1Saxophone Journal

Ralph Morgan

An intriguing letter came in sometime ago, referring to the writer’s

individual situation, as most do. How-ever, his problem is of great conse-quence to all players, and I sincerelyhope that this column will be of valueto you all.

I have played an old Meyer Bros. altomouthpiece for many years, with fineresults. Recently, I bought a new one withthe same model marking, but the playingcharacteristics are quite different. If Isend it to you, can you analyze it and tellme why it doesn’t play like the oldmodel?”

Your question is one I hear quitefrequently, and not only about theparticular brand you own. Please sendit to me; I welcome the opportunity tobe of service.

This mouthpiece was received,observed, measured, diagramed, andplay-tested by me and several others.All of our findings confirmed reasonsfor the concerns of the owner. Becauseof the long history of popularity ofthis mouthpiece (for some fifty yearsworld-wide) I felt that this problemmerited a much deeper investigation,since many of the same facets werepresent in several other brands. Thiscolumn will deal with just this onebrand name, and with the years fromthe 1930s on. Please pardon the needfor becoming a bit more technical, butdon’t become overwhelmed by it. Justre-read the technical portions and givethem some deeper thought. Perhapsyou will find some parallel problemswith your own equipment, and also

get a much more practical picture ofhow even very slight changes in themouthpiece, affect it’s performancecapabilities dramatically. You may alsofind that some of the problems youperceive as being caused by the instru-ment, originate with the mouthpiece,since it governs the saxophone, notvice-versa!

A quotation from Ed and FrankMeyer, from one of their early bro-chures, will serve to state their per-sonal feelings, as well as my own,about this most exacting and impor-tant business: the design and manu-facture of the single reed mouthpiecefor you, the musician. “When youplay your instrument, you are notinterested in a thousandth of an inch,or the proper rubber formula, or thepost-cure time for the castings. You areinterested, however, in results, resultswhich enhance your playing, andperhaps increase your earning power.We (on our design board, in our mold-ing room, and in our workshop) arealso interested in the results whichyou get on the job. But, in order toprovide you with the finest mouth-pieces money can buy, we must bescientifically accurate down to a de-gree of temperature, and the tenth of athousandth of an inch. There is noplace in the world where clarinet andsaxophone mouthpiece making hasbeen so thoroughly investigated andrefined. In no other plant has theelement of hand-craftsmanship andsheer pride, as well as years of mouth-piece specialization, been so grounded

in each and every product. More can-not be said.”

These thoughts lead me to moreconcerted efforts to sort out the vari-ous elements of my findings, so thatmy answer to the question will giveyou the most information and help.The brochure of Meyer Bros. showsthe first Meyer products were made ofthree materials: the finest dental rub-ber, a patented bronze (fine brassalloy), and a crystal-clear materialtermed Crystalyte, which was a recentaddition (at that time) to the standardebonite and metal models. The logostamped on the mouthpieces was justMEYER, running lengthwise on thetop of the body. Also, NEW YORK wasimpressed around the top, at the veryback end. All facings were called“TRU-FLEX”, listed as #2 through #6,with no chamber or facing lengthvariations noted, such as they have inlater years. A full page of the brochureis devoted to the features of the “Tru-flex” facing concept, a patented idea.The unique feature consists of millingout most of the table section of thefacing so there is a lengthwise depres-sion under the butt end of the reed. Imight point out that this bit of“progress” didn’t work very well,since, as soon as the reed was wetthrough, the pressure from the ligaturewould sink the middle of the reeddown into the cavity, and you knowthat “warped” reeds just don’t func-tion very well! Anyway, by 1939, theline had seen quite a few changes andassumed the more familiar format.Only the hard rubber models now

The Saxophone MouthpieceA Meyer Is A Meyer Is A Meyer

2 November/December 1995

being listed,with facinglength andchamber des-ignationsused, such asmediumchamber, and5M, 5S, and5L. Here I might point out that I hearmany players referring to the M withthe 5 as the chamber size, when it isreally the length of the facing, with“S” for short, and “L” for long. Wecannot always depend on the in-shopaccuracy of these markings, since wehave seen all combinations, such as asmall chamber mouthpiece stamped asa “large chamber.”

