Untitled Document
     
Advertisement Click to advertise with us!
     

My mouthpiece is stuck :o(

I'm glad everything turned out OK. Every time I think I have found the solution to every problem, a horn comes into the shop with something wrong I've never seen. That's when the combined experience/logic/skills of the 6 technicians in the repair department show their true value. All's well that ends well.
 
Dave Dolson said:
WHY doesn't the "small chamber" work? Now that you have the mouthpiece off the neck, maybe by sanding and lubricating the assembly, you can shove that same mouthpiece on far enough to play it in tune and thus give it a better evaluation. You may be surprised at how well it plays when it is properly sited on the cork. DAVE
Click to expand...

You can't push it on enough ... it stops because of the small chamber of the mouthpiece and shaving down the cork will not make a difference -- the brass of the neck hits an edge and can't go far enough. I would have to cut off a 3/8" minimum of the neck to have it fit -- LOL ... not really but you understand.

I had no problem with the medium chamber.

If I could take a pic of what happened to the inside of the mouthpiece from it being stuck I would.
 
Last edited:
Okay, but I'm not convinced that your nomenclature is correct. I think you are confusing chamber size with barrel size.

The chamber is the whole inside of the mouthpiece after it is affixed to the neck. The barrel is that part of the mouthpiece that accepts the neck when the piece is affixed to it.

I know that some mouthpieces' barrels are not deep enough to accomodate enough neck to allow a piece to shove on to pitch. And, I know that some mouthpieces' barrels are too big (interior diameter) to seal with the existing neck cork.

But in my experience, it isn't the mouthpiece's chamber that causes that, it is the barrel. The chamber is the entire inside of a mouthpiece - the total internal volume of the piece. Some pieces are smaller inside than others, but the interior of the barrel is a totally different thing. Its only function is to accept the neck.

Thus, one could be using a small, medium, nor large-chambered mouthpiece with a very short, narrow barrel or any other combinations of measurements.

Some mouthpiece experts here may feel free to correct me - I am NOT an expert on mouthpieces although I did stay at a Holiday Inn . . . and I do own a ton of them. DAVE
 
Dave Dolson said:
Okay, but I'm not convinced that your nomenclature is correct. I think you are confusing chamber size with barrel size.

The chamber is the whole inside of the mouthpiece after it is affixed to the neck. The barrel is that part of the mouthpiece that accepts the neck when the piece is affixed to it.

I know that some mouthpieces' barrels are not deep enough to accomodate enough neck to allow a piece to shove on to pitch. And, I know that some mouthpieces' barrels are too big (interior diameter) to seal with the existing neck cork.

But in my experience, it isn't the mouthpiece's chamber that causes that, it is the barrel. The chamber is the entire inside of a mouthpiece - the total internal volume of the piece. Some pieces are smaller inside than others, but the interior of the barrel is a totally different thing. Its only function is to accept the neck.

Thus, one could be using a small, medium, nor large-chambered mouthpiece with a very short, narrow barrel or any other combinations of measurements.

Some mouthpiece experts here may feel free to correct me - I am NOT an expert on mouthpieces although I did stay at a Holiday Inn . . . and I do own a ton of them. DAVE
Click to expand...


Saxophone mouthpieces don't have "barrels" - i don't think. I'm not hip with the jargon so I could be wrong.

What my problem is a) the bore of the shank is too small and b) a little too short, to go far enough on the neck to tune properly. This can't be fixed in my case by filing down the cork - in a lot of cases it can be fixed this way. The only way for this mouthpiece to work is to enlarge the back bore ... i.e. not the bore of the chamber. I wasn't confusing it, my point was from before is that I've never had that problem with any medium chamber piece I've ever played. I guess it could just be a coincidence?
 
Last edited:
I had troubles with my Berg Larsen mouthpieces on my Yamaha baritone (too flat), which I solved by taking a hacksaw to the barrel portion of the mouthpiece. I removed (or caused to have removed) 5/8" of an inch, and everything has worked just fine from that date forward.

