Klarinet Archive - Posting 000099.txt from 2005/10

From: X-MailScanner-tom.henson@-----.com
Subj: RE: [kl] Brad Behn
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:34:08 -0400

Let me clarify the statement below as I see it may have been
misunderstood due to my lack of being very specific.

The machining lines in the Chadash/Hill mouthpiece, to the best of what
I saw, were only on the outside of the mouthpiece. I did not look at the
inside close enough to see if it was the same, but I suspect that the
inside was smoother to provide a more efficient flow of air, although is
may be possible that if one looked closely enough you could see some. I
would have to request someone else on the list who has one of these to
take a look as I sold the one I had a while back.

As far as material making a difference, that is exactly what Brad Behn
claims as well as Glotin and Chadash/Hill. Check out his website and you
will see in detail all the steps and processes he went through and what
he is claiming is the result.

What all of these people are claiming is that the rubber used in the
1930's Chedeville's was of an unique formulation and that is a big part
of the reason why they sounded the way they did. The facing determines
how a mouthpieces blows, but they claim that the rubber formulation and
way that the rubber is cured determines that way that it resonates and
sounds. The rubber also must be of the same density and hardness as you
state if one is to match what was done in the 1930's, so they are also
saying this is a partial factor as well. The density and hardness of the
rubber is the result of the way it is cured and pressed with heat into
the rob rubber billet, so the actual rubber formula is only one, albeit
bid, part of the puzzle.

Both Chadash/Hill and Brad claim that 90% of the sound that a clarinet
makes is determined by the mouthpiece (setup) and the other 10% by other
things like the clarinet itself. Food for thought.

The absolute goal that Brad had in mind was to reproduce exactly the
acoustical properties of the 1930's vintage Cedarville's. One result is
that when playing very softly you still are able to produce a full,
centered tone, with lots of projection that can easily be heard from a
distance. This is due to the superior acoustical and resonant properties
of this rubber and the way it is made.

Tom Henson

<< Tom, your interesting post once again raises the issue of "Does
material make a difference, or do only geometry and surface smoothness
make a difference?"

Is the assertion that rod rubber achieves its effects only because of
different surface smoothness (i.e.: machinability and polishability)?

_If_ a person believes that *other* parameters (density, hardness,
energy absorption, etc) make a difference in a mouthpiece, then
shouldn't the same person feel that material makes a difference in other
parts of a clarinet as well --- albeit perhaps a smaller or larger
difference?

-------------------------------------------------------------------
klarinet-owner@-----.
http://www.woodwind.org

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org