[Hassles]

I understand, obviously, that mouthpieces are 'usually' examined from the underside when inspecting their internal characteristics.

But .... with regards to various mouthpiece baffles, more specifically the description thereof, there seems to be a lack of uniformity. I note on Theo Wanne's pages he cites flat baffle / roll-over baffle / Step baffle and lastly a concave baffle. No mention of the terms High or Low. On other sites I have seen mention of High Baffles as being "Thicker" such as a step-baffle would be. Other makers employ the term High, Medium and None to describe the baffles of their pieces. I occasionally see the terms High and Low to describe the same things. Therefore may I assume some terminolgies have gone out of vogue to avoid confusion?

 

[J-Moen]

So step baffle, rollover, concave, others are all a style of baffle. Step baffle is a flat plane that suddenly steps down, a rollover baffle gradually curves down over the length of the baffle. Berg's have a bullet style baffle, that is like a concave step baffle. These are just baffle styles.

Then you have the height/positioning of these baffles. A higher baffle will be much higher pronounced toward the rails, and a lower baffle will have more area between the rails and the baffle. Additionally, I have seen some refer to height as how far down before the baffle begins to slope/step downward into the chamber. It gets rather confusing.

 

[Hassles]

So step baffle, rollover, concave, others are all a style of baffle. Step baffle is a flat plane that suddenly steps down, a rollover baffle gradually curves down over the length of the baffle. Berg's have a bullet style baffle, that is like a concave step baffle. These are just baffle styles.

Then you have the height/positioning of these baffles. A higher baffle will be much higher pronounced toward the rails, and a lower baffle will have more area between the rails and the baffle. Additionally, I have seen some refer to height as how far down before the baffle begins to slope/step downward into the chamber. It gets rather confusing.

so baffle heights are judged / measured from the MPs upside down position. Perhaps high terminology should be discarded.

 

[J-Moen]

I dunno if I would say it's measured upside down. If you're looking directly at a mouthpiece with the baffle showing, a higher baffle will have a taller surface with less air gap, and a lower baffle will have a shorter surface with more air gap.

Higher baffles are usually louder, edgier, and brighter, so there is a reason to make the distinguish in baffle height.

And to the earlier 'height' secondary use, I believe the correct usage of that is the length of the baffle. But I've heard worse things being spread around.

 

[MojoBari]

It seems upside down compared to the playing orientation.

 

[Hassles]

If you think "logically" a high baffle would be a baffle that is high eg: close to the mouthpiece beak (from the playing orientation) up from the reed (which occupies the "lower" most aspect) and not deemed low when observed from the underside and closer to the reed. I do find it interesting, the absence of the term high on some makers web pages while the term is still used by others. So there is, to degrees, some lack of uniformity of descriptors.

 

[1saxman]

It is, and I have never liked the fact that a 'high' baffle appears to be lower to the plane of the table, which is a 'constant' in any mouthpiece discussion. But, I can see the other side of it too, as the mouthpiece would be held while observing the inner design or working on it, with the baffle height being described as high to low, with 'high' being closest to the plane of the table. Maybe we should adopt Berg Larsen's terminology with '0' being the highest baffle and '3' being the lowest (with 'high-baffle' mouthpieces) but even that wouldn't cover all designs.
So, to the question, confusion shall reign on this and many other subjects, like bright, dark, spread, focused, compact, etc. You just have to get used to the ways the terms are used, which unfortunately can be nearly at random.

 

[Hassles]

At least with Berg Larsen's 0, 1, 2 and 3 - you knew what they meant.

Look at Lawton's Plain B and BB descriptors to describe the chambers & baffles of their pieces.

Plain Large chamber, low baffle.

Model B. Medium chamber and baffle.

Model BB. Medium chamber and high baffle - but.....what is Lawton's orientation with regards to baffle height?

 

[Dr G]

At least with Berg Larsen's 0, 1, 2 and 3 - you knew what they meant.

Look at Lawton's Plain B and BB descriptors to describe the chambers & baffles of their pieces.

Plain Large chamber, low baffle.

Model B. Medium chamber and baffle.

Model BB. Medium chamber and high baffle - but.....what is Lawton's orientation with regards to baffle height?

