I am successfully playing a Dukoff LD7 Silverite. GREAT Tone. Really decent power and dynamics.
I'm wanting to explore more edge in my playing. I understand that the D model Dukoff can be thin and possibly less than instantaneously responsive in the bottom end. Would the M model be kinder to the bottom end ??
I haven't noticed significant differences between the D and M in any regard, though there is supposed to be. That is perhaps because the variation found in Dukoffs is greater than the design differences.
Me too. D and Ms sound too similar. Whichever one has the better facing on it will seem to sound better. For a fatter bottom end, the chamber/throat area needs to be enlarged and the wart removed. On tenor, this is almost always desired. On alto, about 1/2 of my clients ask for this.
I've owned all 3 models in tenor (although not at the same time) - maybe I also had a bit of luck, but all 3 were very well finished with fine and even rails and a decent tip. I preferred the LD over the others, and found the M and D generally too bright. Like others have said, although the internals of the M look substantially different, there doesn't seem to be a huge difference tone-wise to the D. Maybe you could say that the M has a better potential for a larger sound in the bottom range.
A metal D vs a hard rubber M, I do know. The metal D is a little brighter and thinner top to bottom. The hard rubber M has a little more guts in the bottom and presence in the top. Granted, one is metal, one is rubber - two different animals.
On soprano, I play a metal D6.
I play a Yamaha Custom 875 (silver) alto, I have metal D9, D10, and hard rubber M8 mouthpieces. I love the hard rubber M8 better than the metal pieces. I bought the hard rubber while studying music in college and paid about $40 for it in 1991 (another story, anothe time). I played the Dukoffs for a few years before I got tired of cutting my lips when they would get pinched between the reed and mouthpiece where the sides of the mouthpiece rounded too much to the rails. I have used cane and plastic reeds -- same results. I have the metal ones put away.
The last metal Dukoff mouthpiece I got (in about 1999) actually had a pin-sized hole in it from a manufacturing defect. Living in Miami, FL, I took it to Bobby's factory in Kendall by the airport in a warehouse area, met Bobby Dukoff in person, and after he realized it did get past quality control, he brought out 5 other mouthpieces for me to try and I selected the best one. It was an honor to meet a legend. They had stopped making the hard rubber mouthpieces at that time due to costs - so they told me. Personally, the quality of the hard rubber FAR surpasses the pop-cast metal used in the metal mouthpieces. The inside of my metals ones looked like moon craters. I even asked Bobby about the rough finishing on the inside of the metal mouthpieces and it affecting the sound quality or intonation. He became defensive and said it had no bearing. He may be right, but I personally think the Dukoff quality has gone down. The metal tarnishes to a dull grey after it gets exposed to your first gig. The metal is so soft you can dent it with your fingernail almost, and none play alike.
The M in hard rubber gives a great sound with a little more guts in the low end and doesn't make the upper notes thin. The response on the M (HR) is great and altissimo is clear. The table is well finished, even rails and tip, chamber is well finished, and sound quality is a cross between a Beechler Diamond Inlay (HR) and a Vandoren Jumbo Java (HR). I love it and if I can find one in a M9 or M10, I'd buy it.
For what is is worth, Beechler DI's are a plastic material very different from hard rubber. Likewise with the modern Dukoff D,M etc models.
While I don't think material makes a difference in sound, the Beechler plastic is pretty soft and hard to face well. Not sure about the Dukoff "Vibra-Com", though I don't think you can buy the it anymore.
I have a "silverite" (a lead-free pewter) tenor M which is darker and fuller than a D. But it had facing and chamber work when I bought it. Dukoff uses this material because it is easy to cast.
If your still checking this thread, I love the D7 too. You have to put a whole lot of time on them too make them conform to all of your environments...but for me it's worth it.
In regards too what would be edgy-er, etc. I agree with Mojo and Madav in this way;
In 96' I had purchased a customized LD 7 from Mr. Dukoff himself for just under $200 then.
