[MojoBari]

Do any synthetics reed players prefer a concave table over a flat one? Or is it not an issue for them (or have they never looked.)

 

[Dr G]

Let me see if I get your salient points.

I am no expert, but here's my experience.
I had been wondering about this because I had read all sorts of stuf on this (and the other) forum about the need for a perfectly flat table. Some people also said that hand finished mouthpieces are far superior to machine made ones.....
Last summer I decided to try out if a hand finished mouthpiece would play better than my OttoLink (tone edge) that I have been playing for the last 3 years. So I ordered a PPT mouthpiece for my tenor. It's quite a different beast than the Otto Link, I am still getting used to it. It brought to light that my embouchure needed some adjustments, so that means I am becoming a better player because of this mouthpiece (I hope).
And I must say that it seems a bit easier to play than my Otto Link. Most noticable: I can play ppp better than I used to.In a month or 2 I will contact the guy that my tech recomended for refacing and have my Meyer baritone mouthpiece refaced to see if that will play better after refacing.
So, in short, I think that I am moving to the flat-table bunch... ;-)

Is the table the only factor that changed? You could similarly make the case from that evidence that the tip opening, facing, chamber, material, or company logo is responsible for the difference.

 

[Wonko]

Let me see if I get your salient points.



Is the table the only factor that changed? You could similarly make the case from that evidence that the tip opening, facing, chamber, material, or company logo is responsible for the difference.

No, of course the issue is more complex than that.
I was not trying to persuade anybody that this or that statement is the right one. I don't know enough about the matter to be able to know which is right.
Just wanted to share my experience that was the result of questions running in my head (not only about the table) from reading these kinds of threads in the past. And tell you all what insights my journey so far has brought me.

 

[Dr G]

Thanks, Wonko. I, too, occasionally get caught up in the minutiae of Stuff - only to ultimately learn that there is more to it. The best advice I can give is to find a mouthpiece that works for you and stop asking ”Why?”. You don’t need the ultimate mouthpiece, because that Super Most Wonderful mouthpiece can easily be subverted by a bad reed, bad ligature, or poor technique (embouchure, air stream, support, etc.). If you can just get in the ball park, the rest is on you.

G’luck!

 

[saxoclese]

My Ernie Northway custom alto and tenor mouthpiece have "lateral concavity" which he insists is the best design for how reeds sit and "break in". Both pieces play great and the only problem I found is that I cannot transfer a reed I have played on my Nothway to a piece with a flat table because it doesn't play well at all.

 

[Nefertiti]

This is on the Okutsu website: Concave Table | 奥津サックスマウスピース製作

Concave Table
The Best Table Is Not Flat
The Table is the part of the mouthpiece that the reed is clamped onto by the ligature. Okutsu Mouthpieces make all tables very slightly concave from front to back. The concave table makes the tone full and the lives of the reeds long.
The facing curve begins at the split point of the side rails, as shown in the photo below. For the combination of a mouthpiece and a reed, it is the most important to make no leaks at the break points.
The break points are fulcrums of the vibration of the reed. If there are any slight leaks, the reed can not vibrate efficiently. The sound become dull and stuffy and maybe with many squeaking error tones.
The concave table is the equipment which the high quality mouthpieces have traditionally to avoid the leaks at the break points.
When the reed is clamped on the concave table, the reed is bent slightly by the pressure of the ligature. This causes the reed and the mouthpiece to push against each other at the break points.

Used reeds become warp by the moisture. When the warp is slighter than the concavity on the table, the influence of the reed warp is canceled. It is the advantage of the concave table. It makes the tone full and the practical life span of reeds is lengthened.
Some mouthpiece makers and refacers insist that the perfect flat table is the best design. I don’t agree with the opinion. The perfect flat table is suitable with only the perfect flat reeds. But used reeds with flat back are very few.

I do find it interesting that his mouthpieces seem to work better with used reeds in my opinion. I just put one on that wouldn't work on a few flat table mouthpieces I have and it works fine on the Okutsu. Coincidence?

