control of variation in the manufacturing process can quickly become a loosing proposition. Thus, Babbitt would not make a profit if too much control was put on QA/QC.

* Link mouthpieces have enough visible variation, that most players that have used them have noticed some differences between individual pieces. Much of this variation may be due to the manufacturing of Links in batches on equipment that may be used to make other mouthpieces.

* Antidotal evidence from SOTW and others indicates that variation in Link playability is less pronounced than the visible cosmetic variation. Basically, lots of Links play well even though they look slightly different.

* In general, handmade and refaced mouthpieces of almost any brand will perform better than straight factory produced pieces because the hand maker or refacer spends much effort improving performance. These same improvements in performance could be made at the factory, but they may drive costs up beyond the $120 price point.

* When compared to the cost of a good meal, the $100 to $200 cost for refacing a mouthpiece is very reasonable for something that you stick in your mouth for over an hour everyday.

* If a player buys a new Link for $120 and then spends a $100 on refacing, the final result may be a mouthpiece equal to a $300 to $500 handmade piece. Thus, a refaced Link can be a very good cost-effective was to go.

* The purchase of a new handmade mouthpiece (Phil Barone, etc….) may in theory be superior to buying a refaced factory piece since the final handwork on a handmade piece does not have to make allowances for factory variation or design flaws as must often be done for refaced pieces.

* The advantage of a refaced mouthpiece is that a player can first find a piece with the qualities he or she desires and then have a refacer make small improvements to sound and playability. This makes refacing the more sure path as opposed to buying a high-end handmade piece and then hoping it has the qualities the player wants. Of course, if the player can try the handmade piece first for several days before buying, the advantage of the refaced piece may go away.

* You mileage may vary.
 
#144 ·
I just jumped in here but I personally never detected a dip in the table of a Link. Metal does expand and heat up but anybody using a mill uses coolant. However, J.J. Babbit doesn't use a mill or a lathe to machine their tables and facings. I don't want to elaborate for several reasons, one being that it will get too complicated to explain the other being some person may start an argument. But, for what it's worth, I do make and machine my own mouthpieces. Phil
 
#145 · (Edited)
Enviroguy said:
Here's my addition to the Link discussion. Sorry if some of these have been covered before...

* With a price point of about $120 and annual sales is the five digit range; control of variation in the manufacturing process can quickly become a loosing proposition. Thus, Babbitt would not make a profit if too much control was put on QA/QC.

* Link mouthpieces have enough visible variation, that most players that have used them have noticed some differences between individual pieces. Much of this variation may be due to the manufacturing of Links in batches on equipment that may be used to make other mouthpieces.

* Antidotal evidence from SOTW and others indicates that variation in Link playability is less pronounced than the visible cosmetic variation. Basically, lots of Links play well even though they look slightly different.

* In general, handmade and refaced mouthpieces of almost any brand will perform better than straight factory produced pieces because the hand maker or refacer spends much effort improving performance. These same improvements in performance could be made at the factory, but they may drive costs up beyond the $120 price point.

* When compared to the cost of a good meal, the $100 to $200 cost for refacing a mouthpiece is very reasonable for something that you stick in your mouth for over an hour everyday.

* If a player buys a new Link for $120 and then spends a $100 on refacing, the final result may be a mouthpiece equal to a $300 to $500 handmade piece. Thus, a refaced Link can be a very good cost-effective was to go.

* The purchase of a new handmade mouthpiece (Phil Barone, etc….) may in theory be superior to buying a refaced factory piece since the final handwork on a handmade piece does not have to make allowances for factory variation or design flaws as must often be done for refaced pieces.

* The advantage of a refaced mouthpiece is that a player can first find a piece with the qualities he or she desires and then have a refacer make small improvements to sound and playability. This makes refacing the more sure path as opposed to buying a high-end handmade piece and then hoping it has the qualities the player wants. Of course, if the player can try the handmade piece first for several days before buying, the advantage of the refaced piece may go away.

* You mileage may vary.
You'll never get a new Link to play like any of my models by re-facing, facings contribute very little to the sound as opposed to chambers. The reason why I wouldn't go with refacing is because the guys doing it need some more time to practice their work and probably need to become better players. You're way better off calling me, talking about your specific needs, and buying something I make for you as opposed to buying a new Link and having it faced. You may end up doing it ten times before something really great comes out of it but it won't happen with just a facing. Unfortunately I'm not taking any orders right now but you can try me in a couple of months.

There's no advantage to buying a refaced piece or a piece that hasn't been re-faced. The bottom line is always in the final result and in terms of volume and quality of sound the re-facing won't do it.

Phil
 
#146 ·
Enviroguy said:
With a price point of about $120 and annual sales is the five digit range; control of variation in the manufacturing process can quickly become a loosing proposition. Thus, Babbitt would not make a profit if too much control was put on QA/QC.
I don't understand what you mean by this. What's the relationship between quality control and annual sales figures? Not arguing, I just don't understand what you mean.
 