It takes some guts to put a saw to something that costs as much as a Berg Larsen mouthpiece. It was easier to take the big step on the subsequent examples.
 
SOTSDO said:
I had troubles with my Berg Larsen mouthpieces on my Yamaha baritone (too flat), which I solved by taking a hacksaw to the barrel portion of the mouthpiece. I removed (or caused to have removed) 5/8" of an inch, and everything has worked just fine from that date forward.

It takes some guts to put a saw to something that costs as much as a Berg Larsen mouthpiece. It was easier to take the big step on the subsequent examples.
Click to expand...

Ya I'll say!

That's a funny / intense story. HAHA
 
Well, you seem to know more about that than me, so we'll just leave it at that.

I too have had barrels (oops, that long thingy where the neck fits) sawed off so the mouthpiece can shove on far enough on my vintage sopranos. Brings 'em right up to pitch. DAVE
 
Dave Dolson said:
I too have had barrels (oops, that long thingy where the neck fits) sawed off so the mouthpiece can shove on far enough on my vintage sopranos. Brings 'em right up to pitch. DAVE
Click to expand...
I've seen a few of those. They look kinda odd.

I know that the Conn straight sopranos had some definite intonation "quirks". In your experience, were the "sawed off" mouthpieces for Conns or something else?
 
Pete: Both, but my two vintage sopranos now are Bueschers from 1928 (straight). The upper octave vent has a little rib on it that prevented my longish soprano pieces (Selmer S-80's, a Guardala, and my two Morgan Vintage pieces come to mind) from shoving on far enough.

I've had Conns, too (straight and curved over the years) and I don't recall whether or not the upper octave rib was there. Regardless, I used those cut off pieces on the straight Conn and they played fine.

I had repair-techs cut a little off the barrels (oops, there I go again) to shorten the pieces enough. Now, those shortened pieces are about the same length as my Super Sessions and STM Links. I come to pitch okay.

Still, if the playing environment is sharp (like a piano tuned to A-443 or so), then I switch to modern sops (I always bring a back up soprano and almost always it is a Yanagisawa). DAVE
 
I exchanged my V16 7S for a Meyer 7M and it's PERFECT. No issues and everything is good. YAY!
 
My main alto piece is a Meyer 6S-Medium Chamber, but I also have a Meyer 7M-Small Chamber for alto. I prefer the 6S-M because it plays a bit smoother for me. The 7M-S is a bit harsh and more difficult for me to control. Both play to pitch very nicely.

Some will tell you that chamber size makes a difference in intonation but I've never found that to be the case, especially with any of my vintage sops and altos. The old "saw" was that one must use a large-chambered piece on vintage saxophones for best results. Not me. But everyone is different.

Pete, I neglected to discuss "intonation quirks" on old Conns. Every old Conn I've owned had those quirks, regardless of what mouthpiece I used. It was enough to turn me off of those horns.

I love Bueschers (have six altogether) and none display the quirks that I experienced with Conns. I'm not prepared to make a blanket accusation, though. I recognize that many love their Conns and seem to deal with their quirks. I just didn't want to be bothered. DAVE
 
Dave Dolson said:
Some will tell you that chamber size makes a difference in intonation but I've never found that to be the case, especially with any of my vintage sops and altos. The old "saw" was that one must use a large-chambered piece on vintage saxophones for best results. Not me. But everyone is different.
Click to expand...
I have definitely repeated and perpetuated that old saw -- primarily because I've found it to have more than a grain of truth.

AS ALWAYS, YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY.

I had a Selmer LT hard rubber alto mouthpiece, for awhile, and I had my standard Sigurd Rascher, which is virtually identical to a Buescher 'piece from the 1920's (or earlier) and is very fat. The LT was horridly out of tune on horns from the 1920s I played (Conn stencils, Martins), but they responded extremely well with the Rascher. I also found that other 1920's vintage horns played better with the Raschers as opposed to more modern 'pieces -- although I really, really liked the Martin period mouthpieces better.

