Fitting the Reed to the Mouthpiece - The "Pop" Test

Every once in a while, I find a reference to testing whether the reed and mouthpiece are compatible by using the "pop" test.  That is where the air is sucked out of the mouthpiece, forcing the reed to seal up, and then watching to see how long (or whether), the fit is good enough for the reed to "pop" loose after a period of time.

I'm not a big fan of the test, as I don't believe that it answers all of the issues of whether the reed is compatible with the mouthpiece (or mouthpiece compatible with the reed).  Sometimes an incompatibility can show up as "resistance," which some players prefer.  Sometimes incompatibility shows up as a combination that easily subtones.  Sometimes an incompatibility can manifest as an easier altissimo or effect the intonation of different registers.  

Clearly, "incompatibility" is too strong of an accusation.  How the flex of the reed agrees with the lay of the mouthpiece has both good and bad results, and a simple "pop" test doesn't address all of the variables.  For instance, I've found that when sucking the air out at just the tip, I can usually hear air already leaking in further up the lay towards the ligature.  That generally doesn't matter, as that's where my lips will be when actually playing and my embouchure will take care of any "incompatibility" there.  In fact, not having a perfect match right there probably gives the player more flexibility in using embouchure to control the reed, and thus the complexity of the sound.

The one instrument I have that seems to want a lot of compatibility is my contrabass clarinet.  It could well be that my lack of familiarity with the clarinet, and the difference between the contrabass clarinet and the saxophone embouchure, requires that I have a facing that is smooth and predictable.  For the contrabass, I like the reeds that pass the pop test.  What is a passing grade?  Here's one.  You might need to hit the "full screen" icon at the lower right before you start in order to see the tip clearly. 

I had to work on this reed quite a bit to get it to this point.  I then suck the air out of the mouthpiece (and the "barrel" in this case) and see how it holds.  When it holds the vacuum this long, I know that the low bottom notes can pop out with just a puff of air, changing registers will be more fluid, and the high notes will have more volume.  All of that only happens once the monster and the giant slab of cane is warmed up, of course.

The Great Stencil Mouthpiece Hoax

What's a "stencil" mouthpiece?  As with saxophones, stencil is a term applied to designate a mouthpiece that was ordered by a woodwind manufacturer, an instrument wholesaler, or a music store to be used as a private label piece for their exclusive sales.  Most mouthpieces are stencils. There have always been far fewer saxophone mouthpiece manufacturers than saxophone manufacturers.  Saxophone manufacturers simply outsourced the mouthpiece (as they do with pads, cases, etc.).  It simply wasn't economically feasible for the sax company to make the mouthpiece. 

The word stencil doesn't exactly explain what went on (and is still going on) in the world of mouthpieces.  There are two different situations here.  First, a saxophone manufacturer generally needs a mouthpiece in the case when it sends the horn to the retailer.  It finds a mouthpiece manufacturer, has it's own name put on the mouthpiece, and sends it to the retailer along with the horn.  In this situation, the mouthpiece manufacturer (as a supplier) could be called a "jobber" because the horn manufacturer is purchasing a finished product, including it with its own finished product, and in turn selling it to the retailer.

The second situation is the "finishing house."  That's where a mouthpiece business purchases a blank from the mouthpiece manufacturer, modifies it to its own specifications, and stamps its own trade name on the piece before selling it to the retailer.  I'm calling the business that molded the mouthpiece the "manufacturer", any manufacturing for a second party is "stencilling," and any subsequent reworking and renaming of the piece by a second party is "finishing."

Let's look at some mouthpieces made by JJ Babbitt, a mouthpiece manufacturer and supplier of both blanks, stencils, and finished mouthpieces.  Here is a fairly common stencil that JJ Babbitt provided (as a stencil) for Buescher.  They were stamped Buescher, probably by JJ Babbitt as there is no evidence that Buescher ever had anything to do with making mouthpieces, and then included with Buescher saxophones.   Click on the picture for more detail. 

Here is the same Babbitt blank stenciled for Selmer (Selmer U.S.A., which at the time was a separate company from Selmer Paris), and included with Selmer U.S.A. horns of the era:

Here is the same blank branded by the manufacturer as an actual Babbitt mouthpiece:

What is interesting about these Babbitt pieces stenciled for Buescher, Selmer, and others, is that they are often advertised as "Dukoff- Zimberoff House of Note Supersonic" mouthpieces.  Why?  Because Mr. Dukoff, as a finishing house, also bought some of these blank ebonite mouthpieces from JJ Babbitt before he finished them to his specifications and sold them through a Los Angeles music store.  The Dukoff pieces gained a cult following, in part because they had a larger opening than the standard .065" on most tenor stencils of the era.

Here is a Babbitt blank originally finished as a Dukoff.  Like the pictures above, they are both tenor pieces (the second picture was foreshortened by the photocopying process).  Neither has the two bands on the shank, although some of the Babbitt blanks purchased by Dukoff do have them.  The Dukoff pieces usually have serial numbers.

But it isn't the serial numbers or the bands on the shank that turns a Babbitt blank into a Dukoff-Zimberoff House of Note Supersonic.  It's the lay, the tip, the baffle, and the general finish work.  Let's look inside at a couple of real Dukoffs (keeping in mind that the Dukoff pieces, as with other refinishing houses, sometimes had different chambers, especially when they changed blank suppliers).  Click on these pictures for a good look.