#147 ·
Phil Barone said:
I just jumped in here but I personally never detected a dip in the table of a Link. Metal does expand and heat up but anybody using a mill uses coolant. However, J.J. Babbit doesn't use a mill or a lathe to machine their tables and facings. I don't want to elaborate for several reasons, one being that it will get too complicated to explain the other being some person may start an argument. But, for what it's worth, I do make and machine my own mouthpieces. Phil
Phil, I DON'T want to start an argument with you but this post is simply unbelievable except for the fact that you "do make and machine (your) own mouthpieces", (except for the ones you've "subcontracted out to another machine shop"). I've never seen a new Link WITHOUT a concave table. And what do YOU call the tracer mill that Babbitt uses to face their mpcs? As far as "not wanting to elaborate for several reasons, one being that it will get too complicated to explain..." since when did that ever stop you from telling us all "how it really is"?
 
#148 ·
Ol' Mpc Doc said:
Phil, I DON'T want to start an argument with you but this post is simply unbelievable except for the fact that you "do make and machine (your) own mouthpieces", (except for the ones you've "subcontracted out to another machine shop"). I've never seen a new Link WITHOUT a concave table. And what do YOU call the tracer mill that Babbitt uses to face their mpcs? As far as "not wanting to elaborate for several reasons, one being that it will get too complicated to explain..." since when did that ever stop you from telling us all "how it really is"?
Well, first of all if you didn't want to start an argument you would have contacted me off line but let's forget about that.

Secondly, there is no such thing as a tracer mill. Any conventional mill (non CNC) with handles instead of motors can be set up to trace a template or cam but there is no such thing as a mill that exclusively is made to trace a cam or template at least to my knowledge. Dukoff and Berg uses this method but they don't use an end mill like I do, they use a flycutter where the table faces the X+ axis, I use an end mill and the table of the mouthpiece faces the Y+ axis..

Lastly, I always suspected that J.J. Babbit used a grinding machine based on the tool marks left and today I called my friend that works there and he confirmed this. J.J. Babbit does indeed use a grinding machine. What help this is to anyone I don't know, in fact I think as players the less we know about the technical end of things the better. Stick with what you know and stay focused on your primary purpose otherwise you won't be successful in your original goals. Phil
 
#149 · (Edited)
Wonderful post enviroguy. You make some very good and pertinent points that I feel are also well voiced.

In terms of Otto Link tables, I have toured the Otto Link factory twice and have seen the grinding machine used to put the facings on links. As of a few years ago at least, it was a purely mechanical grinder reading off of a steel template. Any variation in the physical template or the mechanical mechanism transferring the template shape to the mouthpiece could cause variations in the facings or table.

I agree with Ol' Mpc Doc and Mojo that the concavity in the table exists. Mojo previously wrote in this thread:

"If you take your Link and lightly drag it across extra fine sandpaper on a flat surface, you will see 3 scuff marks. One on the heel, one on each side rail about 7/16" up from the base of the window "U". When I flatten a modern Link table, these 3 points always loose their plating first."

I have flattened tables on hundreds of new links and I have had very similar experiences to Mojo on almost all of them. I still think the Links are fantastic values for their price point, but I do find a concavity in their tables. I did not ask them at the factory whether this was intentional or not.

Merlin previously stated in this thread:

"Excessively concave tables, which I see on many rubber Links can be flattened. The facing curves themselves are frequently not too bad. The effect of flattening the table and bringing the curve back to spec is remarkable. Better response and more reeds that work. That part at least, is not "voodoo". Just good craftsmanship."

This has usually been my experience as well.

The odd thing is some people don't want a better response. Working against some resistence actually helps them express their desired sound and they really do prefer what would otherwise be termed a bad facing. That is pretty uncommon though, but I always had much better luck working with customers in person for that reason as I could hear the changes in sound while the customer played though mouthpiece as I was altering it.

An example would be Jan Garbarek. I had a total transformation in how I did work for him once we finally sat down together. The facing that ended up working best for him was very different than what I normally did. Going bit by bit, we were able to finally see what actually got him the sound he wanted.

Thomas previously wrote in this thread:

"My question and confusion still remains-how much difference does it, can it (modification/tweaking) really make when dealing in thousandths of an inch?"

My experience is a great deal of change can happen with minute alterations to a facing curve or baffle shape. But those changes must be in the right place to get the resultant change in sound they desire.

I remember working on pieces with Bennie Wallace. He played an 8 Florida STM Link. He sounded thin with a standard length curve, however, lengthen the darn thing just .02" and his sound opened way up. He truly went from being uninspired and unhappy with the mouthpiece to truly inspired and happy. This shows how much of a change it CAN make. It does not mean it would make a difference at all for you. Only test playing such changes as they were made would really tell you.

Mountainman previously wrote in this thread:

"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!"

Metal Otto Links are made by gravity die casting. Molten brass is poured into two separate cavities (dies). The brass then solidifies as it cools. This would be like pouring liquid into a cup, then freezing it to make a Popsicle. This analogy is ONLY to help visualize! These rough parts are then clamped together, soldered and then extensively finished. The blanks before finishing are very different from piece to piece. My point is, once the process is understood, such a great variations from piece to piece is actually quite understandable.

This picture shows the two halves of Otto Link mouthpieces being clamped and soldered together. Each half has been cast, cleaned, and then roughed prior to this process.
 
#151 ·
you were born with muscles in your face that will make you sound like you whatever you spend on mouthpiece voodoo. stop being sax geeks,play the damn thing long and hard.this guardala guy has a lot of you jumping around like puppets. get a link and blow long notes for hours till it hurts then forget about guardala barone cheetam and play... time is to short
 
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