When playing various mouthpiecesto determine which one will work thebest, keep in mind that, first of all, thefacing curve (including the tip open-ing) is all-important in allowing thereed to function most efficiently. Allthe other aspects of the mouthpiecebecome secondary, though they allcontribute to your judgement of thequality of the piece for your needs. Inmy archives is a facings chart forMeyer mouthpieces printed in 1939. Itshows facings for clarinet and baritonesax, but we will only list those for altoand tenor sax for comparison pur-poses. The comparison will be with asimilar chart printed by a leadingretailer in 1970, and I think you willfind it most interesting and enlighten-ing. My analysis of these charts, whichmay get a little involved, is due to myconcern in alleviating one more sourceof frustration for our readers. We mustremember that, between 1939 and1970, the Meyer Company hadchanged ownership and the mouth-pieces were now being made inElkhart, Indiana. Many models hadbeen added to the line, and you willnote that the dimensions for the fac-ings had changed, which leads toconfusion if you are trying to find anew mouthpiece to duplicate an oldone. I have no explanation for thevariations other than to note that, asour needs seem to call for more opentipped pieces, some manufacturerstend to satisfy that trend with re-numbering the models. For instance,recently a player came in to have hisold tenor mouthpiece opened up to

today’s #7 tip. When I measured thenew #4 he had been playing, compar-ing it to an old #4 model of the samebrand, I found the facing curves to bethe same! How easy it is to fool anunwary customer into believing theyneed to follow the trends of the times!I consider the old facings used by theLink Company and the Meyer Com-pany to still be the standards, sincethey seem to have been designed toaccommodate the reed strength fami-lies, so I use them in our models. Toadd to the problem of selection, I notethat other retailers also copy thenewer chart for the Meyer facings.One other most important observa-

tion: both theold and thenew chartsshow the facinglengths in32nd’s of aninch. Consider-ing the extremeaccuracy which

must be used in determining the mea-surements of the facing, shows a 32ndof an inch to be a ridiculous incrementof measure, but I’m sure it has beenused only as a comparative figure.Companies have been very secretiveabout the actual figures, possiblyafraid that another company will copytheir models. However, for accuracyof comparison, I have converted allfigures to millimeters and the corre-sponding thousandths of an inch.

NOTES ON ALTO SAXFACINGS CHART

1. Only five facing models were of-

Fig. 1Long roll-over baffle

Fig. 2Short roll-over baffle

ALTO SAXOPHONE

3Saxophone Journal

fered in 1939, covering the practicalrange of tip openings for the altosaxophone, from classical through jazzwork. The twelve models offered inthe later list actually cover the rangeof tip openings and facing lengthsnormally used for clarinet throughbaritone sax mouthpieces!2. The 1939 chart shows the samefacing lengths for all similar models,as all S’s, etc.. This is correct designprocedure, since the length of an altosax reed does not change because thestrength number does, thus each needsthe same facing length to allow formaximum efficiency of vibration.Notice the continuous lengthening ofthe facings as the tip openings in-crease. Beginning with a model #1through #3, these facing lengths nor-mally are used on regular clarinetmouthpieces. At the other end, thelengths noted for the #7L, 8M & 8L,9M & 9L, and on through 12L, arenormally assigned to tenor and bari-tone model, because their reeds are

progressively longer. Longer reedsdictate the need for a longer facing.3. Note the changes in tip openings asapplied to the various models. The1939 models, few in number, coveradequately the needs, especially whenone considers the other choices,namely the small, medium, and largechambers. Thus, a 2L with a largechamber would make an acceptableclassic mouthpiece, while a 6S with asmall chamber would scream with thebest of them. When you consider theaddition of the three chambers to the1970 models, we now have a total ofone hundred-eight models for alto sax,and we still only play very few, withthe 5M, 6M, and 7M accounting forthe great majority used, usually all inmedium chamber. Prior to World WarII the preference was for the 4M and5M, also with medium chambers.4. Using the old design charts, andputting in the numbers as used in the1970 chart, tends to show very vividlythat most of the resultant facing

curves will not allow the alto reed tovibrate efficiently.5. The figures of the newer chart fol-low a seemingly contrived patternwhich looks impressive to the casualviewer, but which does not follow areasonable acoustical design sequenceas is seen in the 1939 chart by theMeyer brothers. Of course, it is not upto me to even speculate as to why asuperb line of models from earlierdays should under such wide change.