Interesting baffle, yes?  Nice work.  So what did the original Babbitt blank look like?  Turns out that they are like this Selmer Elkhart (advertised on Ebay as a Dukoff-Zimberoff clone).

See the difference?  Here's another Dukoff-Zimberoff:

Here's another Selmer Elkhart that was also claimed to be a Dukoff blank:

And here's a Buescher claimed to be a Dukoff:

I hope that you can see that the baffle (or lack thereof) is completely different.  As is the lay.  As is the tip opening. As is the table (more on that later).  The windows on these pieces look longer or shorter based on the same foreshortening problem with the pictures as noted above, but they are basically the same except when effected by the table.  Again, more on that later.

So why would somebody call a common Buescher #3 a Dukoff Zimberoff House of Note?  A couple hundred dollars, that's why.  That's right.  Some of these Babbitt blank student pieces sell for a couple hundred dollars because Bob Dukoff used the same blanks for some of his pieces.*  Go figure.  Although Buescher and Selmer are the most common names that shared the blank with Dukoff, there are at least six branded stencils of this piece (and the actual Babbitt Artist).  They are not common as dirt, but Babbitt sold a lot of them as a generic student piece, often in a #3 lay.  In fact, some of these blanks are stamped Geo. M. Bundy and shipped with Bundy horns.  I don't know if anybody is claiming that a Bundy is a Dukoff (or whether buyers are swallowing that one).

Keep in mind that the molding of blanks utilizes two mold shapes.  A "plug" controls the initial shape of the chamber.  It is placed inside of the exterior mold.  The exterior mold controls the external shape of the blank, although both the interior and the exterior can be modified after molding.  The exterior shape can be "updated" while using the same interior "plug" to form the chamber.  Some of the "older style" Babbitt Artists (shown below) actually have the same chamber as the later Dukoff-Zimberoff/Selmer/Buescher etc. blanks.  The mouthpieces aren't the same shape on the outside, but have identical insides.  Guess which characteristic effects how they sound?

The confusion also happens with other blanks.  Arnold Brilhart's first mouthpieces (prior to his injection molded plastic pieces) were custom made from hard rubber blanks that he had purchased from a blank manufacturer (the first from American Hard Rubber Co. in Butler, NJ).  The identical AHR blanks were sold to quite a few other finishing houses, of course, but because they are sometimes claimed to be "Brilhart blanks," they can also sell for 4 or 5 times the "normal" price of this fairly common vintage no name blank.

Here's a Brilhart refaced by Brian Powell and listed at $599:

  Here is the no name version that usually sells for $25-40 on Ebay (unless it is listed as an Arnold Brilhart vintage hard rubber piece).  

Here it is as a Bonacio Custombuilt, probably its most obscure iteration:

An AHR "Brilhart blank" is often claimed to be a rare vintage piece made from special hard rubber when, in fact, there were even more stencils of this AHR blank than of the Babbitt-made Selmer/Buescher/Dukoff etc., etc. blank shown above.

Turns out that variations of this theme, sometimes called "rebadging," have occurred in the auto industry.  Auto Carrier Ltd. in England produced an nice little sports car with an aluminum body and a 100 horsepower 4-banger, the AC Ace.  

American auto designer Carrol Shelby imported the Ace chassis and put a Ford 427 V8 in it (sort of as a "finishing house") and created the Shelby Cobra, the fastest production car in the world at the time.  If I were selling an AC Ace, I could advertise the car as Shelby Cobra "blank."  Turns out that car enthusiasts are more discerning than mouthpiece enthusiasts and won't pay the extra money.  

I'm not saying that the vintage mouthpieces originally sold as Buescher, Selmer, Vibrator, Bonacil, Bruno, Bundy, Penn, Coast, etc., etc., can't be turned into something similar to a Dukoff-Zimberoff or a Brilhart Hard Rubber.  It's just that it may take a lot more expertise than a superficial refacing.  

Back to a car analogy.  Say that I have a vintage Porche 356. 

I find out that the cabriolet model (the convertible) is worth a lot, lot more, so I cut the top off of mine to make it into a cabriolet.  That way, I can sell my car for 7 times more.  

Again, it turns out that car enthusiasts are not as easily fooled by the superficial similarity as are mouthpiece enthusiasts.  You can imagine that starting with a coupe and actually changing it to a legitimate cabriolet is going to be very difficult (if not impossible).  Same is often true with a mouthpiece.

Which brings us back to the issue of the table on the blanks, the stencils, and "finishing house" pieces.  After comparing a lot of old mouthpieces, both collector pieces and their no names cousins, I saw that the tables were not always cut the same on what appeared to be identical blanks.  When the table is cut in such a way that it is closer to parallel with the neck opening, it creates more of a "streamlined" mouthpiece, i.e., something more like a Personaline style of mouthpiece.  It has the effect of increasing the tip opening without removing material from the tip.  It changes the angle of the baffle all the way through the piece.  It changes the way that it plays.

