[meven ASC]

I have a question for the experts out here. I have done some research on the subject but I could not find any satisfactory answers online. I apologize in advance if this has been discussed before.

What is the effect (if any) of the window shape on the sound and playability of a mouthpiece? By shape I mean round (like most mouthpieces), square (for example like a Guardala Fat Boy) or any other shapes (i.e. like the Jody Jazz DV).

1 - Does it impact the sound (bright vs dark), the projection and/or the resistance (tight vs free blowing)?
2 - Is it a decision made by the manufacturer based on the design of the chamber and/or the baffle?

Thanks!

 

[click]

I have a Springer teonr with a keystone arch window shape, rather as though someone got started on the DV window, and decided not to.

 

[MojoBari]

Minor. I do find that if there is a thick “wall” at the base of the window “U”, this adds some acoustic resistance. I usually undercut this area as part of a reface job. Finer mouthpieces already come this way. They have a thin wall or an almost sharp edge.

Making the window longer without undercutting can have a similar effect.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I agree with mojo. (If you think about it you could square off a circular window by cutting out the corners. However it's probably the resulting "cliff edge" perpendicular to the tabel that would have more effect then the actual shape per se. Of course if you do square off the corners you may want to then smooth out that cliff edge by angling it to make it more streamlined. But you'd still probably never know what caused an differences, even if you could do an objective A/B blindfold comparison.

 

[Lambros]

Minor. I do find that if there is a thick "wall" at the base of the window "U", this adds some acoustic resistance. I usually undercut this area as part of a reface job. Finer mouthpieces already come this way. They have a thin wall or an almost sharp edge.

Making the window longer without undercutting can have a similar effect.

exactly and this especially improves clarinet mouthpieces because it completes and matches the facets every other wall surface has in the mouthpiece and improves projection. A little trickier on sax pieces because of how chamber designs differ (square, round, etc.) and wall profiles are designed (flat, concave, etc.) Lengthening the window could improve the lower range on certain mouthpieces I found.

 

[1saxman]

I think its a significant factor but if you think about it, the window length and width in a conventional mouthpiece with a throat feature is basically set by other factors, leaving only the shape of the base cut as an option. Guardala went to the more 'squared-off' base cuts on most of his mouthpieces and I believe he had reason to do so. Back to the design, the opening width is controlled by the reed width and the designer's intentions, such as 'narrow table' or not and the rail width which in many fine mouthpieces (to coin Mojo's term) have narrow tip and side rails. As for the length, it has to terminate before it interferes with the throat feature whether that is a round or oval restriction, straight sidewalls or whatever. In an extreme mouthpiece like the 'Deep V', it has to terminate before the point of maximum neck insertion, whether that be a throat feature or not.
But to the question of 'what does a deeper window do?' it has to do with the other design elements. IOW, the deeper window has to be planned from the beginning and much experimentation done before going to production.
On the subject of what is being termed 'undercutting', what I do is look into the piece (assuming the piece should have a featureless 'floor' all the way through) from the shank end and see if the floor intrudes into the area created by imagining the bore to be extended to the window. This I will do particularly if I think a mouthpiece has promise but seems a little stuffy/resistant. If it needs to be 'relieved', I use various round/curved files to achieve the shape and blend 'the wall' down to the window. This is definitely one of the major 'sweet spots' on a mouthpiece and improvements here translate to 'instant gratification' when you try the mouthpiece. Some mouthpieces, particularly those with a 'full ring' throat, should be left as they were made if they are decent players. If its not that great and/or is not worth money if it stays in its original condition, maybe you would consider cutting down the bottom of the ring to make an oval throat. Guardala also did this on his high-baffle pieces (King and Super King) which by definition thus requires the floor to be blended as above. Pardon me for wandering away from the subject a little but since its all related to the question I don't feel bad about it.

 

[meven ASC]

Minor. I do find that if there is a thick "wall" at the base of the window "U", this adds some acoustic resistance. I usually undercut this area as part of a reface job. Finer mouthpieces already come this way. They have a thin wall or an almost sharp edge.

Making the window longer without undercutting can have a similar effect.

I agree with mojo. (If you think about it you could square off a circular window by cutting out the corners. However it's probably the resulting "cliff edge" perpendicular to the tabel that would have more effect then the actual shape per se. Of course if you do square off the corners you may want to then smooth out that cliff edge by angling it to make it more streamlined. But you'd still probably never know what caused an differences, even if you could do an objective A/B blindfold comparison.

Thanks for the answers. Basically, the shape of the window does not have much effect but the "bottom edge" of the window is critical for playability.

My own conclusion is that we need an official name for that "bottom edge", "cliff edge", "wall at the base of the window"!

 

[meven ASC]

exactly and this especially improves clarinet mouthpieces because it completes and matches the facets every other wall surface has in the mouthpiece and improves projection. A little trickier on sax pieces because of how chamber designs differ (square, round, etc.) and wall profiles are designed (flat, concave, etc.) Lengthening the window could improve the lower range on certain mouthpieces I found.

