 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Dan
Date: 2003-02-09 03:22
After looking at several mpc sites that included Selmer, I began to notice vast differences in tip openings. For example, I began comparing tip openings for the Selmer "C" model:
1) 0.0413 woodwind.org data bank
2) 0.046 jodyjazz.com website
3) 0.044 bandlandorch.com website
4) 0.046 runyonproducts.com website
5) 0.041 weinermusic.com website
6) 0.0397 intlmusicalsuppliers.com website
7) 0.041 wwbw.com website
Thoroughly searching www.selmer.com website produced no results.
After doing a rather lengthly search of the web, I came upon the following site: www.henri-selmer.com/html/english/bec/bec.htm and clicked on Clarinet Mouthpieces. Towards the middle of the page I found the tip opening/facing length charts.
This appears to be the "official" Selmer clarinet tip opening and facing page for the "Standard", "C85", and the new "CP100" mpcs.
FYI, the "C" model is 1.05mm (O.0413).
I hope you find the above useful.
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Richard
Date: 2003-02-09 04:20
Dan
Take a look at:
Http://www.selmer.com/selmracc/wood.htm
I believe they are all there; past and present
RIchard
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan
Date: 2003-02-09 11:44
Richard, thanks for the reply. I tried the web address listed in your reply and my computer keeps saying "cannot find". Are you sure of the address? If so, then something must be wrong because I can't get through.
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Richard
Date: 2003-02-09 12:24
Dan
Very, very sorry. it's wood1.htm not wood.htm as I posted.
Http://www.selmer.com/selmracc/wood1.htm
Richard
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan
Date: 2003-02-09 12:40
Richard, your web address has more info and it includes the "C95". Too bad they didn't include the new "CP100".
Until they add the "CP100", I guess we'll need both web addresses.
Thanks.
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Richard
Date: 2003-02-09 12:59
Dan
Yeah, you're right, thanks.
Now, where can we find the differences between the various 'Models'?
For example, on your reference the C85 has the same opening and lay dementions as the Standard, at least in two instances. (C85/105-C and C85/115-C**) I'm wondering how we can find other differences (bore, window, so-on). What are the differences between Standard, C85, C95, and CP100: Other than something vague like 'large, round, dark, free easy blowing'?
RIchard
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan
Date: 2003-02-09 17:09
Richard, I hear you. Perhaps the essential data is being kept secret for proprietary reasons.
Here's another example: what's the difference between the standard "D" model (1.20mm tip/18.00mm facing) and the standard HS** model (1.20mm tip/18.00mm facing)? If they have the same Standard designation, the same tip opening, the same mm lay... they should be the same...
I think I'll send off an email to Selmer and see if they will respond with some kind of a reasonable answer as to what the real difference is between the "D" and "HS**.
If they respond, I'll add it to this post.
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-02-09 18:57
Actually the dimensions of the window, baffle, lay, opening, etc. aren't "secret" in any way since they can be measured, but ...
All the marketing adjectives are essentially useless. Please, just try them rather than try to analyze them. Small dimensional changes and inter-relationships between all the measurements can cause interactions that perhaps won't be obvious ("chaos theory" abounds in mouthpiece manufacturing, I think).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-02-09 20:10
Well said Mark [will need to study the C T]. The Yahoo Group on MP Work gives ME too much info and too few useable conclusions, {IMHO}. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2003-02-09 22:14
Dan,
While I agree with Mark C. in the post before this one, I'll tell you my three cents worth.
Recently I called the WW/BW, because the math in their charts did not match any of the manufacturers' specifications that I was aware of. I came across this, when I was trying to figure out what the sizes they showed in inches meant in millimeters.
I spoke to a guy there who told me that I couldn't go by the math, but that I had to order mouthpieces and try them out if I wanted to know what would work.
I told him that the only way I knew to start out looking for a MP was by its dimensional specifications, otherwise, how would you know if a MP has a wider or narrower tip opening or a longer or shorter facing length, or one type and size of chamber or another, all of which are intrinsic to the success or failure of the MP, etc.
He told me that, apparently, I did not know either the math or what I was talking about. I told him that I'm an engineer, and that if I know anything at all, it's the math and that how else do you know, initially, what a potentially workable MP might be, except by the published mechanical specifications, and that I wanted to speak with someone else.
For example: I am used to measuring tip openings in millimeters and in order to understand their inch increments, I took their dimension for the B-40 MP and converted it to millimeters. It read completely wrong and too far from the correct numbers to be the miniscule difference one might normally find in completing such a conversion.