Pete, I neglected to discuss "intonation quirks" on old Conns. Every old Conn I've owned had those quirks, regardless of what mouthpiece I used. It was enough to turn me off of those horns.

I love Bueschers (have six altogether) and none display the quirks that I experienced with Conns. I'm not prepared to make a blanket accusation, though. I recognize that many love their Conns and seem to deal with their quirks. I just didn't want to be bothered. DAVE
Click to expand...
I've not played many Buescher-made Bueschers. My biggest experience with a Buescher was with a gold-plated TT bari and that was one of the best sounding horns I evar played. I didn't really care for the keywork or bullet hole through the bell, so I got my Keilwerth-made Bundy, instead.

However, I agree with you on the Conns. I've had several from the New Wonder era and I absolutely hated the intonation. I also disliked the very "spread" sound. However, the 30M Connqueror sounds SO good, I'd forgive a lot of minor problems.

BTB, I forgot about the octave pips on early sopranos. You're absolutely right that pushing on a mouthpiece so far would cause issues. Same with a sopranino. Hey, Mr. Eppelsheim has the octave vent on the mouthpiece for the Soprillo!

Regarding mouthpieces and "base" intonation, one would think that the overall internal volume of the mouthpiece would be the determining factor -- in other words a fat, stubby mouthpiece might have the same volume as a long, skinny one and thus both would have the same "base" intonation. But I'm just making an assumption.

Here's an interesting question: with a default embochure, what pitch should a sopranino, soprano, alto, teno, bari, bass, contrabass mouthpiece sound? Mouthpiece only, not mouthpiece + anything else. Hey, we've got people that make them that post here .....

(Yes, I'll split this thread in awhile.)
 
pete said:
Here's an interesting question: with a default embochure, what pitch should a sopranino, soprano, alto, teno, bari, bass, contrabass mouthpiece sound? Mouthpiece only, not mouthpiece + anything else. Hey, we've got people that make them that post here .....

(Yes, I'll split this thread in awhile.)
Click to expand...



I think that's a matter of opinion.

For example, on tenor, my prof Alex Dean (jazzer) ... says that it should play as a concert F (maybe G - can't remember). However, my prof Mark Promane (doubler and head of woodwinds) works hard with us to play lower on the pitch. If I play just my tenor mouthpiece it sounds about a concert middle C - last I checked. I have had it sound as low as concert A (below middle C) - when I took the concept as far as possible. --- I hope I got the octaves right LOL

Any other opinions out there?
 
Pete: I don't know what pitch any mouthpiece should sound. I'll leave that to folks who know.

I know I've discussed this to death on that OTHER saxophone board, but no one objectively refuted my contentions. Oh, there was plenty of subjective talk about it.

As far as those old mouthpieces, I've owned them and tried them. And for the life of me, I can't get a decent sound out of any of them, neither volume OR quality. My vintage saxophones play wonderfully with modern mouthpieces of various marques. For me, if a mouthpiece plays well for me, it plays just as good on my vintage saxophones as it does on my modern saxophones.

I've long suspected that the concept of chamber-size is just that, a concept. I realize that eye-balling the inside of a mouthpiece is about as unscientific as it gets. I've looked at my Meyers marked "Medium Chamber" and "Small Chamber" and see no difference. I've looked at the inside of old Buescher and Conn vintage mouthpieces and they didn't look any smaller or larger than my modern pieces.

I suppose one could block off the piece's opening (maybe by holding a reed flat against it) and fill the piece with water, thus measuring the amount of water held by various pieces, but that would include the volume of the neck-socket (the barrel - there, I said it!) which I don't think is part of a mouthpiece's internal volume. Could be wrong there - correct me if I am.

Actually measuring the internal volume of a mouthpiece is difficult. I'm wondering how many have done it as opposed to how many claim they have a "large chamber" or a "small-chamber" (whatever) just because they read some marketing literature or some music store commando told them so.

