 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2005-03-10 04:03
Hey guys, Can anyone give me ANY feedback/opinions about the difference between crystal mouthpieces (pyne/selmer)? My local musician friend recommend a portnoy mouthpiece which is tempting, but he himself has not tried to play a crystal mouthpiece. Is there a large significance in sound? Or is it just for appearance? Any feedback would be great! thanks!
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. they are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which was already but too easy to arrive as railroads lead to Boston to New York
-Walden; Henry Thoreau
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2005-03-10 15:18
It is not so much a question of crystal vs rubber, or exactly who mass produces or custom designs the particular mouthpiece. It is more how well you have learned to play the one that you think plays "best" for you. Bernard Portnoy once told me that "no matter whose mouthpiece you play, after a couple of weeks, you will resume sounding like yourself". Which simply means, we all have our own sound which is a result of our differening oral configurations and personal mental concepts of how we want to sound. A new mouthpiece will sound different only for a short time. Eventually, the "true you" will re-emerge in your playing.
So, play as many mpcs as you have access to--find "the one" that you feel works best--buy it and go home a learn how to play it. The material or brand name of the mouthpiece is of minimal importance. Consider only what works best for you, not what it is made of or who made it.
Post Edited (2005-03-11 14:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2005-03-10 18:26
William,
Portnoy's advice is right on. I have used my Stowell Wells Schneider B2 for the last several months after playing my original Portnoy BP02 for over 30 years. Last night, I went back to the BP02 for a practice session and it was not as pleasing as the SWS (which was difficult at first).
So the "true me/you" is really a valid concept. I do not doubt that after a few days back on the BP02, I'd be in love with it again. However, I can not play a close lay MP on clarinet or sax very well. I guess I do not care to use a very stiff reed to make that happen.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: john gibson
Date: 2005-03-10 23:38
C2...
If you get a chance.....try a Pomarico crystal. They are the premier manufacturer and make an exceptional mouthpiece. I have several and am extremely pleased with intonation and ease with which they "blow".
If you try a Selmer crystal....make sure it says ITALY on it. Then you get a crystal made by Pomarico for Selmer. And again an exceptional player.
JUST DON'T DROP IT !!!!!!!!!!!
JG
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2005-03-11 14:53
John, you are suggesting that the material of the Italian crystal vs that of the "other" crystal is the main factor in sound production. I respectfully disagree and would rather think that if a mouthpiece has any effect of tonal quailty, it is because of the chamber and lay configurations and not a result of the material it is constructed (manufactured?) from. I don't mean to start this discussion all over again, but just wanted to state my opinion. FWIW, I have always thought that the only reason for making a mouthpiece from crystal was because--unlike hard rubber--it would never change with use.
(Unless of course--as you suggested--it is inadvertantly dropped on a hard surface and becomes.........fragmented)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Klarinet37
Date: 2005-03-11 15:14
I once had a great crystal mouthpiece. I dropped it in Mons, Belgium.
It broke my heart.....and the mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-03-11 18:16
WM and J G, there is truth in what you both have said, IMHO. Yes Pom makes excellent mps and , I believe !! they have a somewhat "darker" tonality [less energy in the very high harmonics ??] than comparable HR/pl mps. Totally without proof, just observation, I suggest that the 2 to 1 diff in material density may play a part in this, just opening a "can of wormies". Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2005-03-11 19:15
William,
I agree with you that the baffle and facing configurations can have a great affect upon tonal characteristics.
However, may I quote a line from page 2 of the Brand Refacing manual: "It is almost impossible to make any rubber mouthpiece play like a crystal or metal mouthpiece."
Sherman Friedman also had a lot of positive things to say about crystal mpcs: http://clarinet.cc/archives/2004/05/crystal_mouthpieces.html
Friedman also had some high words of praise in the following: http://clarinet.cc/archives/2004/05/more_on_crystal_mouthpieces.html
Personally, I've never played anything that produced upper clarion notes almost effortlessly. What a joy it was to practically whisper into the crystal mpc and produce a beautiful sound! And, what a mistake I made when I stopped playing for many months and sold my Pomarico Saphire!
But, I'm just a hobbyist and you might value more highly opinions from the professionals.
JMHO
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-03-11 21:27
LOTS of information in the archives concerning crystal mouthpieces, if you care to look. It is a topic which is frequently discussed.
