Question:
2 MPC Design Questions
Curious to hear from mp makers and refacers about two issues that seem particularly mystifying and contentious.
The first, alluded to indirectly in the recent "Link Complaints" thread, has to do with the table--flat or deliberately concave? There seems to be an assumption that the concavity found in virtually all Link pieces is some arbitrary result of poor QC. However, I am aware of very well-respected mouthpiece artisans who firmly assert that the concavity is part of the essential design, and helps to get reliable suction on less-than-perfect reeds (particulary as they shrink at the sides, leaving the center higher), though current QC limitations may mean that this design element is not properly realized, and certainly not with the subtlety needed for it to function effectively.
Second issue is a question of rail symmetry. Again, I know of several makers who believe that the rails should not be entirely symmetrical, and deliberately build in asymmetry, a mysterious part of the craft that has been done for many, many years on clarinet mouthpieces of high repute.
My own experience is that I own and have played very fine mouthpieces with perfectly flat tables and those with concavity, as well as equally fine playing mouthpieces with symmetry and those with asymmetry in the rails. The question isn't which is superior, but simply what are the various points of view with respect to these two specific issues.
Thanks in advance for the enlightening, positive, and non-combative input that I anticipate reading. :)

Answer:
The concavity on Links extends past the opening of the window. It cannot aid suction of the reed to the table. Taking the same m/p, flattening the table and reapplying the identical facing helps the response, particularly in the low end.
When you speak of rail symmetry, you need to be clear about what dimension you're talking about - the width of the side rails, or a facing curve that differs from side to side, making one rail higher or lower at a given point.
I too have played some fine pieces with concave tables (always with a proper seal on the reed table, but many more with flat tables. The vast majority of really fine sax mouthpieces I've played have even curves on the L/R rails.

Answer:
Thanks Merlin-
As I understand it, a properly applied concavity starts with a perfectly flat table, does not extend into the window area, and is very subtle, applied by hand (rubbing compound?) just until a suction is created when placed on a perfectly flat surface. Certainly a clumsily applied concavity, say ground with a belt sander, will not achieve the desired effect. Is the consensus that the current Link concavity is deliberate, though not especially artfully done, or that it is the by-product of the heating/cooling that the table undergoes in mass-produced machining?
As for the rails, I'm not certain, and don't want to speak for anyone, but I believe that the asymmetry has to do with rail width, not with facing curve. Of course, they are both variables that would be open to applying asymmetrically, either individually or in tandem, so I suppose that's a rather broad question on my part. Curious to hear from Doc, Phil, Adam, Keith, Ron, and any others who might impart some sage observations.

Answer:
Originally Posted by drakesaxprof Thanks Merlin-
As for the rails, I'm not certain, and don't want to speak for anyone, but I believe that the asymmetry has to do with rail width, not with facing curve. Of course, they are both variables that would be open to applying asymmetrically, either individually or in tandem, so I suppose that's a rather broad question on my part. Curious to hear from Doc, Phil, Adam, Keith, Ron, and any others who might impart some sage observations.
Many of the clarinet pieces I've checked out have side rails that are even in width, but have facing curves that are slightly assymetric, especially near the break.

Answer:
I'm with Merlin on both points.
The Link Concavity is not just in the belly of the table. It cuts across the table so that air can leak out the sides.
I think there are better ways to add resistance to a facing than resorting to an assymetrical facing. They can promote squeaking. But many players can get them to work.

Answer:
Here is a Bari STM Link I finished up and a Tenor "NY" that I'm still working on. After flattening the tables, you can see where the low spots were by where the Gold plating is still left. The flattening process first removes the Gold from the high spots, then the Silver layer, then it exposes the bare Brass.
A table with a concavity in the center is OK, as long as the perimeter around the edges of the reed are still flat. If modern STM Links were made this way, you would see plating missing from the edges too after I flattened the tables.

Answer:
Mojo is on the money... (as always...)
The reed should be in contact with the mouthpiece on the outside edges of the table - the whole way around. If there is going to be a concavity - it should not extend into the window - and should be only in the middle... imagine a rectangular oval shape
The pictures show how many modern links have a concavity - but not an evenly formed one.
All in all - I think we all agree that a table should be FLAT... No one is saying otherwise.... But a flat table can have a slight concavity in the center- which aids in the reed having a good suction on the mouthpiece...
-Niewood

Answer:
Thanks Mojo and Adam--those pix are helpful. Seems to suggest that Babbitt is making what amounts to a poorly executed effort to realize a perfectly valid concept. One additional question--assuming symmetry in the rails, of both width and facing curve, what is the effect of wider or narrower side and tip rails, all other variables being more or less equal? Wider rails would seem to accomodate more variation in reed dimension, but to what degree are response or other areas sacrificed, if they are at all?

Answer:
as far as the width of the rails (side, and tip)...
Wide = more surface for the reed to vibrate against.
Narrow = less surface...

