 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2005-12-26 00:07
Are you having any problems with your mouthpiece? Does it seem resistant or just isn’t playing as well as you think it should?
Some time ago, I ran into a web article that was talking about some basic characteristics of clarinet mouthpieces (http://www.foglietta.de/UK/Itip4.htm). The really interesting part of this short article was the section located close to the middle labeled: “Now, how do you check the quality of your mouthpiece in practice?”
I have been using this method and personally have found it to be astonishingly accurate in determining table flatness and facing symmetry. A mouthpiece measuring glass which is normally thick and absolutely flat would work the best. I just got through using this method to check a mouthpiece that seemed a bit resistant to me and found that the only truly flat section of the table was from about 8mm below the window to the beginning of the facing curve. When I pushed on the middle of the table where the base of the reed actually rests, the glass actually “pulled away” from the facing starting at the bottom of the window all the way up!
I have found that tracking symmetry with this method is extremely easy and accurate. It’s really interesting to watch the thin, dual lines travel up the rails as the mouthpiece is “rolled” onto the glass.
So, if you’ve been experiencing some difficulties with your mouthpiece or would like to have a very accurate method of checking out table flatness and facing curve symmetry on new mouthpieces that you might be trying out, may I strongly suggest that you try this method. IMHO, you will not be disappointed!
Post Edited (2005-12-26 05:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2017-04-19 17:40
Dan, do you have a newer link for the web article? Or something equivalent? The glass flatness test sounds interesting. Thanks!
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2017-04-19 20:41
Excellent advice! Even the ground glass can be off. I have several ground glass gauges and only use 1 to check mouthpieces. It must be 35 years old.
There is something called the French Curve and for the inexperienced refacers I'd strongly suggest learning how to put on a French Curve to a mouthpiece. It can surely help make the table and the facing very accurate.
It may sound weird, slightly gross, but wipe the table of the mouthpiece on your forehead area were there is some natural skin oil and then press down the glass onto the mouthpiece. You should see these gaps a lot easier, which Dan talks about.
Getting a flat table takes years of hard work/study. So a French Curve often solves your problems. I'm more concerned about the rails measuring evenly with a nice curve. A lot of or most refacers screw this up and there are bumps in the curves. When you magnify the mouthpiece facing 20 times you can see how badly or how good the curve really is, how the facing may have warped through the years. That curve is so important and a refacer can't see it unless he/she magnifies it. Almost always it is off somewhere. Sorry fellow refacers, I've seen the results.
I made a computerized machine to adjust facings using ultra fine diamond dust because of these issues. Yes refacing mouthpieces is that hard.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2017-04-19 20:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: shmuelyosef
Date: 2017-04-19 20:58
Does anyone have insight on what this actually means:
...from Foglietta
"The bore
of the M.(outhpiece) has to match the instrument. If it is too narrow as it often happens with cheap models, the whole intonation of the instrument becomes too high."
Does this suggest that the best intonation is achieved by matching the output bore (diameter) of the mouthpiece to the upper bore of the barrel? ...or matching to the main bore diameter of the clarinet (e.g. at the middle joint)? ...or the bottom of the barrel?...top of the upper joint?
Generally, all of these bores are different diameter on original designs. Most mouthpieces seem to have a taper (i.e. the diameter increases to the bottom). I have found that generally mouthpieces play flatter if they are larger bore, but there are exceptions. Some mouthpieces affect the width of the 12ths. Any 'words of wisdom' on this, or is my process of measuring and charting (with good tuner and warmed up instrument) the only real solution.
The same type of considerations go to choosing barrels, where information is also not available without purchasing and measuring...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2017-04-20 05:44
Dan Shusta wrote:
> I just
> got through using this method to check a mouthpiece that seemed
> a bit resistant to me and found that the only truly flat
> section of the table was from about 8mm below the window to the
> beginning of the facing curve. When I pushed on the middle of
> the table where the base of the reed actually rests, the glass
> actually “pulled away” from the facing starting at the
> bottom of the window all the way up!
