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.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... ;-)
No, of course the issue is more complex than that.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.
Aren't you effectively creating a more open tip and slightly longer facing by bending the reed up (a bit)?This is on the Okutsu website: Concave Table | 奥津サックスマウスピース製作
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?
Yeah, I'm skeptical of this claim too.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.
er, um, Mark - could you please condense this down for a bumper sticker or T-shirt perhaps?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.
I think I have been at this for 30 years.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.
You forgot to say “In my humble opinion….”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.
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.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