[Aquarian]

I was playing around with my mouthpieces and comparing... I have a D'addario Select Jazz D6M, which has always been a bit more "work" than other mouthpieces, and I compared it with my Philtone Orion which is my main piece. I decided to try to get a rough measure to find out if my feeling was in my head, and found I could hold a long tone at forte measurably longer on the Orion.

This bring me to wonder what makes a mouthpiece efficient. When I first got the select jazz I was playing an Otto Link STM, and the Select Jazz also took more air than the Link for me. Between the three pieces there is a lot that is different but why would a Link and the Orion take less air than the select jazz? The select jazz should be similar to the Link I would think, the Link is a 6* so the tip openings should be nearly the same (.080 for the Link and .078 for the Select Jazz). That makes me think I can rule out the tip opening as the cause. In a lot of ways the select jazz and the link are similar, both have scooped sidewalls and rollover baffles, the link has a larger chamber and lower (less) baffle, so you would think it would take more air rather than the opposite...

Is the facing curve part of this, or is it all internal design? Is this something that can be modified easily? I have thought about a reface but I don't need a different tip opening and the table seems flat enough, the pieces all play well but the select jazz is just.. more work.

 

[B Flat]

A more resistant piece should in theory be more efficient as you are unable to push as much air through it as a free blowing piece.
But is that the way it works?
A smaller tip opening would work the same way also.
Somehow though I think there will be far more technically confusing answers than this.

 

[Hassles]

The physical space of the mouthpiece cavity into which you push your air represents resistance. The less space, the more resistance. The greater the space, the less resistance. With less space you can employ harder reeds. With more space, you can employ softer reeds to balance things out.

 

[Atratr]

The physical space of the mouthpiece cavity into which you push your air represents resistance. The less space, the more resistance. The greater the space, the less resistance. With less space you can employ harder reeds. With more space, you can employ softer reeds to balance things out.

But with more space, you said less resistance, how a softer reed would balance that? My head tells me that a hard reed would balance things putting some resistance there. Anyway i am not sure the bigger space would cause less resistance....ummm

 

[1saxman]

Its mainly the facing. If you're used to a free-blowing piece (also known as 'reed-friendly' and easy-playing), a more resistant mouthpiece, even in the same tip, will simply be harder to play, more 'stuffy' and take a softer reed to play. These two tendencies, which can occur in ANY type of mouthpiece, represent the major dividing line among players. One side says you must have a more resistant mouthpiece to make you work harder to 'get your sound' and the other side wants a free-blowing piece. I haven't heard the term 'efficiency' applied to playing a mouthpiece but it is an interesting application of the term since a more 'efficient' piece would provide more sound from less work, which describes the free-blowing piece.
Going back to the facing, its not only the shape of the curve but the length of the curve and the accuracy of similarity of the two sides. Then there's the shape of the tip baffle, or the critical area in the first 1/4" behind the tip rail. The tip rail itself plays into it.
With these variables and all the other variables in a mouthpiece, you end up simply trying several ones, even in the same facing, to find the one that does it for you. Its entirely possible that if you tried enough mouthpieces just like the two you have, the situation could reverse and the stuffy one become free-blowing and vice-versa.

 

[Hassles]

But with more space, you said less resistance, how a softer reed would balance that? My head tells me that a hard reed would balance things putting some resistance there. Anyway i am not sure the bigger space would cause less resistance....ummm

with more space and less resistance the softer reed will close more readily than a harder one and it will function without undue dramas. Many a mouthpiece issue can be resolved with a change in reed strength. Numerous posts here about a mouthpieces rebirth due to the use a different cut reed.

 

[Randyfast]

After a couple of years, I have a D5M on my alto, with a #1.5 Legere Studio cut and a D6M and #2 Legere Signature on my Tenor. The alto isn't very difficult, but the tenor seems a bit stiff. I have a couple of 1.75 American cut coming that may make things easier.

 

[MojoBari]

Think of efficiency as low friction. You get the most sound with the least amount of effort. It may not be a good sound but it will be easy.

Long radial facings are the most efficient. They are a good choice when paired with wide tip openings. You can get a big sound without closing off when blown hard.

 

[Grumps]

It may not be a good sound but it will be easy.

"Free blowing" mouthpieces can be very seductive. Until you hear yourself, that is...

 

[swperry1]

If you pre-hear yourself, free-blowing is no problem. Nice and efficient.

 

[Sacks Of Phones]

If you pre-hear yourself

How can you "pre-hear"? :scratch:

 

[Bubba06]

If you pre-hear yourself, free-blowing is no problem. Nice and efficient.

How can you "pre-hear"? :scratch:

It's a pretty common term for being able to hear your tone and notes mentally before playing. The connection between the brain and the ear.

-Bubba-

 

[1saxman]

with more space and less resistance the softer reed will close more readily than a harder one and it will function without undue dramas. Many a mouthpiece issue can be resolved with a change in reed strength. Numerous posts here about a mouthpieces rebirth due to the use a different cut reed.