So digressing onto the subject of clarinet mouthpieces, what is the main reason for having only square windows and "squarish" chambers on clarinet mouthpieces? The world of clarinet mouthpieces seems to have a very limited number of designs compare to saxophone mouthpieces.

 

[meven ASC]

I think its a significant factor but if you think about it, the window length and width in a conventional mouthpiece with a throat feature is basically set by other factors, leaving only the shape of the base cut as an option. Guardala went to the more 'squared-off' base cuts on most of his mouthpieces and I believe he had reason to do so. Back to the design, the opening width is controlled by the reed width and the designer's intentions, such as 'narrow table' or not and the rail width which in many fine mouthpieces (to coin Mojo's term) have narrow tip and side rails. As for the length, it has to terminate before it interferes with the throat feature whether that is a round or oval restriction, straight sidewalls or whatever. In an extreme mouthpiece like the 'Deep V', it has to terminate before the point of maximum neck insertion, whether that be a throat feature or not.
But to the question of 'what does a deeper window do?' it has to do with the other design elements. IOW, the deeper window has to be planned from the beginning and much experimentation done before going to production.
On the subject of what is being termed 'undercutting', what I do is look into the piece (assuming the piece should have a featureless 'floor' all the way through) from the shank end and see if the floor intrudes into the area created by imagining the bore to be extended to the window. This I will do particularly if I think a mouthpiece has promise but seems a little stuffy/resistant. If it needs to be 'relieved', I use various round/curved files to achieve the shape and blend 'the wall' down to the window. This is definitely one of the major 'sweet spots' on a mouthpiece and improvements here translate to 'instant gratification' when you try the mouthpiece. Some mouthpieces, particularly those with a 'full ring' throat, should be left as they were made if they are decent players. If its not that great and/or is not worth money if it stays in its original condition, maybe you would consider cutting down the bottom of the ring to make an oval throat. Guardala also did this on his high-baffle pieces (King and Super King) which by definition thus requires the floor to be blended as above. Pardon me for wandering away from the subject a little but since its all related to the question I don't feel bad about it.

Thanks for the detailed reply. That's quite in-depth and I will need to read it several times to soak in all the information!

 

[Lambros]

Well done sir and you're pardoned! Basically you study a balanced mouthpiece and regardless of its playing characteristics, every nook and cranny inside of it as well excellent rails, wall finish, symmetry has been gone over. A little window lengthening on certain rubber alto Meyers I found help improve the lower register. More specifically to be on par with the mid and upper registers. What you also describe as a DIY approach is definitely not for everyone. You need skill and good tools as well as a concept of what you're trying to achieve. Working in very careful incremental steps and extensive play testing too. You know what I'm talking about anyway I just want to express my admiration for someone who finds that talent and improves something when it is needed of course only.

I think its a significant factor but if you think about it, the window length and width in a conventional mouthpiece with a throat feature is basically set by other factors, leaving only the shape of the base cut as an option. Guardala went to the more 'squared-off' base cuts on most of his mouthpieces and I believe he had reason to do so. Back to the design, the opening width is controlled by the reed width and the designer's intentions, such as 'narrow table' or not and the rail width which in many fine mouthpieces (to coin Mojo's term) have narrow tip and side rails. As for the length, it has to terminate before it interferes with the throat feature whether that is a round or oval restriction, straight sidewalls or whatever. In an extreme mouthpiece like the 'Deep V', it has to terminate before the point of maximum neck insertion, whether that be a throat feature or not.
But to the question of 'what does a deeper window do?' it has to do with the other design elements. IOW, the deeper window has to be planned from the beginning and much experimentation done before going to production.
On the subject of what is being termed 'undercutting', what I do is look into the piece (assuming the piece should have a featureless 'floor' all the way through) from the shank end and see if the floor intrudes into the area created by imagining the bore to be extended to the window. This I will do particularly if I think a mouthpiece has promise but seems a little stuffy/resistant. If it needs to be 'relieved', I use various round/curved files to achieve the shape and blend 'the wall' down to the window. This is definitely one of the major 'sweet spots' on a mouthpiece and improvements here translate to 'instant gratification' when you try the mouthpiece. Some mouthpieces, particularly those with a 'full ring' throat, should be left as they were made if they are decent players. If its not that great and/or is not worth money if it stays in its original condition, maybe you would consider cutting down the bottom of the ring to make an oval throat. Guardala also did this on his high-baffle pieces (King and Super King) which by definition thus requires the floor to be blended as above. Pardon me for wandering away from the subject a little but since its all related to the question I don't feel bad about it.

 

[Lambros]

The simple answer is that clarinet has a tubular/cylindrical bore rather than the conical shape that saxes have. The reed is longer and very narrow in width and the slotted elongated trapezoid shape suits the narrow table space the reed can fit on the mouthpiece. The squared window suits the slotted walls and almost devoid baffle and it introduces the air column faster into the lower part of the inner mouthpiece (chamber) which almost invariably looks like like the round/tubular interior of the instrument's barrel it connects to.