Reluctantly, he put me through to another guy (a supervisor?) who really knew what he was talking about, so much so, that I got his name and extension number so I could call him directly in the future, and even when all I get his voice mail, he calls me back on a timely basis.
This last guy told me that he is the one who originally put together and maintained the woodwinds MP charts, that he had not had time to work on them for some time now, that you can't go by what their charts have said over the past several months, because they got mixed up and nobody has fixed them.
He also told me that, being an educated consumer, my thoughts on the potential starting point to choosing a MP and my math were correct.
After I asked him, he also told me that what they mean by “facing,” at the top, left of the charts, really means tip opening, not facing.
They have the B-40 MP listed as .045” (1.143mm.) He told me that it should read .047” (1.1938mm.) Vandoren lists it as 1.195mm; so really, it should be something like .047047” (1.19499mm) or .047048 (1.19502mm.) But I guess, for a “non-mathematically-exact” subject such as mouthpiece choices, .047 is close enough. There’s no way of telling where the rest of the MPs fell into or out of, or in which direction they went when they migrated on their charts.
I think they should have taken the charts off altogether until they could straighten them out and/or post a notice that the charts were undergoing a major update, not to go by them and/or to call for further assistance, etc.
Publishing them without any warning whatsoever that they are wrong is tantamount to misleading people who have been buying from them under the auspices of false initial information.
I now call this guy up directly for anything dealing with woodwinds at the WW/BW, and even when I tell him up front that I'm looking for information, but I'm not yet ready to buy, he treats me like he's glad to hear from me, gives me whatever information I need without acting like he's in a hurry, to let him know when I'm ready to do business and he'll take care of my needs.
I like that kind of honesty. That's the kind of person I like to deal with, all the time, every time. The WW/BW can have all (or at least, most) of my business as long as I can transact it through this last guy I talked to.
Selmer U.S.A.'s web site is as useless as their customer service department, except just for looking up very basic, straight instrument information. I wouldn't bother with them at all, and I'd be careful about purchasing any of their instruments, lest there be any service issues at a later date. Always make sure the people who sell you one are willing to stand behind it on their own.
As far as tip dimensions are concerned, it almost seems that no two manufacturers can agree on a common method of measurement, at least, that’s what they like to say. I guess that really has to be it, as I fail to see any major difference between one accurately measured millimeter of simple linear measure and another accurately measured millimeter of simple linear measure. Ditto for thousandths of an inch.
Especially with the availability of today’s technology, which allows us to measure things so small, and in such infinitely minute increments, that they can only be seen through the most powerful, electronic super-microscopes.
Sometime in later 2001, I contacted Clark Fobes to get a couple of try-out MPs (clarinet and alto sax,) because my son’s school’s band director was purchasing 10 new E-11s for the wind ensemble and looking into B-45 MPs, but stretching the budget just a mite.
When I spoke with Mr. Fobes, he was very nice and endeavored to take care of our needs very promptly and enthusiastically. But when I asked him about the specific dimensions of the Debut MPs, he told me how the different manufacturers have different methods of measuring their MPs and he could not give me that information, etc., because he did not measure his MPs the same as Vandoren measured theirs, or something to that effect. Personally, I think it’s just a way not to disclose their methods and specifications, if that could be so.
Perhaps not, but I don't see the reluctance in correctly measuring and publishing those measurements on the part of some manufacturers and refinishers as something intrinsic to building and marketing mouthpieces, unless they are trying to hide something. (And I don't mean the in a derrogatory way.)
At any rate, the Vandorens were chosen, I know that Mr. Fobes won’t go broke over not having sold a dozen, or so, MPs, and I wouldn’t want him to, but the fact of the matter is, that even though the band director did not say so in so many words, I know he did not choose the Fobes because he did not have a tangible, referenced, means to compare the Debut to the B-45 MP.
I’ll qualify that: He did not dislike the Debut when he tried it out, but he had a predetermined idea of the B-45, which included its mechanical specifications, and was looking for something that he could compare to it, both mechanically and practically. When he could not do so by the numbers, as well as by playing them, he opted for the B-45s. Sight unseen and untried, he purchased 12 of them.
