Klarinet Archive - Posting 000573.txt from 2000/10

From: "Clark W Fobes" <reedman@-----.com>
Subj: [kl] Symmetrical vs Asymmetrical Facings
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:19:56 -0400

------@-----.CD6F93A0
charset="iso-8859-1"

I have been lurking behind the scenes somewhat on this mouthpiece =
discussion. It is interesting how it seems that a line has been drawn in =
the sand over asymmetrical and symmetrical facings.

Thanks Greg for your thoughtful posts and for posting Tom Ridenour's =
thoughts on asymmetrical facings.

I make BOTH symmetrical and asymmetrical facings and of course have a =
few opinions of my own.

First, regarding asymmetry. I have measured at least 25-30 original =
Kaspar mouthpieces that have not been refaced. Without exception they =
are asymmetrical facings. I am puzzled that Greg offers a "Kaspar" =
mouthpiece that does not have an asymmetrical facing. IF players are =
still searching for that "Kaspar" sound in a mouthpiece one cannot =
ignore the fact that these mouthpieces were predominantly asymmetric.=20

I have to disagree with some of Tom's assertions about asymmetrical =
facings. If made properly, an asymmetrical facing has some wonderful =
qualities. I do not agree that asymmetry causes less stability in the =
upper register provided the asymmetry is not over done. Given a =
symmetrical mouthpiece that is responsive, but needs a little darker or =
richer sound, a slight asymmetry can be an enhancement. I also cannot =
agree with the statement that asymmetry causes a general lack of =
response. I do agree that asymmetric facings require more fussing with =
reeds. I played my 0M* facing (which emulates a Kaspar 11) for many =
years with a lot of success.

Currently I play my CF facing which is symmetrical and rather close. =
0.96mm with my gauge. I compared my gauge to Everett Matsen's during a =
session we had together and his gauge would measure this as 1.01mm. I =
have come to prefer this asymmetrical design for my own playing because =
there is a general feeling of ease and a better connection into the =
upper register. I do feel that this mouthpiece does not have quite the =
"character" of my 0M*. My CF and 0M* facings have the same tip opening, =
yet the CF is slightly brighter in the upper register than the 0M*. This =
goes against another of Tom's assertions about asymmetric facings.

Part of the problem of this discussion is that little has been said =
about baffle/bore design in relationship to facings. (Although I believe =
Roger dicussed relationships to resistance vis a vis chamber shapes) =
Qualities of tone that may be inherent in a particular type of facing =
can be completely obviated by adjustments to the tip baffle and chamber. =
The makers who use Zinner blanks understand that the depth of that blank =
and the lack of material in the slope of the baffle requires a relative =
short, close facing. (Unless they are willing to lap the heck out of the =
table to bring the baffle up).=20

If one knows what he/she is looking for there is a lot to be learned =
from observing the baffle style used by both Kaspars. I really believe =
the genius of these two men was the understanding of baffle shape and =
bore dimension as well as carefully finished facings.

Clark w Fobes

------@-----.CD6F93A0--

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org