In some cases, it appeared that the finishing house altered the table on the generic blank with what is known as a "butt cut" (removing material at the back of the table).  In that case, simply opening the tip on a supposedly identical Babbitt-made "Dukoff" blank, as is commonly done, does not produce a piece identical to a Dukoff.  So a blank that started out similar to a famous vintage piece might not easily be refaced to produce the identical thing.  Just putting a Dukoff tip opening, lay, side rails, and baffle on a similar blank isn't likely to create a Dukoff (more on that in Hoax part 2).  Sort of like trying to change a coupe into a convertible.

Maybe pictures will help.  Here are three  identical vintage mouthpieces.  A Penzel-Mueller Artist Model, a JJ Babbitt Artist, and a no name.  The P-M Artist Model has the good reputation, so lets say that we are looking for blanks to make a mouthpiece "just like a P-M Artist Model."

In case you haven't noticed, I lied.  One of these is not like the others.  Although very similar, the one on the right has a shorter beak in comparison with the other two, which means that there is no way that it came from the same molded blank (although it appears to be a Babbitt-made piece).  When you are purchasing a mouthpiece that's claimed to be "just like a Dukoff," or "just like a Brilhart," or  whatever, you have no way of knowing unless you have both the generic blank and an original in your hand.  And if you have a real Dukoff, Link, or Brilhart, why do you need a fake one?

The middle one is the P-M Artist Model and the one on the left is the Babbitt (which is called simply Artist although Babbitt used this name on many of it's pieces, including one of its white plastic models).  Guess where Penzel-Mueller bought the blanks that it used to make it's Artist Model?  Give up?  Here's a clue.  It is made with that super-special vintage Penzel-Mueller hard rubber.  Yeah, it was made by Babbitt using the same hard rubber Babbitt used on thousands of other vintage pieces.  So hundreds of other brand mouthpieces feature that super-special vintage Penzel-Mueller hard rubber.  Get the story here.

But wait, remember we were talking about the differences in the tables?  Here they are looking from the other side.

The middle one is the P-M Artist Model and the one on the bottom is the "identical" Babbitt.  But look at the difference in table width and how the shape of the table differs at the shank.  That is because the Artist Model has had a lot more material removed to form the table before the facing was put on.  This effects the width of the rails, the shape and length of the window, the angle of the baffle to the bore, the amount of material between the table and the chamber, the amount of material left with which to form the baffle, etc., etc, even if the same curvature lay is used.  

If we are attempting to make a brand X Babbitt into a Penzel-Mueller Artist Model clone, we can "kind of sort of make it look similar maybe."  The same is true with turning a Buescher Babbitt into a Dukoff-Zimberoff House of Note Babbitt.  I'm not saying that the no name student versions of the blank can't make really great mouthpieces, I'm just saying don't pay a $150 premium to get a chance at trying it.  First, you have paid too much.  Second, you can only make something similar.

Which brings me to my final point.  "Similar" isn't a bad thing.  I'm not convinced that attempting to claim that "it's really a Dukoff" or "it's just like an Artist Model" or "it's actually a Brilhart hard rubber piece" should be a goal.  Good quality vintage hard rubber student pieces from respected manufacturers are readily available and (should be) inexpensive as blanks.  As we have seen, the no-name pieces often started as the same blanks.  Once properly refinished, they are a fraction of the cost of an original Dukoff, Brilhart, etc.  And that "original" Dukoff or Brilhart may have already been refaced (like one of the examples above), so in a way, refacing a $15 blank can get you exactly the same thing, i.e., a vintage hard rubber mouthpiece "in the style of" a Dukoff (as was done here) or a Link Tone Edge  (as was done here).  

Just remember that when you hear a claim like "it's really a Dukoff-Zimberoff House of Note Supersonic," it isn't and it never will be.  Don't despair.  It's also possible that your refinished no-name piece will play better than an old Dukoff, Brilhart, Link, etc.  The only downside is that you don't get to drop the famous name.  If that's important to you, you'll be interested in buying my Porche cabriolet.

P.S.: That Brilhart hard rubber piece refinished by Brian Powell shown above . . . well, it isn't.  I mean that it isn't a Brilhart.  It was a Brilhart, but not now.  Why?  Well, what made it a Brilhart in the first place?  Bonacio and many others used the same blank, as shown above.  If Bonacio stamped their pieces "Brilhart" would it be a Brilhart?  No, it's not the name stamped on the outside.  It is the Brilhart finish work that turned a generic blank into a Brilhart.  That generic blank now has different non-Brilhart finish work.  It is now a Powell.  Not that that is bad, in fact it is likely better, but let's get real about what's going on here.

A friend's brother-in-law has a Model T pickup.  It has a Cummins diesel engine.  The running gear is mostly Dodge, although some of the tranny is Japanese (which was used by Dodge).  Gauges are all new, etc.  The only thing that is still remotely Model T is the body shape and a Ford V8 logo on the radiator.  People will believe that it's a Model T pickup, but lets get real here.

*  Prior to the Dukoff mouthpieces shown above, Dukoff used a blank that was specific to him called the Fluted Chamber.  That model was advertised until at least 1956.  It did not have the same baffle and had a slightly darker tone (with the original facing).  Here is a good shot showing the difference in the baffle.  

An original 1940's version with 4# facing.

1950's version.

1950's baffle (or lack thereof) remained the same.

The Fluted Chamber had a slightly smaller chamber than the House of Note.