I know... "Uh duh'" ???
People who play really hard reeds usually like slim rails... also people who use softer reeds but want the sound to be a little brighter...
A wider rail mutes the reed's vibration a little bit, as more of the reed is vibrating on the rail shape... I personally like a dark sound (also spent many years playing classical on an old selmer soloist) so I like hard reeds (Vandoren Blue box 4s) on wider than usual side and tip rails... This gives a more dark color to my sound.
I believe that the rails should be even and symmetrical... at least that is what I was taught to do.
You could easily see what assymmetrical rails would play like - by putting your reed on off center.
Others may disagree - and argue that uneven rails are good. They are entitled to their opinion. It is simply as matter of what I was taught.
Since meeting Jon Van Wie - I have always played perfectly balanced symmetrical mouthpieces... and have never wanted to experiment with anything but.
I don't discredit that assymetrical rails will change the response and sound of the mouthpiece... (my curiosity is now peaked)

Answer:
Every link Ive flattened looks exactly like Mojo's pics. There is always a low spot in the center that continues into the window. I think rails on a link almost always need some thinning. Its not so much an issue of bright vs dark but more of live vs dead. Thinning the rails and the tip rail always seems to improve response and add make the mpc sould less airy....more core. Also in thinning the rail you are opening a slightly cramped window. This seems to add demension to the sound.

Answer:
Originally Posted by Sigmund451 I think rails on a link almost always need some thinning. Its not so much an issue of bright vs dark but more of live vs dead. Thinning the rails and the tip rail always seems to improve response and add/make the mpc sould less airy....more core. Also in thinning the rail you are opening a slightly cramped window. This seems to add demension to the sound.
We’re saying the same thing. What you like to call "live", I called "bright"... "Dark" - "dead"
This seems to be the case when people don't see eye to eye. Trying to pick an adjective to describe what one is hearing in their head while playing...
"Thinning the rails and the tip rail always seems to improve response and add/make the mpc sould less airy....more core"
Thinning the rails may improve response for you. But it is good to keep in mind that everyone is built differently. What works for one person doesn't necessarily translate to the next guy.
My teacher Ted Klum likes to make the rails very thin... most people like that very much... Thin rails and a wider window allow lots of the reed to vibrate! I find that when I make the rails and tip a little thicker than "normal" - I personally like the response better - as it deadens the reed. Maybe I like my mouthpieces "dead" -- I think of it as "Dark"... Most people don't like my set-up and tell me that they would never guess it plays like that judging by how I make it sound...
I will agree with you - the way I setup 99% of my customer’s mouthpieces adheres to the description you gave. Thin rails... wider window... I would say that I generally make the rails about .7 mm for my customers… But like .9mm for myself. The wider rails give me a little more resistance, without having to play a shorter facing curve.

Answer:
Mouthpiece Rails
Just wondering if it is the case that a thicker rail thickens/deadens the sound, is it possible to take a meyer 6M alto medium chamber and thicken the rails?

Answer:
When you open up a piece, the rails get thicker. Then the refacer has to trim them down again... Where does he stop is the question?
You can make the rails thicker - but you need to open the piece a little to do so...
If you are looking to make a Meyer "darker", " more dead"... Lowering the baffle profile would be my first idea...
It's a hard question to answer w/out seeing the piece.

Answer:
I think .9 mm or even a little more is plenty thin myself...The thing about production pieces is that they are often considerably wider. I probably would think your setup is plenty fine. I dont go after untra thin rail...just something "reasonable" what ever that might be.

Answer:
As you face down most mouthpieces, the side rails get thicker on the outside. They would only get thicker on the inside if the inside sidewalls are tapered so they get closer together towards the roof. Meyer sidewalls are pretty vertical. You could try building up the sidewalls with epoxy on the inside, but I would not recommend this. It would be better to make baffle adjustment like Adam said to get the piece darker if that is what you are after. You could also get a different MP like a Nete PD67 has a narrow window and thick siderails.
I think thick siderails that extend past the sides of the reed are just wasted material. They make it more difficult to center up your reed. They may make response a little slower but that is just an impression I have. I do not think they affect tone since they are not interacting with the reed.
Thinning the side rails from the inside so that the window gets wider makes the sound bigger and somewhat brighter. Thinning the tip rail makes the response quicker and the sound a little brighter too.
I usually do not go ultra thin on side rails unless requested by a client. If you play hard, I think the pounding a reed takes on ultra thin rails wears the reed out sooner.

Answer:
Mojo ...
I'm w/ you on all of it... I always trim the outside edges to fit the reed... No need leaving all the extra material. Klum would slap my knuckles with a ruler...
Yet I will add that when you open up, or simply polish up the tip rail on 1200 grit or emery paper.... The definition of the corners fills in, or rounds out... You almost always have to redefine those corners... If they are too round you loose a certain amount of the clarity and definition of sharp/crisp articulation.

Answer:
I agree.
I never really measured the widths of the side rails I do. I just do them by eye and there is some variation from piece-to-piece because of this. The Tenor STM I just finished had 1mm wide rails near the reed tip but tapered up to 1.4mm wide mid-window.
A stock Link I have here is .9 on the left side and 1.15 mm on the right near the tip. Its about 1.4 mid-window. So I guess they typically get much wider as I reface them then I file them back to where they started, but more symmetric.
They are end up wider apart. Most stock Links start out narrower than standard tenor reeds.

Answer:
Thanks, gentlemen, interesting reading! As a player and university teacher, I have both a practical and an intellectual curiosity about how things work, and great respect for those of you who have found time to master the art and craft of mouthpiece work.

Answer:
Rails
Thanks for the rail info. Time to go and check out all my mouthpieces from a new perspective. Am I correct to assume that it is easier to thin the rails on a Vandoren A55 with the scouped inner walls, than it is to thin a meyer straight walled rail? The reason being that the A55 rail is pearched on an arc, and the rail can be thinned without compromising the arc, but the meyer deals with thinning some of the inner wall to thin the rail.