Klarinet Archive - Posting 000159.txt from 1996/10

From: Everett Austin <austine@-----.EDU>
Subj: Re: tip openings (acoustics)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 03:43:58 -0400

Another variable in the response of a mouthpiece to a particluar
strength reed is the shape and depthh of thhe baffle of the mouthpiece
(that is the part just beyond the tip rail), which can be deep or
shallow, concave, straight or convex. For example, a mouthpiece having
a close tip opening but a deep baffle might take the same strength reed
as one with a relatively wide tip and convex baffle. I believe this has
to do with the fluctuating air pressures generated at the tip in these
situations. An example of the former would be a Greg Smith mouthpiece
(Zinner) and the B45 and some Bay mouthpieces of the latter. I have an
old 5RV mouthpiece with a close tip and medium facing which
neveretheless plays best with a Glotin #3 reed, with a good dynamic
range and some flexiibiility: I believe this is due to the relatively
deep baffle complementing the close facing.
Any comment s from those more in the know?

Everett Austin

On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Jonathan
Cohler wrote:

> 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.
> >
>