Finding the Leak When a Leak Light Doesn't Find It

The leak light has become the standard when installing new pads on a saxophone or when trying to chase down an issue that is usually caused by a leaking pad (stuffiness or warbling of lower notes).   Intonation isn't generally thought of as a leak issue, but it very often is.  I don't want to get side tracked (like that won't happen), but if you play low D and then use different palm keys to vent instead of depressing the octave lever and opening the lower one of the octave pips, you can get a variety of notes, usually off pitch.  So small leaks can also do odd things to intonation, and sometimes odd things that are only apparent with one particular note.

That's how I got into checking for the few things that I'm going to discuss.  After rebuilding a saxophone, sometimes a horn with a great reputation for intonation, I found odd things that I couldn't correct by running a leak light through the sax.
There are areas where the leak light just can't do it, yet it is very important to get the sax leak proof for intonation and power.  Here are a few things that I've learned. 

Starting at the top, take the neck off and test the upper octave pip.  I place the tenon of the neck against the heel of my thumb like this.  Sometimes, I even lick the area to make sure that I'm getting a good seal.  

Then, I suck on the cork end to create a vacuum.  Once a vacuum is formed, I put my tongue over the end of the neck tube.  (Don't create too much of a vacuum or you can actually hurt your tongue if you have a sharp edge.)  This checks the seal on the upper pip.  The vacuum should hold indefinitely, even with a microtuner.  If the vacuum fails after several seconds, you've got a problem.  I have become a fan of using cork for the pip pads.  Cheap, fast, moisture proof, long lasting, and seals just as well if not better than leather pads.


Next thing to check is the neck tenon seal.  This can be difficult to test, however, if you suspect that there may be an issue, you can "fix" it and see if it makes a difference in how the sax plays.  The first fix is to wrap a single layer of PTFE tape (also known as Teflon plumbing tape) around the neck tenon and insert it into the horn using a rotating motion in the opposite direction from your wrapping.  If the fit is tight, the tape will "smear" and it will look something like this.

That picture is of my Martin, and I just leave the tape there.  It stays there for several months and then I do it again.  On a Conn with a double neck socket, I rolled the PTFE tape into a string and inserted it like a gasket to be compressed when the neck was put on.  Worked like a charm.  If the improvement is really apparent when you play, you might want to actually do some tenon work or take it to a technician.  If it gives the horn a little boost and more even intonation, then I'm good with that.  It's not like having PTFE tape showing on your mouthpiece cork.  That always reminds me of the geek who fixes his glasses frames with BandAids.

Another neck area that can be an issue is the expansion slot on horns where the neck is attached with a screw clamp.  The slot has to extend below the tension screw used to clamp the neck, and that can be the source of a tiny leak.  PTFE tape to the rescue again.  The neck receiver slot on this Beaugnier has been "packed" with white PTFE tape (shown here as a blurry white stripe).  When the neck is clamped down, the PTFE works as a packing gland and assures an airtight seal at the slot.

The blurry white line is PTFE tape packed into the tenon receiver slot.

But aren't we are fixing things on the neck that might not even need fixing?  Yes.  But since the fixes are so easy, I'm not too worried.  If the tenon and receiver are out of round or need expanding, here is a DIY blog on tenon expansion.  Be careful!!

There are ways to find out if the neck connection is actually leaking.  Here's one.  

It looks like a creepy medical device, but it is actually a plumbing tool called an inflatable test bladder.  So it even sounds like a creepy medical device.

Air is pumped into the tire valve and the other end inflates inside the pipe, or in our case, the saxophone body tube, to make a tight seal.  

In order to put the device into place on altos and tenors, it is usually necessary to remove one of the upper stack pads, thread the device into position through the bell, and then pull the tire valve out of the upper stack key hole.  The black rubber part (the inflatable bladder) is placed right below the neck tenon and then inflated.  

Now the neck is put on, and since we have already done a vacuum check on the neck octave pip and microtuner (if any), we know that when we suck on the neck any leak is because of the neck tenon assembly.  You can see now why "fixing" a possible tenon leak before a full diagnosis is a viable option.  The diagnosis is time consuming and tedious, while the cure is quick and easy.  

Which leads me at last to my strange testing method (and the purpose of this whole blog).  Wouldn't it be nice if we could just vacuum test the entire horn to find out if it is leaking?  Not just the pip and neck tenon leaks (which don't show with a regular leak light), but also pad leaks in those few places where we can't get a clear view with the leak light.  There might even be other places where leaks can occur that we haven't even thought of.  

Think of the computer bandwidth this would save!  Go to any saxophone website and read the posts.  "My horn plays sharp.  What could it be?"  "My horn has a stuffy Eb.  What should I do?"  "My horn jumps registers.  Who knows how to fix it?"  What could it be, what should I do, who can diagnose my saxophone sight unseen over the internet?  12% of all posts start out similarly (I just made up that number).  Well, the first thing that you should do is to make sure that your sax is sealing properly everywhere.  Once you have done that, then you can post a "what should I do" question.

Here's what I've come up with.  Place a piece of Saran Wrap, aka plastic wrap, over the bell and fasten it down with a rubber band to keep it in place.  

Put the neck on the horn, finger low Bb, and suck in.  Cheap plastic wrap simply pops from the vacuum, assuming the horn is fairly tight.  Good plastic wrap is a bit more difficult, and that's why I would recommend using the best you can find or a piece of plastic grocery bag. 

