 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2005-07-11 00:22
Hi,
I spend a wonderful afternoon yesterday with a old clarinet pal that I originally met on the BB. He and I have hooked up several times when I pass thorugh his area. We usually have a meal, some laughs, and then play around with clarinet stuff for awhile.
Well, yesterday, we measured some mouthpieces that I had brought with me and compared them to ones that he had previously checked. He has a new set of guages and is on the verge of maybe a little refacing but is a pretty cautious guy.
I found out that although my primary SWS B2 and Portnoy BP02s and their backups are very close in tip and slope measurements, they play differently. The dimensions on both MPs are close to several VD B45s he has measured so should a B45 play fairly well for me?
So, my questions are, do we need to check the internal volumes as well? What other dimensions are important to verify and try to duplicate?
HRL
PS Thanks RD for a great time and the gifts were most appreciated!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tyler
Date: 2005-07-11 02:22
I don't know a whole lot about mouthpiece measurements, but I think if you researched terms such as:
Chamber, chamber floor, baffle, bore volume, tip rail width, side rail width,
then you could find out what the most important dimensions are.
-Tyler
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2005-07-11 14:16
Hank, you should know that the standard measuring gauges take a continuous curve and 'digitize' a few points along the curve, ignoring what happens in between -- and worst of all, it would require an infinitesmally thin gauge to determine the transition ('break') point where the flat table meets the start of the curved facing. Gauge measurements on mouthpieces are rough at best, and misleading at worst --- I would advise you not to get too wrapped up in them (speaking to you as a degreed engineer and mouthpiece refacer who eschews measurements).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Douglas
Date: 2005-07-11 16:23
The SWS mouthpieces were made on a very unique blank, designed by Jerry Stowell and, I believe, made by Babbitt. The chamber is long and narrow to approximate a Belgian mp style that Jerry liked. Other mouthpieces may have identical facings, but will play very differently from the SWS because of the blank used.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2005-07-11 16:56
My old college clarinet professor spent his entire career (20+ yrs) measuring his students mpcs and recording their individual playing characteristics. And found that the most influential factors were the tip openings, heighths of the baffels and width of the side rails. He did do some customizing of various mpcs--mostly WW G8s--and was able to improve response and tone quality in most. However, I must agree with DS regarding the impossibilities of accurately measuring the precise slope of mpc facings. There has to be some variability between the points that the feeler gauges specify that cause vast differencies in how each mpc individually performs. A few measurments can be interesting, but you shouldn't "invest" too much stock in them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-07-11 17:03
William wrote:
> However, I must agree with DS regarding the
> impossibilities of accurately measuring the precise slope of
> mpc facings.
Using a feeler gauge makes it problematic, but with the advent of precise probe or laser measurement it isn't impossible to get a very high degree of precision and repeatability in mouthpiece measurements - if you care to go through the trouble.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2005-07-11 17:53
Hi Everyone,
Some very interesting comments and they are what I had hoped for. Yes, as DS points out, the area between the points of measurement is certainly significant. Douglas, that's a great piece of SWS legend; I did not know about the Belgian connection before; do you ahve any other SWS facts that you wish to share (my email address is avaialble).
William, it is too bad that a publication did not come out of your professor's 20 year study. I would have really enjoyed reading it!
Mark, it would seem that the technology advances that you point out could be applied to MP manufacture. However, the cost of the first run on MPs would probably be excessive.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NiceOldHorns
Date: 2005-07-11 21:15
Don't misunderstand Der Spieg's post to indicate that his works are haphazard - they're well crafted and consistent in production character and finish quality.
I think the point being made is that the measurements will get you in the same family of mouthpieces you seek, but playing is the only way to choose.
I'm a believer that the mouthpiece should allow you to play your favorite reed with minimal adjustment to any after a break in period.
FYI - The B45 is a giant killer - with a VERY large chamber.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-07-11 22:00
Check out MouthpieceWork.....it has all the info. Many of the refacers now use more feeler gauges. If you only have 4 measurements...ie 34 24 12 6........ then adding two more might give you some insight. John
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ben Redwine
Date: 2005-07-11 23:20
Hello,
I believe in measuring. I probably measure a mouthpiece's facing 20-30 times while refacing before it is done. From my experience, if the measurements of a facing are good, it will play better. I use a 12 point measuring system that I adapted from the classic 5 point measuring system that Iggy Gennusa taught me. While refacing, I actually rely on the 5 point system for most of the job, and then check (and correct) the other 7 points in the finishing stages.
I don't think that ignoring the measurements is the right answer. The real answer is that there are several other factors to consider in a mouthpiece. The facing really determines the way the mouthpiece feels to your embouchure and how a reed responds to it. The thickness and shape of the tip rail and the side rails will greatly affect how the reed responds. You also have the baffle area, which is very difficult to measure, but which will definitely affect the sound of a mouthpiece. Then, you have the side walls--how they are shaped, how close they are to each other will affect the way the mouthpiece plays. The bore diameter has a lot to do with sound as well.
Generally speaking, the inside volume (if you were to fill the mouthpiece completely with water, for example) of every mouthpiece should be the same for pitch to be consistent. The ratios of all of the inside elements are what determines sound and how a mouthpiece blows.
