[carr]

Does anyone have any experience with the Lamberson SB model tenor mouthpiece? I'm under the impression that the baffle is fairly high, but short. Is this his take on the Early Babbitt Link design? How would the piece differ from an EB Link? Does this piece have more focus?

Thanks!

 

[ving]

I’ve played an SB but quite a while ago, and I have an EB link I’m playing currently. If I remember, the SB would be a bit zippier than an EB. From memory, I think the beak profile on the Lamberson would be lower, and the baffle height at the tip higher than you’d find on an EB Link.

 

[Dr G]

Here's Fred's take on it: http://www.lambersonmouthpieces.com/baffles.html

I had a couple, and found them substantially brighter than a Link STM of any era.

 

[Saxophone Strange]

I have one on Alto and an Fmaj7. If you are familiar with those it helps for point of reference. If anything it plays a lot like the Fmaj7, but not wide or round of a sound. I wouldn’t say it is particularly bright but it is still versatile. I can’t imagine it being much different on tenor primarily because the chamber isn’t huge and the baffle is only slightly more pronounced than a standard rollover. Regardless, I have generally been impressed with Fred’s pieces. In fact the Fmaj7 has been my main alto piece for almost 7 years.

 

[MojoBari]

It is not a take on an EB design. Closer to a Guardala MB1 IMO.

 

[carr]

Thank you all so much for your input - it is much appreciated!

Dr. G, when you say substantially brighter than a Link STM, does that also mean thinner or more strident, or was the SB still full or warm? I would imagine the purpose of the shorter baffle is to retain warmth/fullness.

 

[Dr G]

Thank you all so much for your input - it is much appreciated!

Dr. G, when you say substantially brighter than a Link STM, does that also mean thinner or more strident, or was the SB still full or warm? I would imagine the purpose of the shorter baffle is to retain warmth/fullness.

I have played a lot of Fred's work - sop, alto, tenor - and while I prefer the darker side of things, I did find that most everything that he makes has a lot of body, lots of complexity, and lots of opportunity to shape your sound. "Shrill" and "strident" are not in his vocabulary.

 

[carr]

Thank you, good to know!

Just one last question - is it typical for his pieces to be a little rough on the inside? File/tool marks and such? Not all shiny and pretty?

 

[Benny]

Thank you, good to know!

Just one last question - is it typical for his pieces to be a little rough on the inside? File/tool marks and such? Not all shiny and pretty?

Typical in my experience

 

[dirty]

Thank you, good to know!

Just one last question - is it typical for his pieces to be a little rough on the inside? File/tool marks and such? Not all shiny and pretty?

Yes. Fred machines from bar stock and then spends a lot of time working the mouthpieces by hand to shape the baffle, chamber, facing, etc. to get the mouthpieces to play right. I won't say he doesn't care about how the mouthpieces look, since he has a nice setup for engraving his cool logo on them and he spends time buffing them before sending them out, but I don't think he cares much about the looks of the inside of the mouthpiece.

I've seen his workshop and it's literally in a woodshed, soundproofed, with permanent, built-in stands for his saxes. I would guess that he is spending a fair bit of time playing every mouthpiece, adjusting it, playing it again, adjusting again and so on and so forth until the mouthpiece plays right, then leaving it alone after that. The man knows how to make a mouthpiece that plays great and, from what I've heard, is quite a good player. I appreciate that he lets the sound and feel of his mouthpieces be what determines when he stops adjusting it.

I have also always suspected that the tool marks on the chamber and baffle might be part of what makes his mouthpieces play the way they do. My J7 definitely has file marks in the baffle area behind the tip and you can see exactly where he scraped out material to make the chamber, where he scooped out the sidewalls, where he undercut the table. It's extremely textured in there.

Personally, I like the marks. It's a reminder of how the mouthpiece was made and it feels very personal. No other J7 looks like this one and none of them play quite the same. I bet they all play great, though.

Oh, and for the record, the tool marks are only on the baffle and the chamber. The table, rails and tip are perfectly smooth (aside from some little surface scratches from the previous owner and myself) and even. The facing (measured) is perfectly even. Just to make sure I'm clear that I'm not talking about any kind of sloppiness here.

 

[14470]

Thank you, good to know!

Just one last question - is it typical for his pieces to be a little rough on the inside? File/tool marks and such? Not all shiny and pretty?

Not sure if you are referring to hard rubber or Delrin (acetal) pieces. For the latter, I believe it comes with the material. It is clever on Lamberson's part to make them of white Delrin, as the marks definitely are less noticeable. I have owned Lamberson pieces but preferred my Saxscapes (also Delrin). I had these gone over and improved by Brian Powell, who is the most polite guy one will ever find. Even so, I practically cursed me for the amount of work it took him to get my pieces looking like hard rubber. BTW, I have not owned a SB in tenor but had one for alto. FWIW, it had a lot of baffle and was very bright.

 

[Dr G]

Thank you, good to know!

Just one last question - is it typical for his pieces to be a little rough on the inside? File/tool marks and such? Not all shiny and pretty?

Yes, the tool marks are typical - especially if you look from the shank end to see the inside of the chamber. Fred makes mouthpieces that sound great; others make mouthpieces that don't sound as good, but are pretty to look at. Which do you want? Why do you buy a mouthpiece? My perspective - after playing on Fred's pieces for 20 years or so - is that Fred works on them until they are done.

 

[carr]

Again, thank you all for the info!