 

[Sacks Of Phones]

This is on the Okutsu website: Concave Table | 奥津サックスマウスピース製作

Concave Table
The Best Table Is Not Flat
The Table is the part of the mouthpiece that the reed is clamped onto by the ligature. Okutsu Mouthpieces make all tables very slightly concave from front to back. The concave table makes the tone full and the lives of the reeds long.
The facing curve begins at the split point of the side rails, as shown in the photo below. For the combination of a mouthpiece and a reed, it is the most important to make no leaks at the break points.
The break points are fulcrums of the vibration of the reed. If there are any slight leaks, the reed can not vibrate efficiently. The sound become dull and stuffy and maybe with many squeaking error tones.
The concave table is the equipment which the high quality mouthpieces have traditionally to avoid the leaks at the break points.
When the reed is clamped on the concave table, the reed is bent slightly by the pressure of the ligature. This causes the reed and the mouthpiece to push against each other at the break points.

Used reeds become warp by the moisture. When the warp is slighter than the concavity on the table, the influence of the reed warp is canceled. It is the advantage of the concave table. It makes the tone full and the practical life span of reeds is lengthened.
Some mouthpiece makers and refacers insist that the perfect flat table is the best design. I don’t agree with the opinion. The perfect flat table is suitable with only the perfect flat reeds. But used reeds with flat back are very few.

I do find it interesting that his mouthpieces seem to work better with used reeds in my opinion. I just put one on that wouldn't work on a few flat table mouthpieces I have and it works fine on the Okutsu. Coincidence?

Aren't you effectively creating a more open tip and slightly longer facing by bending the reed up (a bit)?

 

[stevesklar]

On can find arguments in both sides.
This is from Tom Ridenour's book where he just states that concavity is okay as long as it's not excessive.

THE REED TABLE
There is some debate about whether the reed table should be completely flat, or whether it should have a concave area (as we find in Vandoren and many other machine faced mouthpieces). This is, as far as the author can discern, a rather subjective debate and there are claims on both sides of the argument for this, that or the other advantage. In reality, however, little can be proved conclusively and demonstrated consistently. Certainly fine mouthpieces have been made both ways. However, the author believes that it can be said rather objectively that if a concavity must be put into the reed table that it should not be excessive; excessive being define as the concavity extending above the bottom of the mouthpiece window. Such an extension invites the reed to leak on the facing, and a reed leaking air on the facing has about the same effect of a pad leaking on the clarinet itself: a bad effect on virtually every aspect of sound and feel.

 

[mmichel]

My Ernie Northway custom alto and tenor mouthpiece have "lateral concavity" which he insists is the best design for how reeds sit and "break in". Both pieces play great and the only problem I found is that I cannot transfer a reed I have played on my Nothway to a piece with a flat table because it doesn't play well at all.

Yeah, I'm skeptical of this claim too.

First, the effectiveness of a lateral concavity will depend on exactly how the reed swells, and over years of regularly leveling my reeds (with Reed Geeks and similar scrapers) I've found that how the reed swells can vary from one reed to the next. Some reeds indeed swell in the middle, in which case the lateral concavity would help, but others swell at the edges, in which case the lateral concavity would likely exacerbate the problem.

Second, the effectiveness of the lateral concavity will also depend on how exactly the ligature contacts the reed (for reasons outlined by @Pete Thomas here). For example, if you're using a ligature (e.g., FL Ultimate, Rico H) that primarily places pressure on the outside of the reed, then you're more likely to run into problems using a flat or edge-swollen reed on a mouthpiece with a lateral concavity.

Scraping reeds flat and placing them against a flat table seems like a more reliable and less fiddly solution to me.

 

[pontius]

Flat is good. . Concave within reason is good. Convex is very very very VERY bad. If I was mass producing mouthpieces, employing blue collar craftsmen to churn out pieces, knowing that there are going to be +/- variable results from the target, what kind of table do you think I would shoot for?