What can I tell you? The subject of mouthpieces is so wide and varied; I doubt it will ever be straightened out, even if or when the manufacturers and customizers get together on specific standards, which I don't think they ever will.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-02-09 22:30
Hi Dan and others - the MP group to which I referred above is accessible via "http://www.mouthpiecework@yahoogroups.com" [sim. to other interesting yahoogroups re: reed insts]. It has pros, semis and learners [like me] exchanging thots, more on sax mps than cl's, but quite informative. {OK, Mark?] Good luck. I haven't been able to get into the Selmer mp site [ URL above] so if someone could supply a retrievable URL, thanx. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-02-09 22:49
Wow, Peter- what experiences! Read yours after my above response to Dan. It sure is a jungle out there, the first uniformity I'd hope for would of course be metric. {I'm an engr also.] Many of the MP Work Group posters seem very pro to me, so see if you think that might be a highly specialized forum for this kind of info exchange. I believe they would like some of us cl'ists to get involved. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-02-09 22:57
But Peter, why are you using "specs" to choose a mouthpiece? It's like using specs to choose a painting!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan
Date: 2003-02-09 23:53
Mark C: "specs" are very important to me. I can, most certainly, tell the difference between a 0.043" and a 0.045" mpc tip opening with the same facing. I can also tell the difference between a 17mm facing and a 19mm facing with the same tip opening. So, speaking for myself only, "specs" are extremely important. I cannot begin to tell you how much money I have wasted in trying out mpcs because accurate tip opening/facing info was not available. Shipping and cleaning fees can really add up pretty fast. So, in an effort to save money by trying fewer mpcs, I rely a "specs" quite a bit.
To Peter: thank you for the very informative response. I have read your responses to my posts and to others and have always found them to be extremely informative leaving me much more informed.
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-02-10 00:14
Dan wrote:
>
> Mark C: "specs" are very important to me. I can, most
> certainly, tell the difference between a 0.043" and a 0.045"
> mpc tip opening with the same facing.
I have no doubt that you and I and most of the people reading this can. But ... it all has to do with the sound and playing experience, and I've not found a real correlation between all the dimensions and what a mouthpiece feels and sounds like, especially mated with a reed that "works" with the mouthpiece.
But, if becoming chummy with all the specs helps you, that's great.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan
Date: 2003-02-10 01:01
Mark C: With all due respect, I believe the word "chummy" is diminutive. I would much rather have had you use the word "familiar" in its place.
Dan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-02-10 01:15
Dan wrote:
>
> Mark C: With all due respect, I believe the word "chummy"
> is diminutive.
Not in my neck of the woods, but please take the word in the "familiar" meaning.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2003-02-10 02:31
Thank you, Don and Dan.
Don, I will look into the group you mentioned, as I also dabble in the sax.
Mark C.,
I would not use specs to choose a painting, but I would certainly use them to ensure that, when I went out looking for a painting, it was going to fit the wall where I wanted it to hang! I might even call the art galleries to find out if they had any paintings available in the size range that I needed!
I might even specify the style i wanted the painting to be in, so it would match my decor! Aren't those also specifications? Yet you still have to go out and look at the paintings before you buy them, don't you?
But would I expect someone to tell me that I can’t start out by determining the size, style and general color bias of a painting I need to buy, simply because I need to actually go look at the painting before I make up my mind to buy it? Not really. (I painted in oils for years!)
It's a complex thing, even to an engineer, but we engineers usually look at things from a more purely logical point of view.
I can't tell you what a mouthpiece is going to sound like from its specs. I don't think anyone can, including the people who design, manufacture or modify them after the fact.
However, once upon a time, when I first determined I was going to learn to play woodwind instruments, the instrument I acquired came with a mouthpiece, which was terrible in quality and difficult to play. Then someone said to me, “Gee, Peter, I have this mouthpiece that I like, try it, see if you like it. “
It was much better than mine, so I went to the store to get one, and encountered some other mouthpieces that I could try out, until I found one that suited me at the time, even better than the one I went there to look for. I bought it, and, as time went by, I learned what its specifications were.
I also learned that different changes in the mechanical specifications and characteristics of a mouthpiece would make it perform in different ways.
Now, if that mouthpiece had a 1.1mm tip opening, a medium-round chamber and a medium-short facing and I needed something that would allow me to make more noise, would I go and start picking up mouthpieces right and left to see if I lucky-hit across one that would do that for me?
Not as an engineer, I wouldn’t.
I would determine what specifications my mouthpiece had, and what specifications it needed to have in order to do what I wanted it to do, and anyone who knows how to build or modify a mouthpiece will tell you that you can’t make a mouthpiece with certain characteristics do certain things. Heck, almost anyone who has played the clarinet for six months or read a week’s worth of WW/BB postings can tell you the same thing.
Whether some people agree with it or not, certain characteristics are intrinsic to different types and volumes of sounds in mouthpieces. How do you think people who design mouthpieces do it? Once upon a time they might have started from scratch, but not today, and probably not in the last two or three hundred years.
They take a starting point from something already designed and they say, “O.K., here are the characteristics of this mouthpiece, if I give it a larger chamber, it should do this. If I give it a longer facing, I can make it do that. If I make the tip opening smaller …” Etc.