"Low baffle" - almost no baffle.

"High baffle" - not much room between the reed and baffle.

"Medium baffle" - just right... :bluewink:

I don't understand how Berg designations are "obvious". They only take on meaning for me after seeing and experiencing them. If you want to put Lawton's into Berg-speak, BB is most similar to "0", and "Plain" is most similar to "3".

Regarding Theo's baffle page: That's all about baffle SHAPE. Height/thickness is about magnitude.

 

[Dr G]

so baffle heights are judged / measured from the MPs upside down position. Perhaps high terminology should be discarded.

Why discard it? Sure it is arbitrary, but it is widely used. Yes, "high" can be confusing, but if you think of "low baffle" as closest to "no baffle", it makes sense eventually.

Should we stop calling spicy foods "hot"?

And why do we call rapidly-accelerating cars "fast"? "Quick" is the correct term. Let's throw out "fast" in that context.

Bottom line: Accept the terminology as it is broadly used. Look for examples of each term and learn how it matters.

 

[Sigmund451]

I dont think the terminology is backwards. The baffle is high in a high baffle piece. It is high and close to the reed. Also, as said, when its being worked on its higher...but what matters is its relationship to the position of the reed. Its relationship to the beak means little.

 

[1saxman]

The 'position of the reed' is the 'plane of the table' in this sense.

Dr.G; the thing about the Berg '0,1,2,3' baffles that is 'obvious' is the fact that they have published drawings showing the relative heights of their baffles from day one. You have to know that a '0' is the brightest and a '3' the darkest, all things being equal. I always liked that about Bergs - a scientific approach to matters of artistic taste, including the tip openings expressed in .000". Obviously with hand finishing, they rarely met their designation to the thousandth, but it was still a revelation, as I believe Berg was the first major manufacturer to mark mouthpieces with the actual facing rather than with a number or letter system.

 

[Dr G]

Dr.G; the thing about the Berg '0,1,2,3' baffles that is 'obvious' is the fact that they have published drawings showing the relative heights of their baffles from day one. You have to know that a '0' is the brightest and a '3' the darkest, all things being equal.

I am familiar with them, but I cannot recall the last a time I saw their chart - it's been a while. I agree that their labeling system is well-intended. The other that I like is Meyer's method of characterizing lay length and chamber size.

The ultimate label would include: tip opening/baffle type/baffle magnitude/lay length/chamber size.

Or you just leave it up to the maker and ask for a good one. :twisted: :bluewink:

 

[1saxman]

Ha! That would be the day, wouldn't it? 'Hello, yeah, just send me a great tenor piece. I like everything from classical to rock, to blues, to country, to smooth jazz.'

 

[JL]

"Low baffle" - almost no baffle.

"High baffle" - not much room between the reed and baffle.

"Medium baffle" - just right... :bluewink:

Regarding Theo's baffle page: That's all about baffle SHAPE. Height/thickness is about magnitude.

+1. This is a good description of what is meant by these terms. And terms like 'rollover', 'step', 'flat', 'bullet', etc refer to SHAPE.

Relatively small variations in ALL of those parameters can have a profound effect! I discovered this some time ago when I messed around putting putty (bubble gum, actually) inside a low baffle mpc to see what would happen. Every time I changed the shape in the slightest way, the tone/volume would be seriously altered. Overall, nothing I did really improved the mpc, just made it sound more or less bright or harsh. I concluded that shaping & sizing a baffle is a real art, best left to those who know what they are doing. And it's a fine balance between the size/shape of the baffle and tip opening (especially), length of facing, chamber size, and probably other factors.

 

[Sigmund451]

Crispy...Extra Crispy

 

[Dr G]

Crispy...Extra Crispy

I am so glad that I ordered extra sauce on mine! Love it.

 

[Dr G]

<arghhh, another double post>

 

[Lambros]

I am so glad that I ordered extra sauce on mine! Love it.

I guess some like more flavor in their sound, some more texture, perhaps a pleasant blend of both; most of the time, plain ole sizzlin' suits me just fine. Baffling shouldn't be so perplexing.

 

[Hassles]

Baffling shouldn't be so perplexing.

No indeed - it should simply be more unified.