 

[Mark Fleming]

Our mouthpiece manufacturing equipment at FlemTone Products poops out 104 mouthpieces a minute. The tables are generally kind of convexish. So our advertising emphasizes the benefit of a convex table. First, it makes your reeds last longer. Second, it makes practicing long tones less tedious. Third, it attacts girls. Finally, it gives you something to discuss for several pages on SOTW (also tedious) with saxophone geeks who should be practicing long tones.

Our manufacturing equipment also puts a small tilt to the table. Not convex as shown in the pictures, but a lateral tilt that is yet unmeasurable by the ordinary saxophone geek. As such, FlemTone hasn't needed to fabricate a justification for that anomaly (or is it an improvement?). Should somebody accurately measure that the table tilts to the left (or is it the right?), FlemTone Products will gift the new limited edition FlemTone Dexter "Cannonball" Young tribute mouthpiece if they don't start a new thread about it.

 

[Hassles]

Our mouthpiece manufacturing equipment at FlemTone Products poops out 104 mouthpieces a minute. The tables are generally kind of convexish. So our advertising emphasizes the benefit of a convex table. First, it makes your reeds last longer. Second, it makes practicing long tones less tedious. Third, it attacts girls. Finally, it gives you something to discuss for several pages on SOTW (also tedious) with saxophone geeks who should be practicing long tones.

Our manufacturing equipment also puts a small tilt to the table. Not convex as shown in the pictures, but a lateral tilt that is yet unmeasurable by the ordinary saxophone geek. As such, FlemTone hasn't needed to fabricate a justification for that anomaly (or is it an improvement?). Should somebody accurately measure that the table tilts to the left (or is it the right?), FlemTone Products will gift the new limited edition FlemTone Dexter "Cannonball" Young tribute mouthpiece if they don't start a new thread about it.

er, um, Mark - could you please condense this down for a bumper sticker or T-shirt perhaps?

 

[Horned Toad]

Ive been at this for over 17 years an my conclusion is that a flat table is superior, regardless of the direction of concavity. Its bad for ligs and HR mouthpieces to have to crank down the tightness of a lig.

I think I have been at this for 30 years.
As a mouthpiece craftsman and as a horn player concerned with nuance, and really just factually, flat table is ideal and superior. Sigmund is correct.

For what it's worth, Kiril has been at this for maybe 1 or 2 years. While I applaud the enthusiasm, those of us who have been around for a while see a lot of newcomers in the age of social media. It's a recurring theme that every newcomer magically has all the answers and a high degree of (public) certainty, very early, go figure.

Pieces that were produced with low quality control and substandard tolerances still can play really well IN SOME REGARDS and IN SOME SITUATIONS. This, however is a very different thing from a piece that is utterly reliable and excels across the board and in adverse situations, which is what you get when the table is flat (and the facing is balanced and correct, etc.)

Factually speaking, what happens with concave tables (of any shape) is that they firstly apply pressure to the reed, and the reed WILL bend to that pressure in time. Secondly, that pressure can mess with the free vibration of the reed. Thirdly, they leak. Fourth, as the reed is used and more water is absorbed, and the fibers warm and soften due to pressure and vibration the reed will start to swell and warp. It will swell and warp where there is SPACE to do so, such as INTO whatever concavity is available under the pressure of the ligature. The result will be a significantly bent reed that will interfere with vibration as well as air seal and hence becomes a ****ty reed leading to saxplayericide.

In layman's terms this is what we call "reed picky".

One problem though, with the vintage mouthpiece scene and horn players in general is that many people not only do not know what they want but also do not understand the mechanism that creates what they even think they want. We have people who (think they) want a "dark sound" and they are used to getting whatever that idea is by playing a leaky inefficient horn or a poorly balanced resistance mouthpiece; essentially they are getting their desired sound by setting up an inefficient mechanism that actually fights them. and the resulting resistance or stuffiness balances the brightness out of their sound etc. Without that less than fully functioning set up they would have some kind of less than desirable sound. In many cases people who believe that this or that flaw in a mouthpiece is actually an intentional design feature believe so because they are relying on that flaw to do some balancing of their sound that they themselves cannot do. But again, as Sigmund said, this is not a design feature but a flaw of machining for the most part, and it does nothing but make mouthpieces play less efficiently and less reliably.