I explained that I wanted more facility over the horn with more volume to the tone. My LD 7 blows great. The altissimos, lower register, and subtones are easier to get out then the D7. It has a lower baffle and larger chamber, so it makes going back to a D7 very irritable.
If you or anyone would like to buy my Dukoff LD 7, pm me. It is in new condition as I never "played" it. I went back to the D7.
The LD7 that I own is really a wonderful piece. I had Wil Grizzle reface it to original specs (.105"). Although it was black as tar, Semi Chrome polish made it shine like new.
Definately dark, but this depends on you and your reed selection. I do like the Dukoff VibraFree lig. The small BOIS (sop. I think) plays nicely as well.
My fav. reed is a 2 1/2 Fibracell. In cane, I like Java and La Voz. Maybe Hemke (The darkest but still responsive) or even blue box Vandoren. The previous were listed (IMHO) from brightest to darkest.
This piece does have power, although not like the D or M (which I also own) models. It is easy to play and control. for the most part, I play with a brass ensemble, so blending with some uumph is exacly what I need. Although Tone is my main objective, I do like a nice range of dynamics.
I have been through several expensive (over $300.00) and inexpensive mpcs. in the last year. Considering the type and style of music I play, this mpc. really fits better than anything so far (I had to say it).
I have an M model that I will probably hand over to Mojo Bari to do his magic, first of the year. I probably won't use it much, but I want a first class blaster, just in case. :!:
ABOUT THE DUKOFF CHAMBERS
D CHAMBER: The baffle in the chamber is built high enough for a bright "edgy" sound, yet has the depth and guts which make the sound excitng. The shank of the mouthpiece has been elongated to get a better grip on the cork when tuning. The insert for the teeth is slighty contoured for more comfortable playing. The response is instantaneous and clean. ALL THESE INNOVATIONS APPLY TO OUR ENTIRE LINE OF MOUTHPIECES.
S SUPER POWER CHAMBER: is a smaller chamber which gives a more direct, compact sound. Some players like the feeling of tighter control of their instrument that this chamber provides. The "S" Chamber provides the brightest sound in our line of mouthpieces. M SUPER POWER CHAMBER: will give the player everthing offered in the "D" Chamber but is slighty darker (less bright) in sound.
L SUPER POWER CHAMBER: (orginal large chamber) is more of a traditional large chambered mouthpiece. The sound has more spread and gives the darkest sound of all our chambers. This mouthpiece is preferred by the main stream jazz players.
P CHAMBER: has the same baffle as the "D" chamber, except the chamber itself is slighty larger, for more depth to the sound.
H CHAMBER: is a traditional round large chamber with no baffle. It is a duplication of my famous 'HOLLYWOOD' (H) model of 1945. I have had many requests for this mouthpiece.
So, where does your LD mpc fall in these categories?
When you’re talking Dukoff’s you have to date them in reference to their overall sound.
I had a conversation with Boots (Randolph) this Father’s Day just before his passing and we agreed that todays (past decade or so) D’s sound nothing like the ones from the 60’s and 70’s which were not as bright or edgy. Boots had received a load of pieces from Bobby and later Nicholas from the shop through the years to try but the piece he played on was a well over 30 year old D9.
About 5 months ago I received several pieces from Nicholas to try out D’s, M’s and X’s.
My favorite from those was a M8 but having an old D to compare to, the M was way too bright. First it went back to the shop, I still was not satisfied, then I sent it to Keith (MojoBari), twice, and now I finally have what I wanted from a Dukoff again (by the way Keith did a great job on it!).
Depending on throat and embouchure I can easily make it sound like a newer D or and older Hollywood or anywhere in between. Just last month at a few jazz festivals I had several friends thinking I had found an old Hollywood and more recently in the studio I had it cutting like a vintage D. Needless to say I’m really happy with it now, (again thank you Keith) with Dukoff’s you either have to play a bunch of them and find one that you like or find one that’s close and have it worked to the sound you desire.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could
be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Sax on the Web Forum
A forum community dedicated to saxophone players and enthusiasts originally founded by Harri Rautiainen. Come join the discussion about collections, care, displays, models, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!