Klarinet Archive - Posting 000890.txt from 1998/03

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausman@-----.com>
Subj: Re: Re: Re: Vandoren Mouthpiece
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 12:13:57 -0500

At 12:48 AM 3/14/98 EST, Tom (RCLARINET) wrote:
>OK, crystal is different from rubber is different from metal to some
>degree, but I sincerely doubt that minute changes in composition
>(percentage of lead in the crystal, for example) will make a difference
>that is even measureable, much less audible.
>
>Actually Bill, the difference would be audible before it would be
measurable.
>Chamber, baffle, etc. design
>is the real key. I am prepared to be proven wrong, but double-blind
>studies may be required.
>
>Beak radius, slope and contour are all extremely critical, as well as beak
>thickness at the tip. Some moutpieces are made of materials that transmit
>higher partials and bring out what I can best describe as "non-musical"
sounds
>as part of the tone. I have a great deal of experience wth both hand working
>mouthpieces and mouthpiece design and there are clearly some materials which
>yield a characteristic color that knowledgeable design can in some ways
>mitigate, but not entirely eliminate.
>For example, rubber/plastic formulas which tend to sound brittle and edgy up
>high can be compensated for by beak radius/slope manipulations----but the
>bright tendency will always be there, albeit masked by perspicacious design.
>Other materials will always produce a warm, pure tone and OD and beak as well
>as interior design changes will be needed to liven up the sound and get more
>highs in the recipe of tone.
>These realities are the very reasons many of us mouthpiece makers tend to use
>certain shells, even though they may cost us over twice what other shells
>might and be more difficult to get.
>Believe me, if these things were just subjective smoke I would not be
>purchasing the types of mouthpieces i do for my work. There is much less
>expensive and more accessible things at hand...........but they just don't
>work due to a variety of factors, materials being a major factor. I've seen
>this proved out 100's of times. I would have tried something years ago and
try
>to go back to it in desperation.....and alas, it would be just as unworkable
>as I have remembered it.
>tom
>
This explanation goes a long way toward converting me. But I am worried
about your remark that the differences would be audible before they would
be measureable. Are you saying the ear would pick it up before an
oscilloscope?

Bill Hausmann bhausman@-----.com
451 Old Orchard Drive http://www.concentric.net/~bhausman
Essexville, MI 48732 http://members.wbs.net/homepages/z/o/o/zoot14.html
ICQ UIN 4862265

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is too loud.