If one is going to study vintage mouthpiece design and setup (as I have for 30 years) it is best not to take everything at face value. Just because these (some) pieces were done in a particular way does not automatically mean it was intentional or preferable. We must remember that in most cases the driving factor in mouthpiece production was profit. If the way Otto Links and Dukoffs were produced was an indicator of 'best functional practices' then they would not so often play like crap. Shall we all decide to believe that Florida Links playing like crap was a design feature? There were a lot of things they did in production simply because they COULD and the competition was not doing any better.

Applying concavity to tables intentionally would be like Yamaha designing sharp bell keys into their new horns because Selmer did that as a compromise in 1935. Mouthpieces ALWAYS play better with precise flat tables, because we want to reduce conflict within the reed, reduce opportunity for leaks under the reed, and allow the facing to reliably present any curve.

 

[meven ASC]

^^^^^ That's the best articulated explanation. Thanks @Horned Toad .

"...
If one is going to study vintage mouthpiece design and setup (as I have for 30 years) it is best not to take everything at face value. Just because these (some) pieces were done in a particular way does not automatically mean it was intentional or preferable. We must remember that in most cases the driving factor in mouthpiece production was profit. If the way Otto Links and Dukoffs were produced was an indicator of 'best functional practices' then they would not so often play like crap..."

 

[EZ]

One of my first observations about table flatness - before having gotten too heavily into refacing - was a simple test of putting the mouthpiece down onto a glass tabletop or some other hard, flat surface and giving it a gentle spin. If the mouthpiece spun around a bunch of times like a top, the table was convex and was usually a PITA to get to play well with really fussy lig and reed placement.

Not sure fourth-decimal-place precision is going to make or break someone’s professional career as a musician, but there are certain fundamentals that help overcome a number of common barriers and frustrations. Like making the table flat.

 

[KPoudavoff]

While I highly respect Marin’s craftsmanship and experience, I agree with some of his points but cannot agree with the “doing something for many years means you know and do better” point.

In our local jazz orchestra, there are guys who’ve been playing for 40-50 years now, and back when I was 15, I knew more jazz theory concepts than all of them and would play much more sophisticated and logically connected stuff over the changes, so I could get the job done better, having only 5 years of experience than the guys who were doing it for their whole life. They, of course, knew more stuff about notation and sh*t, but when it was time to blow over the changes, all their 40 years of experience were worthless.
You can find the same analogy in drivers. Some of the Taxi drivers I’ve seen that had over 30 years of driving experience, drove like ****, and some with only 5 years of experience drove efficiently, clean and safe. That’s the reason I prefer not to get into experience measuring years-wise.

Don’t get me wrong, having a big experience is great, but using it as a “being right and know all the sh*t“ point doesn’t fly with me. Still, I would consider the concave and flat table thing just being a personal choice of whoever doing the job. Some like this, some like that - both ways it works, and if it does, I’m happy.

And no, none of my concave-table Hollywoods are pickier with reeds than any of my flat-table Florida Links. If the reed itself Is flat, all works well.

PS. The Hollywood that you set up, Marin, has a huge concavity, and plays great. Though, I wish it had more baffle.

 

[Dr G]

Factually speaking, what happens with concave tables (of any shape) is that they firstly apply pressure to the reed, and the reed WILL bend to that pressure in time. Secondly, that pressure can mess with the free vibration of the reed. Thirdly, they leak. Fourth, as the reed is used and more water is absorbed, and the fibers warm and soften due to pressure and vibration the reed will start to swell and warp. It will swell and warp where there is SPACE to do so, such as INTO whatever concavity is available under the pressure of the ligature. The result will be a significantly bent reed that will interfere with vibration as well as air seal and hence becomes a ****ty reed leading to saxplayericide…

Applying concavity to tables intentionally would be like Yamaha designing sharp bell keys into their new horns because Selmer did that as a compromise in 1935. Mouthpieces ALWAYS play better with precise flat tables, because we want to reduce conflict within the reed, reduce opportunity for leaks under the reed, and allow the facing to reliably present any curve.