Although I have a number of fine mouthpieces as back-ups (Kaspar, Borbeck, Fobes, vintage Pomarico, etc...) I have used the same pair of Vandoren crystal mouthpieces in professional settings for more than 30 years.
Haven't dropped one yet...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sevysuite
Date: 2005-10-16 07:25
The acoustic properties of sound are greatly affected/effected by material and design and specification. What suits one player may not suite another. All things being equal, however, a good/superior design/specification is going to sound fabulous no matter who is playing. When the reed is matched/balanced to the mouthpiece and to the players preferences (everyone is different), the sound is going to be superb.
The material composition affects the sound/acoustics in terms of overtones and partials produced, as well as the attack and articulate response. These qualities are also personal preferences in terms of mouthpiece choices.
The clarinet, any clarinet (metal, plastic, wood, etc.) is going to produce a decent enough "characteristic" sound. So, the more proficient & experienced a player becomes, the more discerning as well.
Tom Ridenour's mouthpieces are a perfect example of excellence in superior design/specification and amazingly consistent hand finished production. His "student" model is actually an economical Pro-quality item. I recommend them to all students and doublers who want instant gratification for their playing enjoyment/efforts.
The Selmer Crystal (any vintage) is unique and distinctive in terms of sound.
It produces a huge, liquid, clear, round sound. No other crystal i have tried in the last 35+ years is even close (except for the Pomarico, also made in Italy). These just happen to be intoxicating attributes to me. I have been playing on the latest-greatest generation Selmer Crystal #5 facing for about 10 years now.
Of course, there are many great and beautiful clarinet sounds to be admired that are produced with a variety of different mouthpiece specifications.
Enjoy the music!
Post Edited (2005-10-16 08:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2005-10-16 10:54
I was for a few hours in acoustics class and learned material makes a lot of difference in the sound of instrumnets. I'll take the full course this year and some private lessons too and try to learn specifically about the clarinet.
Out of respect I should say that the teacher, Prof. Dalia Cohen, is a phenominal person and teacher. She has a master degree in math, physics, music theory, composition, piano performace education, and a doctorat in musicology. She specializes in a few subjects, the main being instruments' acoustics, and she's now a professor in both the university and the music academy teaching and doing research.
Hopefully I'll have an interesting post in the near future about materials of clarinets/mouthpieces and if they are important or not. I personally trust what she says, but it is everyone's choice to agree or not of course. If it is scientifically possible to determine this issue, I believe she is one of the people that is capable of doing it.
About crystal mouthpiece, I've played a crystal mouthpiece for years, and eventually went back to rubber. I think crystal mouthpieces in general has a different sound than rubber mouthpieces. I stopped playing the crystal mouthpiece because I thought it was a bit too resistant, actually all crystal mouthpieces I've tried (and it is a lot) were a bit more resistant on avarage the rubber mouthpieces.
I have a suggestion. I'm willing to record myself on several mouthpieces, some crystal some rubber and some wood, and see if people on this board can hear the difference. The test won't be 100% accurate because my recording equipment, although ok, is not the best. Especially my microphone is not so good so of course the sound in general will be not as good as hearing it live....
I'll open a new thread about this and see if anyone is interested.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2005-10-16 12:01
Clarnibass,
Your offer to perform a personal comparison test is worthy, but unfortunately it would prove nothing unless you had assurance that the facing, interior, and bore shapes and dimensions among the various mouthpieces were absolutely identical (a condition which is impossible to achieve). Otherwise you would just be demonstrating the effects of ALL the differences (material AND dimensional) between the mouthpieces.
If the issue were that easy to resolve, it certainly would have been done years ago!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-10-16 13:52
Number one...The Pyne isn't even crystal! I played one of these for awhile. It was good. I had less success with Selmer crystal mouthpieces. I would opt for the Portnoy! As much as I agree with "it doesn't matter because we have our own sound" I do think that this statement applies to mouthpieces that are reasonably close in style and quality. Case in point ...it would be hard to find someone that sounds great who plays on a bundy mouthpiece with flawed rails, rico #1 1/2 reeds and a cheap clarinet with torn pads. Equipment does make a difference.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2005-10-16 15:13
David, of course you are right.
Even I, who claims there is a difference between crystal and rubber mouthpieces (and I even think the difference between crystal and rubber mouthpieces is different than any other difference caused by different chamber, facing, tip opening, etc.) am pretty sure I won't be able to tell between them in a blind test.