Now that I have dazzled you withfigures, let me tell you why, and pointout a few more interesting, and per-haps bewildering things to be learnedby a close study and comparison ofthese two charts. Note that the list ofcomments concerning the alto mouth-pieces also applies to the tenor chart.For those who may not know what theheading “on glass gauge” refers to,this is the gauge which is used alongwith the set of five feeler gauges todetermine the facing curve character-istics. It is a standard part of a refacingkit. Each line on the gauge is equal to2mm, thus the actual length column ishalf that for the gauge.

Note: the tip opening figures aregiven in thousandths of an inch, as wesee them normally printed, but also inhundredths of a millimeter, since inhand-facing the curved tip wandgauge used to measure tip openings ismarked in millimeters. This gives fargreater accuracy, since one-thousandthof an inch is equal to 2.54 hundredthsof a millimeter. Thus we can achievethe accuracy of one-ten-thousandth ofan inch in hand-facing.

Please go back to the two charts andcompare the figures for the alto to thefigures for the tenor models. Note thefollowing:1. For the 1939 models, the tenor mod-els are different from the alto, both intip openings and facing lengths, i.e.,the alto tip for #3M is .060", while thetenor #3M is .065". This pattern isnormal for good acoustical design,since the corresponding reeds aredifferent in size.2. Now compare the 1970 charts, andwe find some very unorthodox fig-ures.

A. The facing length figures corre-spond exactly to those of the other,alto, to tenor. This says that the tenorreed and the alto reed are presumed to

TENOR SAXOPHONE

4 November/December 1995

be the same size!B. Note the tip openings are the

same, alto to tenor, except that theyare offset by one model number, sothat alto #2 equates to tenor #1, and soon to alto #12 the same as tenor #11. Ionly wish correct design was as sim-plistic as that! But, then everybodymight be making their own mouth-pieces, and I would be out of business!

A closer comparison of the figuresdoes show why the most popularmodels became that way, while werarely if ever see many of the listedmodels. In alto, the figures whichcorrespond most closely to the needsof reeds are, in alto, the #4M, 5M, and6M, from the 1939 chart, while intenor, it is the #6M. In all these mod-els, the measurements are still themost popular today. We have added afew more open tips, now up to .110" intenor, for example, but the facingcurves are still the same length asthose in these few listed models, re-gardless of the tip openings. Ofcourse, the curve increments readingsmust change to fit various reedstrengths, or the reeds do not vibrateefficiently. This adds to my previousobservation that the later charts showmany signs of having been “engi-neered”, rather than being the truenumbers used in manufacturing. TheMeyer brothers were superb designersand craftsmen, and examination ofmany of their older mouthpiecesshows this skill. I’m quite sure theywould never have put a facing on analto mouthpiece which could only fit abaritone sax reed, as we see in the alto#12L model! Normally, alto facinglengths stay within the range of 19mmto 21mm, and tenor facings shouldstay very close to 24 or 25mm. The oldOtto Link tenor models normally were25mm, or only slightly shorter. Usu-ally the length stayed much the same,while the tip openings became pro-gressively more open, which corre-sponds to reed configurations forvarious strengths.

We have now covered part of theanswer to our original question, show-ing the numerous variations now inuse from the old Meyer models. Justas important are the differences in theinterior contours and measurements.While the facings allow proper vibra-tion of the reed, the air flow is gov-

erned by the interior or chamber andbore configurations. We must realizethat the design of a mouthpiece mustbe aerodynamically sound to producea mouthpiece that allows the instru-ment to play in tune, with an even feeland response over its whole range.Indeed, the instrument can only func-tion as well as the mouthpiece allows itto. I hope you will recognize the fol-lowing illustrations as cross-sectionalviews of a mouthpiece. Compare theshape of the old Meyer with that of thenew, and follow the descriptions givenfor the various crosssections as labeledby matching letters, A-A through E-E.If you are looking at your particularmouthpiece, you may see slight varia-tions from the shapes I have drawnhere, but there should be the samegeneral shapes present. Many mouth-pieces have been measured,and thesedrawings are a good average of them.