You forgot to say “In my humble opinion….”

You are certainly correct in some instances, but not all concavity is the same. To speak in such global generalities demeans you as there certainly exist experienced mouthpiece makers that intentionally add concavity to the table with good results. Not all concavity results in leaks. You know better than this.

 

[Shooshie]

Tables should be flat, but if you can make the reed seal, and if it plays for you, then what’s not to like? N
The only rule is that it should do everything you want it to do.
That said, let me explain what’s going on when reeds are not on a flat table.
First of all, reeds warp when dry. They go “boat shaped.” That is to say, they are convex on the table. That may actually match up with the concavity of your mouthpiece. I don’t give that very high odds of working out the way you want it to, but if it does, then why worry? More likely it won’t work well, and here’s why: the existence of any airspace that‘s open to the outside world creates a vibrating node. A leak, if you prefer. We all know what leaks do to a vibrating air column. In certain places they may cause it to break at an octave and not play low notes. Or it may cause other havoc including non-canonical overtones, squeaks, poor response, resistance. Maybe other things as well. When the leak is that high up on the air column, and when it is very tiny, it’s hard to predict just what the problem may be, but if the reed is not sealing, there WILL be a problem. That much I can guarantee.

If you can clamp your reed down on it, and if the reed’s convex warp matches the mouthpiece table, you may have that rarity of rarities: a problem that has become an asset. Warped reeds won’t seal on a flat table. So maybe it was made concave on purpose to accommodate warped reeds. Somehow I don’t feel hopeful about it, but only you can judge whether it’s working or not. If it doesn’t work, take it to a mouthpiece specialist. Don’t try to change the table on your own. You will change the geometry of the entire mouthpiece, ruining whatever characteristics the MP is known for.

Be careful selecting a specialist. People who can actually do this well are VERY RARE. But you can find people anywhere who will scrape it over a file or sandpaper. Everyone thinks they can work on mouthpieces. One in 10,000 actually can do it with precision. The person you choose should have measuring instruments that give precise numbers for very tiny distances. They should take measurements and probably draw out a plan for making it work. It may require altering the baffle, the tip, and the curve of the rails. If you alter any of those things, it leads to other problems, so be prepared for a difficult and lengthy session. This is a major job. Not for amateurs or people who haven’t done it many times before. And certainly not for people without measuring tools and a tremendous understanding of the work.

You’d most likely be better off buying another mouthpiece. I think that one is probably toast.

 

[B Flat]

Yes.

 

[Rjay]

Hi,

I’ve read through the various posts and am not looking to restart any old debates on flat vs concave tables. I just picked up a Vintage Series Link Tone Edge and the table is very concave. The table curve resolves very near the facing break and well past the start of the window. It plays okay but maybe not great. I’ve never played a Slant or any high end copy so I don’t have much to compare it too. Opinions? View attachment 118871

I like to keep it simple. I don't like the idea of a concave table, I like the idea of a perfectly flat one. I have HR Link tone edge 7. I use Vandoren V-16's (2) w it,I tried to find a better MP but decidid just move up a tad to a tone edge 7*. I don't see what advantage a concave table would have. I see it big trouble. Are you one of those people that just has to be different for the sake of being different, and being able to say how you play a concave MP etc. how cool? Like your table has Peronies disease. It's a men's disease of a misshaped curved *****. Would you want to have that? It's not advantageous, if you catch my drift. You're lucky you play a tone edge. Don't be fooled by all the ambient PR re: MPs trying to improve on Link. They don't. They are all brighter and cost more and have a less beautiful tone. Link is the Selmer Mark VI of MPs. Every MP maker is trying to improve on the Link to make money. And good for the ones that do. Link had some magic that no one else can match. And its so inexpensive you can afford to have it resurfaced and its still inexpensive. No MP maker can build a better mousetrap. That's my bottomline.