Of course the test will not prove anything, but it might be interesting to do anyway. It would also be interesting for me to see which ones people think sound better.
Edit: Just opened a new thread so anyone who is interested post in the new thread. thanks.
Post Edited (2005-10-16 15:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-10-16 15:38
Ah, GOOD, a revived [March 05] thread with fine discussion/comments continuing, a never-ending subject of mp material and dimensions and persons. I'm of the Pomarico/O'Brien/Selmer glass/crystal experience and beliefs, and, while only semi-skilled [IMHO], greatly enjoy their tonality, response, lack of aging-change, and YES, appearance, in particular for the larger cls, and I DO take care to avoid chipping/breakage. Carry on, Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-10-16 15:46
sevysuite wrote:
> The acoustic properties of sound are greatly affected/effected
> by material
There's scant little proof still about that one ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2005-10-16 16:59
Mark, I honestly don't know about clarinets, but I'll give one example my acoustics professor gave us where material does make a diffrernce - about classical guitar (and I imagine acoustic guitar too). The front and back materials affect the sound greatly, but the material between them (kind of hard for me to explain in English) is not important. She explained why breifly but I don't remember.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-10-16 17:04
clarnibass wrote:
> Mark, I honestly don't know about clarinets, but I'll give one
> example my acoustics professor gave us where material does make
> a diffrernce
That's an obvious one (and well supported). However, it's an indirect-coupled system, not a direct-coupled system such as woodwinds. The first principles don't apply.
Be care you don't take theory "A" built on system "A" and apply it to system "B" and expect that it corresponds. It might, but you can't expect that it will.
There's a number of us on-board with some small amounts of professional acoustics training (mine was applied to anti-submarine warfare & predictive preventative maintenance of machinery, but the same theories apply), so when someone does the above IRT acoustics we'll be quick to point out those areas where things might not be quite right or make sure that (as you did) there's some clarification.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2005-10-16 17:19
Mark, you seem much more knowledgable about this than me. Hopefully I will join you "on-boarders with some small amounts of professional acoustics training" as you say.
I didn't really understand your third paragraph. I think the language was too advanced for me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2005-10-17 13:12
Regarding Mark's comments, perhaps an analogy (which I've used before a number of times) might help the non-engineers:
Stringed instruments and pianos utilize a sounding board of very large surface area (relative to thickness) to ampify the vibration source (the (strings) and couple those vibrations to the surrounding air (impedance-matching, if you will). This is analoous to a loudspeaker cone --- consider how thin a cone is, how large a surface area it has, and how large its fore-and-aft motion (excursion) is.
Now consider the wall of a clarinet: The surface area for sound radiation (the outside of the body, taken on a "per unit length" basis) is very small compared to its wall thickness, which is enormous in comparison. Imagine a loudspeaker cone with the surface area of a clarinet body (say, a 'tweeter') but with the wall thickness of a clarinet body, say about 1/4" (6-7mm), rigidly mounted into a frame, and imagine trying to make THAT vibrate and transmit any appreciable sound to the air!
The fact is, it can't.......not at a level which humans can hear. This is what Mark is saying: the clarinet directly couples the vibrating air column INSIDE the instrument, to the surrounding air OUTSIDE, without using the clarinet body itself as an amplifying/coupling intermediary --- unlike the aforementioned stringed/keyboard instruments, which MUST couple the weak vibrational source (strings) to the air via an intermediate structure (the body or sounding board).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-10-17 14:22
David Spiegelthal wrote:
> Stringed instruments and pianos utilize a sounding board of
> very large surface area (relative to thickness) to ampify the
> vibration source (the (strings) and couple those vibrations to
> the surrounding air (impedance-matching, if you will).
Imedance matching is a better term. In reality there's no "amplification" (that would require the soundboards to add energy, which we know they don't do), but rather the soundboards act as a very important intermediary in getting the vibration of the strings out to the air.
So the strings vibrate a couple of pieces of wood (which re-inforce selected tones and reflect them in a hollow body) before the sound escapes.
A clarinet is very efficient compared with that type of instrument. Rather than vibrating a string that vibrates some wood that vibrates the air, we vibrate the air directly by making a reed open & close at the end of a tube. There's no more coupling involved.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