So digressing onto the subject of clarinet mouthpieces, what is the main reason for having only square windows and "squarish" chambers on clarinet mouthpieces? The world of clarinet mouthpieces seems to have a very limited number of designs compare to saxophone mouthpieces.

 

[mfry]

I have a question for the experts out here. I have done some research on the subject but I could not find any satisfactory answers online. I apologize in advance if this has been discussed before.

What is the effect (if any) of the window shape on the sound and playability of a mouthpiece? By shape I mean round (like most mouthpieces), square (for example like a Guardala Fat Boy) or any other shapes (i.e. like the Jody Jazz DV).

1 - Does it impact the sound (bright vs dark), the projection and/or the resistance (tight vs free blowing)?
2 - Is it a decision made by the manufacturer based on the design of the chamber and/or the baffle?

Thanks!

Window size directly affects chamber size. Longer, wider window = larger chamber. I haven't experimented with very short ones, but anything longer than the facing curve should function, and from a design perspective it's just a matter of fine tuning the chamber size -- within the bounds of what is economical to manufacture. Anyway, it's mostly this slight increase in chamber size that accounts for most of the changes you see when you widen or lengthen a window.

 

[Lambros]

Window size directly affects chamber size. Longer, wider window = larger chamber. I haven't experimented with very short ones, but anything longer than the facing curve should function, and from a design perspective it's just a matter of fine tuning the chamber size -- within the bounds of what is economical to manufacture. Anyway, it's mostly this slight increase in chamber size that accounts for most of the changes you see when you widen or lengthen a window.

And, may I add Sir, the beak profile itself lines up more or less perpendicularly to the end of the window because then the baffle terminates into the chamber, in sync more or less with the window too. That's why certain mouthpiece designs with shorter beaks may work better with shorter windows.

 

[1saxman]

I don't know about that, but perhaps I'm not seeing what you wanted to describe - I'm not seeing any relationship from the beak profile to the window. To me, the window ends approximately where the vamp of the reed goes into the bark because its past the actively vibrating part of the reed, and extending it farther would interfere with the throat features, if any. Apparently the 'Deep V' squeezes a little more 'buzz' out of a reed but this design has never taken off among pros. One reason could be the extended window makes most throat designs impossible and you still have to allow for room to push the mouthpiece far onto the cork for certain players or certain conditions, like cold weather. A conventional window and throat design leaves ample shank bore for this purpose. All part of intelligently designing a mouthpiece.
I stated in another thread some time back that I would never take a piece of sandpaper to a mouthpiece, but I was talking about modifying the facing. Anything else I'll do, like beak modifications, throat/chamber work, bite inserts, polishing, plating, etc, all for my own pieces. I never studied the art of facing work but I understand what others are doing and I know good work when I see it. At this time of life, I'm not going to get into facing work. For example, I recently saw an ad for a new mouthpiece with a radial (true arc, or radius) facing curve. Personally I don't see how they can make a radial facing curve work. The spiral curve, flattening toward the tip, has produced the greatest sax mouthpieces of all time so I see no need to try a radial curve. Maybe they mean the curved part near the table is radial but it ties into a straight section toward the tip - I don't know.

 

[Lambros]

it’s basically a method that Ralph Morgan explained how the beak relates to the scale of the window he would design on his pieces. If you would look at the top of a mouthpiece where either a duckbill profiled or standard bill ends, take a string and have it wrap around to where the table and window meet, that string should more or less be parallel to the shank of the mouthpiece for this simple reason. The deepest part of the baffle is more or less in line with the window and this ratio produces a better playing mouthpiece in most cases.

 

[meven ASC]

Window size directly affects chamber size. Longer, wider window = larger chamber. I haven't experimented with very short ones, but anything longer than the facing curve should function, and from a design perspective it's just a matter of fine tuning the chamber size -- within the bounds of what is economical to manufacture. Anyway, it's mostly this slight increase in chamber size that accounts for most of the changes you see when you widen or lengthen a window.

Great answer! That's what I was looking for. I guess that is similar to what is explained on Theo Wanne's website but you said it more clearly. Thanks

 

[meven ASC]

I stated in another thread some time back that I would never take a piece of sandpaper to a mouthpiece, but I was talking about modifying the facing. Anything else I'll do, like beak modifications, throat/chamber work, bite inserts, polishing, plating, etc, all for my own pieces. I never studied the art of facing work but I understand what others are doing and I know good work when I see it. At this time of life, I'm not going to get into facing work. For example, I recently saw an ad for a new mouthpiece with a radial (true arc, or radius) facing curve. Personally I don't see how they can make a radial facing curve work. The spiral curve, flattening toward the tip, has produced the greatest sax mouthpieces of all time so I see no need to try a radial curve. Maybe they mean the curved part near the table is radial but it ties into a straight section toward the tip - I don't know.

It appears that a lot of refacers and mouthpiece manufacturers are now going with the radial curve. I have tried it myself on a few pieces at home and I must say that it made a significant and positive difference on articulation. It also made the mouthpieces significantly more free blowing.