 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2026-02-07 21:48
CPAD stands for Clarinet Performance Analysis Dashboard. Pardon if this was discussed already but I think this new 411. The acronym's mine, not Mike's, born of keeping this thread subject title of limited length.
Thanks to David Kinder for tangentially exposing us to this tool when he discussed Mike's review of the Fox clarinet in the recent "Fox Clarinet" thread.
I wish I could provide you with a single link to get you to the service I am talking about, much as one may exist that I don't know of. Instead I'll provide a sample link and explanation:
https://www.earspasm.com/products/backun-model-q-bba-clarinet
(Then click view model dashboard on the right.)
In short, Mike has analyzed every (Soprano?) clarinet he sells and you can find this analysis under the clarinet he sells, that you first select to review from his eapspasm.com site.
Despite all the limitations (I can hear the naysayers) this seems to really be a great source for making comparisons across instruments.
And sure, let's get it out of the way, Mike's but one player, he hasn't tried 10 of every model he sells, (Mike probably wishes he only had the capital to keep 10 of every model in stock) he hasn't tried models he doesn't sell, these tests don't cover everything, etc....but I think he deserves kudos for providing about the best starting point I've seen in making informed comparisons.
Of course, we are each but one player, buying typically one instrument, that *for us* represents the best compromises in play that these tests may or may not support.
IMHO, critics should feel to produce a better analysis for less money (Mike's reviews are free.) 
Post Edited (2026-02-08 00:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David H. Kinder
Date: 2026-02-07 22:08
ClarinetPages.com did some of this as well, but he also discloses the mouthpiece and barrel used in the analysis. It's not a recording, but it is interesting.
https://sites.google.com/clarinetpages.net/clarinetpages/
Ridenour AureA Bb clarinet
Ridenour Homage mouthpiece
Vandoren Optimum Silver ligature (plate 1)
Vandoren Traditional #5 reeds
ATG System and Cordier Reed Trimmer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paulyb
Date: 2026-02-07 23:51
Mike's reviews *are* free but they are also a promotional tool. They encourage people to visit his site / store and explore the clarinets he stocks (and possibly compare them to their own clarinet if they happen to play one that he stocks). This makes good business sense and I definitely approve. He probably also had some fun setting it up.
There are, however, a few simple (and slightly less simple) things he could do to improve things significantly:
- State what mouthpiece and reed these tests were performed with (from the video the mouthpiece is a BD something, possibly non-13 series)
- Normalise for best average tuning across a wide range of notes (e.g. low G to high C) rather than to middle B
- Write a short blog post describing roughly what the repeatability of these tests is (e.g. +/- 5¢) when testing the same clarinet on different days
- Add a short Your Mileage May Vary warning on the results saying that you might get different results depending on mouthpiece / reed / physiology / playing mechanics etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ethancole53
Date: 2026-02-10 13:23
CPAD seems like a really useful tool for anyone trying to sprunki compare clarinets without having access to every model in person. I appreciate that Mike has put in the effort to provide structured analyses, even if it’s based on a single player’s experience. For those of us making purchasing decisions, having a starting point like this is way better than going in completely blind.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: earspasm
Date: 2026-02-19 22:20
Attachment: CleanShot 2026-02-19 at 13.07.35@2x.png (86k)
Hi all, I responded to a lot of this in the Fox thread, but I wanted to share here as well.
Paulyb: of course they're a tool that I hope will drive traffic to our site, but as always, do I try to make it helpful for people who will use it, even if they purchase elsewhere.
- I will add to the tool what my setup is. This is a valid criticism/request. But for the record, it's a Vandoren BD6 HD with CARBEC #3 reed. Ligature was a Rovner LGX. Do I think a Ligature makes a difference with tuning? No, I don't. Does it make a difference in the response? Yes, probably.
- I had to choose one note to normalize to, since the tool is intended to be a comparison tool (clarinet to clarinet), not a way to show how each clarinet can "live its best life" — that wouldn't be especially helpful for people on the site looking to compare apples to apples. And since most people tune to Concert A = 440, I elected to normalize to that. Seemed to make the most sense, but I'm open to hearing a better option.