You can make almost any mouthpiece play with reed selection, but a great mouthpiece plays with most reeds. Free-blowing = reed-friendly. Nobody should misinterpret what I'm saying as favoring free-blowing. This is a technical discussion on 'mouthpiece efficiency' and the only answer to that is more sound for less effort = more efficient, the same way a car that goes farther on a gallon of fuel is more efficient. Now that car may be awful in style, speed and handling, but its still efficient.
Resistance can be easily gained on a free-blowing piece by going to a stiffer reed. Since its 'reed-friendly', it will play on a reed that would normally be a little too hard. The reason resistance is good is it adds 'complexity' to the sound, and you can get used to the added effort and better embouchure required. That is actually off-topic but I think it needs to be said every so often.
You might be surprised to know that at least half of the sax players of today are playing on poor mouthpieces. They have to be in #4 to #6 range to be able to use a #3 reed because they are too resistant and stuffy. A great mouthpiece of the same brand/model might play great in a #9 with the same reed.
Free-blowing mouthpieces are not for everyone. Someone said you'll like it until you hear yourself, which might be true in many cases, but there's another factor - learning to still get your sound on a new mouthpiece. This usually takes some time. Frequently free-blowing pieces are also high-baffle, so if you're not used to this type, you will sound 'all-buzz' on it at first. This is usually enough for most players to send it back, but if you're already using such a mouthpiece, it won't take you long to tame it and get the more 'lush' tone you're used-to. Typically the players who insist on resistance in the mouthpiece and the players who don't want it there but prefer to handle it with reed choice never cross over - this is why there are so many kinds of mouthpieces and why this most likely will never change.

 

[10mfan]

1saxman,
If I may interject here.... a "reed friendly" mouthpiece is a mouthpiece that works with many reeds and is not picky with reeds.
It has nothing to do with the mouthpiece being free blowing or not.

For example, I can put on an old Tonemaster tenor mouthpiece that I have here on my desk, and it plays too resistant and too dark for my personal liking, but it is still a very reed friendly mouthpiece, and works as it was designed, with many reeds.

 

[hnthere]

This is a technical discussion on 'mouthpiece efficiency' and the only answer to that is more sound for less effort = more efficient, the same way a car that goes farther on a gallon of fuel is more efficient. Now that car may be awful in style, speed and handling, but its still efficient.

Can your definition of efficiency be measured as bars of music at a certain level of sound per lungful of air, or is it something else?

I'm new to tenor (Conn 16M) and was struck by how much more air it requires than my alto, even though I knew to expect it. I don't recall much variation between mouthpiece-reed combinations on my alto, going from an AL3 + #3.5 Hemke at one extreme to a 0.080 John Thomas + #2.5 Java Red at the other. Or should the test be between reed strengths on a single mouthpiece? I've sold those mouthpieces, so can't try it now.

 

[Benjamin Allen]

1saxman,
If I may interject here.... a "reed friendly" mouthpiece is a mouthpiece that works with many reeds and is not picky with reeds.
It has nothing to do with the mouthpiece being free blowing or not.

For example, I can put on an old Tonemaster tenor mouthpiece that I have here on my desk, and it plays too resistant and too dark for my personal liking, but it is still a very reed friendly mouthpiece, and works as it was designed, with many reeds.

I agree with Mark S. here. A reed friendly piece is not necessarily a free blowing mouthpiece. A lot of people equate the two in my experience, but they're two distinct elements. As for whether a free blowing mouthpiece is the same as efficient, if you consider a minimally resistant mouthpiece (radial curve on "ideal" break point) as free blowing (which I do) I would also argue that it's maximizing the efficiency of the reed oscillations.

 

[Saxophone Strange]

I would easily agree with facing curve being a huge part of this but also the reed and ligature and mouth position are relevant. What some have said about a mouthpiece being reed friendly is absolutely correct. It’s sort of what makes links harder to play as well. Some like harder reeds. I was playing a Florida link recently with a reed I play on one of my Navarros and it just doesn’t work kick it from a 3 to a 3.5 it got better; from that to a 4 and it was pretty ridiculously easy to play. That is to say assuming that the table is even and the rails and facing are good. Also different brands have responded differently and the ligature you use matters as well because how well it tightens in different spots (also where you put the ligature). Bottom line there are a lot of adjustment points to get things to work better for you but you would need to research them. That is definitely after making sure the piece is in it’s best possible condition.

 

[J Dos Passos]

It takes more skill to play effectively on a very free blowing mouthpiece, I think. Most of the pros I know however prefer a slight bit of resistance, and I think that "slight" means something different for each of them. But the pros I know that prefer free blowing all have exceptional, well developed chops. They are able to command the tone and the intonation all internally. They vary the intensity and size of their air stream with a fine control. Players that tend to just "blow" the horn have some difficulty controlling the sound, I think. Students go through this a lot.

 

[Saxophone Strange]

I am sure skill plays a part. Not sure that freeblowing requires more skill just different skill. Most of the time you are just supplanting the resistance one way with resistance somewhere else, like reed of even horn.

 

[Grumps]

If you pre-hear yourself, free-blowing is no problem. Nice and efficient.

Don't tell me... you play Runyons.