MOUTHPIECE INTERIORCOMPARISON

OLD MEYER MODELA-A Overall length - 3.470"NEW MEYER MODELA-A Overall length - 3.415"(.055" shorter)General Effect From Change

The overall pitch level will be raiseddue to the smaller volume of air in thechamber, but certain notes,the palmkeys, and fourth line D, will be raisedvery noticeably.OLD MEYER MODELB-B Window length and widthl.568" and .595"NEWER MEYER MODELB-B Window length and width1.500" and .578".068" shorter and .017" narrower.General Effect From Change

The shorter window also reduces theair volume in the chamber, since theramp is now longer, as well as beingmuch thicker, about 50% more than theold models. The distance between theside rails at the tip is less, making theside rails thicker, and further reducingthe chamber volume. The thicker siderails also damp the vibrations of thereed, cutting down on response.OLD MEYER MODELC-C Roll-over baffle, very longNEWER MEYER MODELC-C Roll-over baffle, very short with

gentle convex curve. Abrupt convexsurface.

General effect from change; thegentle curve with good length givesmuch smoother air flow and better‘POP’ and response, as well as bettercontrol. The short abrupt baffle rollcreates more air turbulence, a harshertone, and a feeling of lack of control.OLD MEYER MODELD-D Roof from baffle to the throat. Aconstant long “S” curve, first convex,and then concave, with good depthbefore entering the throat area.NEWER MEYER MODELD-D Roof from baffle to the throat aflatter and wider roof surface, convex,and then concave, with all the way intothe throat area. Good depth beforeentering the throat area.General Effect From Change

The shape of the old model allowssmoother air flow, with a better feelingof control and a more solid ‘core’ to thesound. The flatter plane of the newermodels not only further reduces thechamber volume, but allows the soundto ‘spread’ more, giving the feeling ofless control.OLD MEYER MODELE-E Side walls at throat area have awell and evenly-shaped “squeeze” inthe throat area which resulted in thefine “pop” in the response.NEWER MEYER MODELE-E Sidewalls at throat area are muchstraighter through. The air column isnot “squeezed” enough to speed upthe flow and give the “pop.”

It occurs to me that I might also addan F-F notation to cover the facings,Many of the fine old mouthpieces werefaced and finished by hand by workerswho were truly artisans in their craft.Only by that method can the manyidiosyncracies of hard rubber be de-tected and compensated for so that thetable is perfectly flat, allowing the reedto seal properly, or the facing curve beconsistently constructed so that thereed can vibrate efficiently. Throughthe years the demand for greater num-bers of mouthpieces, plus the naturalattrition of the ‘old grey heads’, hascaused almost universal use of ma-chine faced mouthpieces. If you hap-pen to own a good Refacing Kit, withthe proper gauges for measuring fac-ings of the pieces, you will quickly seethat a machine cannot cut a flat table

5Saxophone Journal

on a piece of hard rubber, due to thefact that, in machine-facing, the rubberheats up and tends to swell in themiddle of the table area. On the sec-ond, or return cut, the swelled portionis cut again. When it cools, that sectionis now lower than the rest of the table.The flat reed is now pulled down intothe slight depression, with the resultthat you may have various tip open-ings, and response or feel, each timeyou remove the reed and replace it onthe mouthpiece. If you can detect tinywavy lines on the surface of the tableand/or side rails, it was most certainlymachine-faced.

Do you remember that I started thiscolumn with a warning that it mightbecome a little technical and compli-cated? My deepest apologies if I lostyou somewhere, but perhaps rereadingthose parts and trying to apply thefacts to your own pieces will give youa better understanding of this mostimportant subject, maintaining properacoustical design of the mouthpiece, asexemplified by the old masters of theirart and craft. Your efforts will be betterserved and clarified if, as mentioned,you have the proper gauges to helpyou, since the increments which aretalked about in this column are nor-mally measured in tenths of thou-sandths of an inch, or hundredths of amillimeter. Properly used, the gaugesare capable of that.

Hopefully you are now aware of thevarious portions of the mouthpiecewhich can contribute to the concerns ofthe player who’s question I have ad-dressed, and how they, as a group,have produced the characteristics ofhis mouthpiece. Please understand thatI do not mean to point a finger at oneparticular manufacturer, but have onlyendeavored to address his own ques-tion, making reference to his mouth-piece.

Thank you for all your letters andcalls, and for your concern. Pleasedirect questions to me at MORGANENTERPRISES, 490 Forest Dr., Spring-field, Ohio, 45505. §