Klarinet Archive - Posting 000188.txt from 1996/10

From: Jonathan Cohler <cohler@-----.NET>
Subj: Re: tip openings (acoustics)
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 15:29:06 -0400

At 12:28 PM 10/8/96, Nick Shackleton wrote:
>>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.
>1.00 mm may be incredibly closed by American standards but that's not a
>universal truth- for example Karl Leister's reputation was built on a 0.65mm
>tip opening and that is not a minimum.
>Also I should perhaps say that the tip opening is not quite so easy to
>measure as Jonathan implies. The tip rail is curved and has a finite width
>front-to-back whose surface follows the shape put on the lay. The result is
>that the number you get depends on exactly how you measure it (it is easier
>if the tip rail is narrow as is the case for most modern good-quality
>mouthpieces).

I did not mean to imply that it was easy to measure. In fact, I would
assume that you need a very precise tool and some degree of skill in
measuring it. I was simply commenting that the tip opening is
unambiguously defined as I mentioned.

I don't know about Karl Leister's mouthpiece, but I know that the German
instruments have very different specifications in terms of bore size, so I
would assume that the mouthpieces that work well with them are also very
different. Also, Karl Leister (whom I studied with briefly) is known for a
relatively small dynamic range, which would make sense if indeed he plays
on a mouthpiece that is as closed as you indicate. There simply isn't
enough room for the the reed to vibrate freely (before hitting the
mouthpiece) as one increases the air pressure. The tip opening is a direct
limiter on the maximum loudness with which one can play. The lack of
flexibility in the hard reeds that one must use with a closed setup like
this would also explain then why Herr Leister is not known for playing very
soft either.

>>> 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.
>Again I can't comment in American terms, but that is not correct as a
>universal generalisation; the German lay with a small tip opening will
>typically be very long (at least 22 mm) by US standards.
>Nick

Whether or not a German mouthpiece has a long lay is irrelevant to what I
said. The German mouthpiece probably also has a completely different
interior design, different bore size, different baffle (as Everett Austin
mentioned).

What I meant was that as the tip opening increases with a fixed facing
length the reed responds harder. And when the facing length is increased
for a fixed tip opening, the reed responds softer.

Therefore, the larger tip opening and longer lay are cancelling effects
when it comes to reed response. So if one wants to design a family of
mouthpieces to be played with a consistent hardness of reeds (as Vandoren
has done, and as most mouthpiece makers do), they generally use longer
facings on the more open mouthpieces.

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