Here's a picture of the wrap sucked into the bell a little bit and indicating a good seal around the bell.  I place my tongue over the end of the neck, as in the prior test.  I consider holding a vacuum for 5 seconds or more to be great.  That doesn't usually happen on the first test.

 
What we are after isn't simply the ability to pop the wrapping.  We are looking over the entire horn for leaks.  Actually, we are "hearing" over the entire horn.  

As you inhale slowly, you will get an indication as to how leak proof your saxophone is.  If you inhale fast, you can suck the pads down that wouldn't normally seal when inhaling slowly.  You may hear air hissing into the horn from some leak.  On a fairly tight horn, you should be able to raise one finger at a time off of the keys and the vacuum will hold the key down (unless you have your pads poorly floated or your keys over sprung, IMHO).  A key that lifts off of the tone hole despite being under vacuum (i.e., while you are sucking) is a suspect.  

If a hissing sound continues despite using a gorilla grip on the keys, you know that the leak is either from one of the "un-fingered" normally closed pads that's not sealing properly or some place other than the pads (or some really bad regulation such that even a gorilla grip isn't closing a pad).

So, let's say that you've done the test and, although you can pop the plastic if you wish, when you inhale slowly there is a slight hissing sound and the horn doesn't hold a vacuum.  How do you locate that hiss or those hisses?  The first way is using an assistant.  Nah, that's no fun.  What I use is a desk top microphone, headphones, and my computer.  Here's the microphone "sniffing" for a leak on the low Bb pad as I slowly inhale.

 

Actually, I thought that my leak sounded like it was further up on the horn, so I started from top to bottom.  After checking the neck tenon, I quickly found the culprit.  I could hear the little C# pad "whistle" from the vacuum when the rest of the upper stack keys were pressed down, even when using a gorilla grip (the "bad regulation" problem noted above).  With the microphone/headphone setup, the hissing was much louder than what I was originally hearing.  It sounded like a tornado.  A real bonus to using a microphone and headset.

It wasn't a problem with a defective pad or an uneven tone hole lip, it simply wasn't regulated correctly with C, B, and A, which should depress and seal the C# pad when the other notes are fingered.  But I couldn't see that with the leak light, maybe because the palm keys are in the way on this horn.  Or it could be that the pad was pressed tight enough so that light wouldn't show, because of the rim edge "footprint" on the leather, but air could get through.  And ultimately it is air leakage, not light, which is our concern.  

I placed paper on to the cork that regulated the C# key, and that fixed the leak.  For this type of regulating, I initially use yellow Post-It Notes (a lightly adhesive paper).  Post-Its stay in place, can be layered for any thickness, and can then be easily removed when the cork is redone.  The thickness of the paper is about .003 inch.  Two layers (.006" or .15mm) was enough to close the key and stop the hissing leak that I was hearing.  Here's a picture with the yellow slips of paper in place.

Two good things came from this.  The horn speaks better.  It just seems to have a little more power.  And even better, this was a horn that suffered from the infamous "stuffy second D," as mentioned at the start of this blog.  2nd D was both stuffy and sharp,* although it was possible to play 2nd D in tune with enough aforethought (memo to self: remember to lip down second D every bloody time).  The "stuffiness" could probably be more accurately described as a "weak and unpredictable" 2nd D.  What a pain.  

The cause of the problem was that I basically had two vent points open when playing 2nd D.  The lower octave pip would be open, and right below it, the C# pad was cracked open .006", creating a "ghost vent."  The C# pad is close to, but not quite, a natural venting point for 2nd D.  The natural venting point is actually the palm D tone hole.  Play low D and hit palm D instead of the octave register key.  You'll generally get a nice 2nd D even with the pip remaining closed (which is one traditional remedy for a stuffy D).  But pressing the octave register and having C# leaking caused my horn to have a sharp and stuffy 2nd D (and probably other lesser intonation problems throughout both registers).  

Even though the C# leak was open and affecting every note below C# in both registers, it made itself most noticeable as a faulty ghost vent point for 2nd D.  A tiny undetected leak on a saxophone might be barely noticeable, or might make one certain note a pain in the butt.

Now back to the "sucking" method of leak detection.  There is nothing besides the pads on the lower horn that can leak, right?  Wrong.  Old Martin horns can leak around the tone holes if the solder corrodes.  I also did a "fix without diagnosis" when I rebuilt my Martins.  I wiped tung oil on the inside lip of the tone holes.  If there was any pitting, crevices, corrosion, etc., the tung oil would plug the pitting and seal off the solder from further corrosive liquids.  (Tung oil was originally used to line tin cans to prevent corrosion).  Keep in mind that tung oil takes several weeks to polymerize.  Not really a problem unless you leave a fuzzy pad guard in during this time.

Although I haven't actually come across leaking soldered tone holes on any vintage Martins, I have found a leak around an extruded tone hole.  I couldn't believe it when I found one.  As tone holes are extruded, the thin brass of the body tube is forced to make a right angle bend.  This can cause a stress crack in the metal that is basically invisible to the naked eye and, like solder corrosion, may not be in a "straight line" through the horn such that light can emit from the leak.  