>
> So, if you’ve been experiencing some difficulties with your
> mouthpiece or would like to have a very accurate method of
> checking out table flatness and facing curve symmetry
Mouthpiece tables aren't always meant to be flat. As Bob Bernardo suggests, many mouthpieces are made deliberately with a slight concave curve in the table ("French curve" because it was - still is - used in many French-style mouthpieces) beginning at just about the top of the ligature so the reed is pressed into the gap. The purpose is to give more spring to the reed than it would have if resting against a completely flat table. It avoids the problems caused by a table that's meant to be flat but isn't, in ways that are uneven and random. The curve is shallow but is enough to prevent the middle area of the table from contacting the glass when you use this method to check the facing.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2017-04-20 07:32
These mouthpiece facing topics are rarely discussed, partly because many experts do not understand the situation, partly because many do not agree on the desired end result, and partly because an expert refacer does not wish to disclose his/her methods. I studied some with the late Glen Johnston whose work was respected, but I have no reason to comment further.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2017-04-20 08:55
It certainly is interesting to read something I wrote almost 12 years ago...
Some of you may find the following as having some value. Half way through the article, the writer talks about how to check the flatness of your reed.
www.reedgeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/PlaqueInstructions.pdf
Karl,
This measurement happened so many years ago that I don't even know what make or model of mouthpiece I was measuring. Never the less, concerning the slight concavity issue, IMO, Brad Behn gave quite a lengthy and very informative dissertation concerning this style of mouthpiece table in the following thread (2nd response after the original poster):
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=304851&t=304697
Post Edited (2017-04-20 10:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2017-04-20 21:38
Nothing against folks making $ off their inventions and labor, but... I always prefer methods that require only readily available and inexpensive items over those that require proprietary and/or pricey items. If the results are anywhere near comparable. Even when and if I have the $, it's a mind set. I am who I am, LOL.
I have not yet put my hands on a small piece of flat glass to try the cheapo method, when I do I will try it on the 2 examples I already have of Selmer HS**, and the 3rd that will arrive shortly. Just wanting to get a handle on whether 1, 2, or all 3 need the attention of a pro refacer.
I'd be really interested in false positives and false negatives from the flat glass test- have any of you tested a perfectly good newly refaced MP and found it to fail the test (false BAD)? Or have you tested a MP you knew to need refacing and it passed the test (false GOOD)? If so, any idea why the test fails?
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2017-04-20 23:14
The point is, even a table that isn't flat isn't necessarily a "failure." The concave French curves in some tables are deliberate and meant to be an improvement over a flat table. Players may disagree about which is "better" (which they prefer) but a table that doesn't come out flat against a piece of plate glass isn't necessarily "bad" or damaged.
The best test, as Brad Behn suggests in the post Dan referenced, is, does the mouthpiece play well? If you have three of the same mouthpiece (HS*) and one plays noticeably worse than the other two, it probably needs attention. If they all play the same way, then liking it or not is a matter of preference for or against the design.
You can do a very basic test to see if a table is flat, has a deliberate curve, or is simply bumpy and misshapen: gently slide a straight edge (the back of a knife, a good ruler) - one that's longer than the table - over the table from one side to the other and see if light gets under it (between the straight edge and the table) at any point. If there's a deliberate curve, you'll see the concave shape in the middle where light gets through and contact at either end. If the table is randomly bumpy or distorted, you'll see light getting under the edge at fairly random spots. If the table is really completely flat, you shouldn't see any light under the straight edge at all.
Karl
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2017-04-21 03:23
Thank you Karl. My 2 HS** do play very similar but not identical. #1 (because I got it first) has a chip on the top edge and was generally rougher looking, and I was pleased enough how it played to buy #2, much nicer looking, perhaps newer though who knows. Both are more resistant than I'd like (#1 more than #2) though I can play through that, in other respects they are a major step forward for me. Both completely solve a long standing issue (oddly #1 a bit better than #2- could be because it's more resistant or could be independent issues). (Which I know means there are probably other mp out there I would like equally or better, but it may not be worth the effort and expense of finding them.) #2 has been my primary for a couple of months now, no going back. But I understand that a poor facing can increase resistance, that's the reason I'm investigating. It's probably reasonable to pick one and have it redone. Perhaps I might ask for the window to be opened a bit.
Anyway, I paid under $1 for a 4x6 photo frame at Walmart, the glass looks flat enough for this testing. HS#2 tests pretty good. HS#1 table seems good, but the chipped location on the tip shows a small leak. For comparison I tested a Woodwind Company "Steel Ebonite", which also seemed OK, and an American Music cheapo plastic mp that fails the test. Not sure how sensitive this method is, but it does reveal severe issues.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