There is absolutely no way to tell what the end result might be without actually playing it, as even mouthpieces of the “exact” same make, model and dimensions can sound somewhat differently, but if I were looking to make more noise, I certainly would not go for a closer tipped mouthpiece, just as if I were looking to have more control, I would not go for a wider tipped mouthpiece.
You can use a #1 reed with an M-13 MP, but you couldn't blow very hard on it. You can use a #5 reed on a 5JB MP, but I'd like to see the jaw muscles on the joker who can clamp that puppy down enough to get a noise out of it!
Engineering specifications exist for a reason, and that reason is that you can describe something according to its specifications and someone you’ve never seen, in a place you never knew existed, who has never seen the product you described, can actually build one that can be an exact match for the one you derived your specifications from. That is, if your description was detailed and correct.
I will go further. If you knew how, it would be theoretically possible for someone to design a "center" mouthpiece. One totally neutral at the very center of the sound spectrums, that whatever you do to it will take it strictly in one direction or another, opposite direction, at right angles from that center.
People who do this for a living know how to do all this, otherwise you could not get a MP from a custom maker and send it back telling him that the thing is too resistant for your taste and he know exactly what to do to make it less so.
Even pitches have specifications, what the heck is A-440? When someone says to you A-440, you know exactly what that means and how it sounds. It may not be as exact in reed mouthpieces, but yes, you can tell a lot about a mouthpiece with a little experience and a lot of educated discretion.
I guess that's the best way I can explain why the specs work.
You know:
There are those who are optimists, who will tell you that the glass is half full.
There are those who are pessimists, who will tell you the glass is half empty.
But only an engineer can tell you with any certainty that you obviously have 50% more glass than you actually need for the amount of liquid you are trying to retain! :-) :-) :-)
Peter
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-02-10 02:42
Peter, I'm an engineer by profession. I understand specs. I write specs. I understand some tendencies in mouthpieces based on specs.
I also know that I've been surprised by some mouthpieces that don't work the way the specs would imply. You'll miss those if you stick to the specs.
Personally, I like to talk to people I know & trust and use their judgement as to which way I might want to go when it comes to mouthpieces. They have experience beyond the cold, hard numbers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2003-02-10 03:13
Mark,
Without a doubt, I totally agree with you there, too.
The specs are just to develop a *notion* as to where you might want to start looking.
Talking to intelligent people who have tread that road before you is also part of the starting point and even more of the trek.
Trying them out once you know where you are going is the rest of the journey.
Unless you do the later, nothing can help you find the right MP.
Like Don said, "It's a jungle out there!" :-) :-) :-)
Peter
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Todd W.
Date: 2003-02-10 22:06
Peter --
I always enjoy your novels, I mean posts; I usually learn as much about you in them as whatever subject you are discussing. (Loved your Nanook of the North stuff in another thread.)
In the latest one, not being an engineer, I'm a little confused. If the glass is either half full or half empty (depending on one's philosophy of life), don't you have 100% more glass than you need (and, it would seem, 50% of the liquid you would need to fill it)?
Curiously,
Todd W.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2003-02-10 23:15
Touche, Todd!
(There's always a ^%&$(#@!* wise guy in this group!):-) :-) :-)
Peter
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alan J. Nussbaum
Date: 2003-02-11 18:05
I believe the that basic reason for the alarmingly wide variation in measurements that can be found for any given model of mouthpiece is that the "taper gauges" standardly used to make these measurements are simply inaccurate, to the point that any two gauges of this type can be expected to give rather different readings on any particular mouthpiece measured.
For what I at least find an extremely instructive account of the whole business, see the Peter Eaton website:
http://www.eatonclarinets.freeserve.co.uk/mouthpieces.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Peter
Date: 2003-02-11 19:55
Alan,
You are probably right, but in this day and age, that's unacceptable.
We (the people of this world, at large) have been manufacturing extremely accurate measuring tools for too many years for that to be a valid reason for the mouthpiece manufacturers to still be publishing erroneous specifications, arrived at by using inaccurate measuring devises.
That's very poor quality control, but all the music instrument and accessories manufacturers suffer from this malady. Some more than others.
The worst part of it is that, apparently, they don't care to do any better and as long as we "gladly" continue to have to try out a bunch of instruments/accessories before we find one we like, it will continue to be the same.
So, we grin and bear it! Shigata ganai, shimpainai. :-) :-) :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alan J. Nussbaum
Date: 2003-02-12 15:36
Peter,
Yes. It IS maddening. But if you take Peter Eaton at his word (on his website), better times may be ahead for the mouthpiece consumer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