Most of these flaws are probably sealed with lacquer during manufacturing and have no real effect, but this one wasn't.  After finding it, I was able to put a leak light to this stress fracture and get a picture of it.  This is the bottom of the Eb tone hole chimney, looking up from the bow.  Sorry about the lack of focus, but it's the bright spot right in the center.

Instead of sealing the leak with tung oil, I chose to "tin" the area with solder from the inside.  Not an easy task, but the low notes on this tenor now speak with authority.  It also helped with a slightly sharp low Bb.  Again, a double bonus.  I feel sorry for whoever played this horn from 1957 until I bought and rebuilt it.  They never experienced the full extent of this Dolnet's low end power.

There are other non-leak light methods of finding leaks, but I think this method is the best.  You can instantly check the whole horn.  You can check for suspected leak problems when on a gig.  No electricity required.    By applying varying pressure on keys, it's often even possible to quickly identify the problem pad.

Here's another leak that I found that would have never been detected using a leak light. 

*  I have been writing a blog about stuffy D2 and warbling D1 problems for over a year and haven't completed it.  It seems that there are just too many causes.  I'll mention one here (one that the vacuum test doesn't always detect).  After a complete rebuild, I had a warbling low D.  It actually started at E, but was more noticeable at D.  Playing loud made it go away, but a sustained ppp was frustrating as the warble, like an unwanted vibrato, would show itself.  

I checked everything and couldn't find the solution.  I tried the vacuum test and it was as good or better than any other horn I had rebuilt.  I suspected that the leak was around the area of palm D and the leak was acting as a very weak "octave" vent.  It sounded like low D was "kind of sort of" trying to jump an octave.  It was very easy to jump octaves without using the octave key.

Finally, I thought that maybe the vacuum test itself was helping mask the problem.  What if the palm D pad sealed sufficiently to stop light?  When using the vacuum test, it could seal sufficiently because it was "sucked down" onto the tone hole and did not leak.  But if there was sound wave "pressure" instead of vacuum, it would "vibrate" open.  That is possible if the key spring didn't hold the pad down enough.  I tend to like soft springs, as it makes the horn seem fast under the fingers, but in this case, palm D was set too light.  Simply bending the spring on palm D (3D), so that it applied more force, was enough to make my warbling 2D go away.  

I may still finish a blog about "D" problems. 

Vintage Hard Rubber Mouthpieces - Which Manufacturing Process was the Best?

There were two popular methods for producing vintage hard rubber mouthpieces.  One method used commercially available dowels of vulcanized hard rubber, called rod or bar rubber, and the mouthpiece was machined from the bar stock just as would have been done originally when making a mouthpiece from ebony wood.  The other method was to vulcanize the rubber in a mouthpiece shaped mold and then finish the blank.  Claims have been made over the years that one or the other method produced a superior product.  Let's get the opinion of an expert.
Chedeville mouthpiece Chedeville mouthpiece Chedeville mouthpiece Chedeville mouthpiece
Mr. Otto Link started finishing metal mouthpieces in the mid-1930's.  At first, Goldbeck had a patent on metal pieces and it appears that he used those for his original blanks until the Goldbeck patent expired in 1934.  He began marketing a hard rubber mouthpiece in the late 1930's.  Because of the long-term popularity of his hard rubber line of mouthpieces, he is going to be our expert.  He passed away in the 1970's by most accounts, but we can still use him as our expert based on his informed opinion as stated in his advertising material.  I'll put his statements in quotations and italics.
Link hard rubber link hard rubber link hard rubber link hard rubber link hard rubber
Mr. Link's first hard rubber mouthpiece was intended to "duplicate the Link 4 Star metal mouthpiece."  Metal was expensive, but vulcanized rubber, specifically vulcanized rubber of the same hardness as ebony, could be made into a mouthpiece.  This hard rubber was generically referred to as ebonite and was available in rod form for milling or it could be vulcanized into the shape of the mouthpiece to allow for less milling.
Chedeville hard rubber chedeville hard rubber chedeville hard rubber chedeville hard rubber
Mr. Link chose to use the rod form of hard rubber.  He called the material that he purchased "Eburnated Bar" hard rubber.  If you Google "eburnated bar" you will find thousands of web sites on which that term is used, but they will all refer to Otto Link mouthpieces.  If you Google "eburnated bar -Link" (i.e., without the search term "Link") , you'll get no hits.  So it appears that "eburnated bar" rubber doesn't exist anywhere else on the planet other than in Link mouthpieces.   Very curious. 
Chedeville rod rubber Chedeville rod rubber Chedeville rod rubber Chedeville rod rubber
"Eburnated" is a medical term that generally applies to the body's reaction to a degenerative bone disease.  The cartilage wears away and the bone structure rubs together, resulting in "bony sclerosis" or an ivory-like surface referred to as "eburnated."  Ivory-like?  What's that all about?  Wait a minute, we have seen a similar claim.  Remember the ivory mouthpieces in the blog about Sorkin Music that were sold with the Revere Paris Model saxophones?  Are those ivory mouthpieces eburnated?  Sort of.  The Revere saxophones aren't from Paris and the Revere mouthpieces aren't ivory.  That was all just advertising hype.  Just like the term "Eburnated Bar" used by Mr. Link is pure advertising hype.

Here is a vintage Link mouthpiece allegedly made from "Eburnated Bar" rubber. 

Okay, but even if the claim of Eburnated Bar is clearly BS, we now know that  making a mouthpiece from bar stock or rod rubber is best because that's what Mr. Link chose (or at least chose to claim).  The only problem is that within a couple of years Link changed his mind and started using molded blanks.  But somehow the blanks that he purchased were still "eburnated" according to the Link advertising.  Maybe the secret eburnation process is the key to making superior mouthpieces.  Here's some Link advertising copy from 1940.

A new process of high compression actually hardens the rubber from which "OTTO LINK" MOUTHPIECES are fabricated to a degree heretofore thought impossible -- imparting a gleaming crystal quality in appearance as well as substance.  This process minimizes the possibility of warpage oft prevalent in ordinary rubber mouthpieces, and adds a new resonance and brilliance to tonal quality.

It is practically impossible to attain in ordinary cast mouthpieces the high degree of material hardness found in our EBURNATED "RESO-CHAMBER" Otto Link MOUTHPIECE.  Eventually ordinary cast rubber mouthpieces warp from heat and the absorption of moisture from the player's mouth.  This is practically impossible with EBURNATED "RESO-CHAMBER" MOUTHPIECES.

Many reed troubles start with mouthpiece warpage, for when this happens it becomes necessary to find reeds that will fit and play on this warped facing.  Not only will a defect of this nature change your embouchure, but most likely it is apt to set you back considerably in your progress toward mastering your instrument.

Well that explains my lack of progress toward mastering my saxophone.  I often play a 1940's Otto Link Tone Edge, called a "slant signature," that doesn't have the word "eburnated" stamped on it.  So it's just an "ordinary cast mouthpiece."  But it isn't warped.  And it has never gotten water logged.  What's going on here?  The "RESO-TONE" supposedly features a "new process of high compression" casting that differentiates it from other cast mouthpieces.  But just a few years later, Link stopped claiming to use the eburnation process, whatever that was, and just used cast mouthpieces.

Let's look at how vulcanized rubber is cast for a mouthpiece blank.  Hard rubber mouthpiece blanks were "compression molded," but the compression of the material into the mold doesn't change the material property of the rubber.  Cooking the rubber (vulcanization) hardens the material.  Mr. Link's process of "eburnation" supposedly imparted a "gleaming crystal quality in appearance as well as substance."  Every vintage Link mouthpiece that I've ever seen polishes just like any other hard rubber mouthpiece.  And natural rubber already has a crystalline structure, as does vulcanized rubber, so the process of "eburnation" sounds just like the same vulcanization process used for every other hard rubber mouthpiece.  But claiming that Link mouthpieces have a "gleaming crystal quality" sure sounds better than "it's vulcanized."

When rubber is vulcanized, it is cooked under pressure, and the amount of pressure determines the temperature and therefore the cooking time (just as with a stove-top pressure cooker).  Is Mr. Link implying that he orders his blanks cooked at a higher pressure (and therefore, temperature)?  Unfortunately, once rubber is vulcanized, going to a higher temperature doesn't do anything.  So the mystery of eburnation, if it ever existed, remains a secret.  My own opinion is that, if there is no evidence of something's existence despite years of searching, then it doesn't exist.  Call me an eburnation non-believer.  That same lack of evidence is why I don't believe that Mr. Link ever cast his own blanks.  

But a total lack of proof doesn't preclude attributing secret physical benefits to the process.  Mr. Link's secret process "minimizes the possibility of warpage oft present in ordinary mouthpieces".  So the claim is that eburnation doesn't eliminate warpage, it merely "minimizes the possibility."  Where is the proof, i.e., where are the warped Links?  And where are the "oft" warped ordinary mouthpieces?  It actually sounds like those "ordinary mouthpieces" may have dissolved in the player's mouth because of "heat and the absorption of moisture from the player's mouth."  

We know that heat and humidity effects ebonite.  That's what proved the "mouthpiece material matters" claims to be false, remember?  But a "warped" mouthpiece caused by playing?  Why has nobody ever seen one?  It could just be more hype.  In fact, it appears that "eburnation" is synonymous with hype.  It's like Sorkin's claim of "ivory" mouthpieces.*

But back to our quest in determining which is better, vulcanizing the rubber in the shape of a rod or vulcanizing in the shape of a mouthpiece.  One of these methods of shaping must be way, way better in order for us to argue about which finished mouthpiece is obviously superior.  Yet Mr. Link used both methods and advocated for both (depending on which he was employing at the time).  It turns out that, according to him, as long as the material goes through the mystical process of "eburnation," either process can produce a good mouthpiece.  It's too bad that the "eburnation" process for hard rubber wasn't patented (or ever used again by anybody). 

We can also look to another mouthpiece expert, Mr. Charles Chedeville.  Mr. Chedeville was also using rod rubber in the 'teens and 20's prior to the perfection of the molding process.  Some whopping claims are made that he also used a super-duper Grade A++ whing-ding secret formula rod rubber for his mouthpieces.  There is no evidence, of course.  And there is no evidence that Chedeville ever cooked the rod rubber himself or had a proprietary recipe that the manufacturer used only for him.  In fact, if you do a search for his business addresses, just like Otto Link, he was never located at an address where he could have the machinery necessary to vulcanize rubber.  He simply sourced material from a rod rubber manufacturer like Mr. Link sourced his material.  "Please ship 100 sticks of ebonite rod rubber."  Where's the mystical "material matters" evidence in that?