I acknowledge that mouthpieces play differently alright. But I think those differences are because of a combination of factors like tip-opening, rail design, baffle, throat design (square, round, etc.) and yes, maybe the internal volume. Whatever - I'm satisfied with my current set-ups and horns. DAVE
 
Well, I'm not a mouthpiece guy, so all this is just an intellectual exercise for me: the best advice I can give regarding mouthpieces is, "Find one you like and stick with it" or become Ed and have 5,000 mouthpieces stuck in a drawer someplace.

To measure the "internal volume", that water trick would work, but you do have a point with the, "At what point should we take the measure?" I'd say that you include the beak and "chamber" or "bore" (depending on what terms you wish to use), but not the barrel. HOWEVER, very few of us need to push the mouthpiece all the way on so that the neck abuts the chamber, as in WW Doubler's case, so maybe you COULD say that the barrel has something to do with it. (But you would also have to keep in mind those "sawed off" mouthpieces we mentioned a bit ago.)

I dunno, but it's an interesting idea. :-D
 
I find that there is a difference in the way pieces tune on the horn for me based on chamber size. I can generally adjust quickly and I think most players with decent ears do that with all of their pieces. Even though I have a bunch of mouthpieces (ironically a large number of them are sitting in drawers but some are also in boxes and containers in various closets throughout the house), I have attained pretty stable setups on everything except soprano.

To illustrate the way that chamber size influences tuning try this:

Get a large chamber mouthpiece and mark your cork with where "in tune" is at. Remove the mouthpiece and fill the sidewalls with silly putty. Keep it away from the side rails. Now place the mouthpiece back on the cork. You will notice a difference in how far it goes on the cork. Now the other thing you may notice is that the adjustments you have to make as a player in order to play in tune. My experience has been that larger chamber pieces tend to play a little flatter in the palm keys than a smaller chamber piece. Generally speaking it's not anything that can't be adjusted.

I made a custom soprano piece for myself some time ago and the chamber is too large for the horn I play. I have cut the shank as much as I can but the piece will not play in tune on the horn. When I fill the chamber sidewalls with silly putty I can play the piece in tune on the horn and it doesn't even have to be all the way on the cork. :D
 
Ed: That well be true but how does one know (I mean REALLY know) about chamber size? The term is bandied about as if everyone believes!

I'm betting that if there IS a difference in chamber size among several pieces, the human eye won't be able to measure it. It may be a very small change from one to another - not that a small change isn't significant - but how can anyone pick up a piece and say with conviction that it has a large chamber as opposed to a medium or small chamber?

This whole subject baffles me (interesting choice of words, eh?), much like bore sizes on saxophones. Lot of myth and mystery if you ask me. DAVE
 
It all has to do with the "cone" and pecularities of the mpc in relation to the respective tuning points from the mpc on through the neck (and horn). There's been some extensive research in this area and the one common book "The Sax is my Voice" touches on it fairly extensively.

the larger a mpc is internally the greater volume it has, and it affects the cone in that regard - too much volume, push it in. The smaller the internal volume then you have to pull it out to keep the "cone" at a certain overall volume.

of course, one can pinch the embouchure to compensate for a large volume mpc not put on far enough.

think of it this way. A sax is a long triangle (cone). The point being the mpc area. The wide base the bell. To get different instruments alto (Eb) to tenor (Bb) you make the triangle (cone) longer and bigger, thus takes up more volume. The mpc affects the cone more in it's entirity as it's at the tip and has a greater effect of the overall instrument than if you, for example, just increase the bell size.


To mpc refacers & makers we can look at a mpc and understand pecularities of it's playing characteristics before we even give it a toot.
scooped sidewalls, long facing, thick/thin rails and tip rail, throat/chamber sizes etc
The smaller the mpc (soprano, clarinet) the more delicate minor pecularities seem to be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom