Klarinet Archive - Posting 000056.txt from 1996/10

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.NET>
Subj: Re: odd comment (acoustics)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 14:01:31 -0400

Bill,

Sorry, but the opening is the opening. It is the distance from the plane
of the table to the tip. Nothing ambiguous there. And 1.00mm is
incredibly closed.

As for length of lay, I did mention it in my message (I referred to it as
facing, and specified it for each of the mouthpieces I mentioned). With
the more open mouthpieces, a longer lay is generally required.

The longer the facing (with a given tip opening), the stronger the reed
that is required. The greater the tip opening (with a given facing), the
softer the reed that is required.

By balancing tip opening and facing length, Vandoren made its entire
mouthpiece family to play nicely on 3s or 3 1/2s.

-------------------
Jonathan Cohler
cohler@-----.net

At 11:01 AM 10/3/96, Fogle, Bill wrote:
>Jonathan,
>
>My tip opening is based on the maker's quote (Clark Fobes,
>San Francisco) who himself says his measurements end up smaller
>than Matsen's (a standard) guage. Also, I quoted it incorrectly (are you
>reading this, Clark?) It's 1.00, actually. I also play with much delight a
>Gregory Smith facing that I believe is pretty "open" (no tip figures
>given).
>
>I think there's a "center" that many players move toward, whether they
>approach that place with soft reed/open mpc, or hard[er] reed/closed.
>This applies to tone as well as resistance. In any case, I'm enjoying
>your comments on this topic. I confess I like to "push" when playing,
>and I also confess that my reading (David Pino comes to mind) has supported
>the vogue for reeds with "heart" and long facing mouthpieces with *rather*
>small openings. A question: you haven't said anything about length of lay.
>When I was play-testing the Fobes mouthpieces, I found a difference
>between his 17 and 18mm facing lengths (all mouthpieces differ, I realize).
>Thanks, -----Bill Fogle.
>