- Each test has a "?" on the upper right corner of each chart. Click it and you can read about how the test was performed, what algorithms were used to analyze the test, etc. But, doing all 50+ clarinets on successive days...yeah, that ain't gonna happen since as it was, it took about 40 hours to record what I had. I hear you — repeatability is key, which is why I recorded each clarinet 5 times in a row, but not successive days.
- There is a disclosure in the "?" -- I've attached the image from that disclosure on the site I ain't perfect, it's my mouth and my reed, and my capability...and YMMV.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SecondTry
Date: 2026-02-19 22:54
paulyb wrote:
> Mike's reviews *are* free but they are also a promotional tool.
> They encourage people to visit his site / store and explore the
> clarinets he stocks (and possibly compare them to their own
> clarinet if they happen to play one that he stocks). This makes
> good business sense and I definitely approve. He probably also
> had some fun setting it up.
It's not that I can disagree with you here Pauly, but rather choose to see Mike's work a bit more as a benefit to its users than the above might imply, and a bit less a marketing tool that Mike composed to solely promote his own sales.
I say this because such a tool has, IMHO, what some business schools call the "Best Buy" effect, or, if you will, the idea that you go to a nearby Best Buy brick and mortar store (or Mike's tool) to get better data on product fit and finish, and then theoretically buy from (another) online vendor who didn't put in the expense of, in Best Buy's case, their retail space, or Mike's case, his time.
Sure you might buy from the firm who put in the marketing expense, Best Buy or Mike in this example, or in the Best Buy case buy the product online elsewhere to save a few bucks, or maybe buy used elsewhere the clarinet Mike informed you at his expense that you should like.
So Cudos to Mike.
Post Edited (2026-02-19 22:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paulyb
Date: 2026-02-20 02:23
Hey Mike,
Sorry to have come across as overly negative in my other posts. I did say:
> though there are lots of things I *do* like about it
but I could have emphasised that a bit more heavily! Maybe I'll write some of those things here...
- The interface is really clear and easy to use and works well even on my not particularly powerful phone. This isn't trivial to do for visualisations like this and plenty of websites do it very badly
- I very much appreciate the time you've put in to take these measurements and share them with us. I hope (as I said in one of my posts) that you had some fun doing it.
- It's great to see some objective comparisons between clarinets rather than marketing copy or very subjective (and often confusing) descriptions (e.g. dark Vs bright Vs focussed Vs covered etc)
The changes you're planning to make sound excellent.
Now to the other stuff...
> - I had to choose one note to normalize to, since the tool is intended to be a comparison tool (clarinet to clarinet), not a way to show how each clarinet can "live its best life" — that wouldn't be especially helpful for people on the site looking to compare apples to apples. And since most people tune to Concert A = 440, I elected to normalize to that. Seemed to make the most sense, but I'm open to hearing a better option.
As a clarinettist playing a specific clarinet we generally do try to play it so it can "live its best life". If I'm playing an instrument that I know has a slightly sharp middle line B (not uncommon) then I tune accordingly to make the majority of the notes more in tune rather than blindly tuning that B and thinking I'm "in tune". This was why I suggested normalising to minimise the tuning error across a range of notes.
> I had to choose one note to normalize to
You *chose* to normalise to one note. It's a bit more work to normalise to minimise the error across a range of notes but definitely possible.
> But, doing all 50+ clarinets on successive days...yeah, that ain't gonna happen since as it was, it took about 40 hours to record what I had. I hear you — repeatability is key, which is why I recorded each clarinet 5 times in a row, but not successive days.
This wasn't really what I was asking for (sorry I wasn't clear). I was just asking for an indication of the accuracy of the measurements for *one* instrument and we can then use that to inform our interpretation of the other results. E.g. if the variation in measurement of the same clarinet across different days / weeks is ± 2¢ then great, but if it's ± 10¢ then it's a different story. All I was really asking was for you to show us how good your measurements are!
Thanks for taking the time to post here and on the other thread (and for all the content on your website / YouTube etc)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