Beginning in the 1920's, Mr. Chedeville used molded blanks (like Mr. Link) and his "golden era" spans his rod rubber and molded mouthpieces.  Since there is also no evidence that he cooked his own molded blanks, it is most likely that he sourced his blanks from Riffault (like many others), which accounts for why many Lelandais and Chedeville pieces are identical to Riffault production pieces.  After all, Riffault was just down the road and sold their clarinet and mouthpiece blanks partially finished.

I know this is heresy, but I'm only going where we have evidence, logic, and common sense while leaving out the hyperbole, fantasy, and delusion.  Of course, that's easy for me to claim that Chedeville probably used Riffault blanks because I don't have any Chedeville mouthpieces for sale and I don't claim to be fabricating present day knock-offs of Chedeville mouthpieces.  Here's how to make a knock-off.

Back to Mr. Link.  There is another interesting "hard rubber" usage by Mr. Link.  In 1930, Mr. Link applied for a patent, along with his then-partner Frank Meyer (later of Meyer Brothers mouthpieces).  The patent was for a tooth guard on a metal mouthpiece.  A slot was cut into the metal mouthpiece and a rubber/sulfur mixture was compressed in to the slot and then vulcanized into place.  You have probably seen this on an old Link or an old Lelandais metal mouthpiece.  So a vulcanized rubber tooth guard was not a particularly novel concept at the time (having been previously used by other manufacturers).  "Prior use" invalidates a patent, but then, not every patent granted is actually valid.  Yet the mere existence of this patent by Mr. Link makes it even more curious that his "eburnation" process for an entire mouthpiece wasn't patented.  And the patent doesn't claim that the tooth guard is "eburnated," despite Mr. Link's familiarity with this allegedly important process that stopped the "warpage" commonly occurring when "ordinary rubber" was used on a mouthpiece.  Very curious.

Even advertising hype can be patented, as a process patent does not have to be valid; the applicant merely needs to assert that the process is novel and hope that the patent issues.  What's even better is to just stamp "REG. U.S. PAT. OFF." on an item and then not even try to apply for a patent.  Just stamping the item without applying for a patent saves time, saves money, and saves the applicant from looking foolish for applying for a patent on an already patented process (like Mr. Link trying to patent Mr. Charles Goodyear's well-known prior patent for the vulcanization of rubber, for instance).  But just stamping "Patented" on an object was later forbidden in 1946 by 35 U.S.C. 292  (right about the time production ended for the allegedly patented "eburnated" Link mouthpieces).  

The statutory "penalty" for violating 35 U.S.C. 292 was a $500 fine to be split between the person bringing suit and the U.S. government.  Few suits were ever brought until an odd court ruling on 2009 and, as a result, the penalty provision was completely eliminated in 2011.   But it is curious that Mr. Link stopped claiming that his "eburnated" mouthpieces were patented right about 1946.  (The elimination of the penalty in 2011 has brought on a renewed use of the bogus "Patent Pend" stamp.)**

Perhaps eburnated vulcanized rubber can't be described in a manner that made a patent application even plausible (applications are sometimes denied).  Or Mr. Link tried to get a patent (which is unlikely as there is no evidence of an application ever being filed), but the patent failed to issue because eburnation is simply a restatement of prior art, i.e., vulcanization.  Or maybe stamping an item with "REG. U.S. PAT. OFF." was commonly used as advertising hype prior to 1946, but Mr. Link decided not to continue the misrepresentation when doing so became illegal.  

At any rate, the issue of whether rod rubber or molded rubber is superior has officially reached a stalemate.   Mr. Link produced great mouthpieces using both methods; with rod rubber (probably produced by American Hard Rubber in Butler, NJ) and with molded blanks (produced by JJ Babbitt in Elkhart, IN).  It's kind of a shame that, like other mouthpiece makers, he catered almost exclusively to a player's obsessive focus disorder for mouthpiece material rather than for mouthpiece design and finish.  Besides having a genius for mouthpiece design and finish, Otto Link also had a genius for creating some extremely powerful marketing hype that continues to this day.  That's the uneburnated truth.

* The silliest claim that I've seen about "ivory" mouthpieces (and I've seen it several times) is that small amounts of ivory dust were added to make these mouthpieces white.  Of course, for those who would believe such a tale it would also change the tone of the mouthpiece (making it sound "mammilion???).  So the common white mouthpieces that the saxophone manufacturer often tossed in the case (and players later tossed out) had expensive ivory dust in them?  All of the players who threw theirs away and bought Links must really be disappointed.  Good thing that Lester Young kept his.

** In the picture of the ResoChamber shown above, you can see the "REG. U.S. PAT. OFF." stamp.  There is no number following the claim, so it isn't clear what alleged patent is referenced.  Link had a patent for a tooth guard on a metal piece, but I can find nothing about Link hard rubber or "eburnated" pieces.  Eugene Bercioux of Woodwind N.Y. stamped his mouthpieces with a U.S. Pat. Off. claim, but his patent was for the machine that put the facings on the mouthpiece and did not concern the mouthpiece itself.  Mr. Bercioux did apply for several trademarks (e.g. "Steel Ebonite"), which trademarks are registered with the U.S. Patent Office.