Everything inside the mouthpiece is very difficult to measure, so work on the inside of a mouthpiece is more of an art than a science. Work on the facing is more of a science than an art, although you have "bleed-over" in both areas.
I guess the bottom line is that I feel it is important to know the measurements of your mouthpiece. If you were to break it, a good mouthpiece maker can use the same blank that you were playing, and copy the facing. Then, depending upon how the mouthpiece plays, this person can alter the other areas that were discussed to make the mouthpiece play more like the one that you broke. Without the information of the facing measurements, the process would take a much longer amount of time.
Ben Redwine
RedwineJazz, LLC
410 798-8251
clarinet@redwinejazz.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2005-07-12 11:05
....good posting Ben, it was great to meet you at OU, i was sorry i had to leave Etheridges party so soon....
The old feeler guage system has some advantages- simplicity, economy. and portability come to mind. Like Ben Redwine i repeat measurements many times- if measuring a facing to copy i will measure it several times to make sure that i'm not getting "freak numbers"... also it pays to make sure that the glass and guages are all clean....
but re the other parts of the mouthpiece i can't add anything new except a few thoughts....
side/tip rails- if you need to thin them will you do it from the "outer edge" or the "inner edge"? this can make a cruicial difference as both the width of the rails and the width of the window have an effect on response and tone (tip rail almost always from the inner- i believe most refacers will agree with me)
and to illustrate the point that dimensions other than the facing/tip opening can have a huge impact over reed selection (this is sort of loosely related)
my E flat mouthpiece fits on both my alto Chalemeau and my E flat clarinet- on the Buffet R13 Eflat i use a 3.5 or 4 reed, on the Chalemeau a 2.5 is required to get the same response.
(admitedly this is not a difference in mouthpiece dimensions, but if the same mouthpiece can play so differently with a different pipe acoustic, imagine what effect different baffle configurations etc can have)
it's late
i need sleep (at OU i slept only 18hours in the 6 days from leaving my front door at 6am Tuesday morning!!! at least i'm not THAT tired tonight)
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2005-07-12 17:05
I'm sure Ben's method works very well for him, no argument there. But I take issue with a few of his remarks about my method (which is to reface by 'eyeball and play-test' without measurements). First of all, I can properly reface a mouthpiece considerably faster, I would wager, than can a competent refacer using feeler gauge measurements. Secondly, I would also wager that I can duplicate a mouthpiece (in terms of sound, response, and 'reed-friendliness') just as well, if not better, than another refacer could by duplicating the measurements of a particular mouthpiece.
As I know Ben from playing in a few groups with him, he knows that I'm not to be taken too seriously, so: Ben, I hereby challlenge you to a "Reface-Off"! You (or the refacer of your choosing) and I together in a room, with a dozen mouthpieces or blanks, and let's see what we can do in a couple of hours!
I'm sitting by the phone waiting for the response to my challenge......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ben Redwine
Date: 2005-07-13 01:45
Hello,
I sure wouldn't want to square off against the "fastest draw in D.C."! Dave is legendary in "them thar parts", as local legend has it. I once heard that Dave refaced three mouthpieces before Marshall Mattson opened up his refacing kit! When the dust settled, Everett was found dead under the table clutching four of a kind aces. So, continue to sit by your phone, as the rest of us shake in our boots.
All seriousness aside (to quote one of the band leaders for whom Dave and I have worked), I still stand by my assertion that measuring is the only way for me. I have seen Dave's method (although I have not tested any of his mouthpieces) and it does make sense, but for me, it simply wouldn't work.
Please don't take me wrong, I don't rely on merely numbers, but I do find that if the numbers are right, then there is far less finish tweaking work that I have to do.
It would be interesting to have a "reface-off", but there are so many variables that I'm not sure a valid conclusion could be reached--which blanks to use, who is doing the testing, how to get comparable reeds, what criteria for declaring a winner.....
I definitely don't think the "fastest gun in the west" is important in refacing either. I think that it takes as long as it takes--it could be 5 minutes, it could be 45. The way the mouthpiece plays is the only final test--and we know that no two people will ever agree on that outcome.
Here I am, riding off into the sunset...................
Ben Redwine
RedwineJazz, LLC
410 798-8251
clarinet@redwinejazz.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2005-07-13 13:55
Ben, I'm glad you correctly took my challenge lightly -- of course I didn't really mean we should have a contest, that would be ridiculous. And certainly I respect your methods and results. I should say that, although 'speed of refacing' is not at all important in the grand scheme of things, having an expeditious technique does in fact benefit the customer, because I can (and do) charge considerably less than the average refacer for a job, simply because it takes me less time and, or course, "time is money".
As far as the efficacy of measurement vs. 'optical' methods of refacing, I cheerfully agree to disagree, and wish you luck with the Gennusa line and your other fine products.
And I hope you have a comfortable saddle as you ride off into the sunset --- there's nothing worse than a sore bottom...........
Dave Spiegelthal
Somewhere on the prairie in Virginia
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2005-07-13 15:32
But unlike the chewing tobacco favored by real cowboys, we Clarinet Cowboys chew on old Ricos as we ride........
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2009-04-07 22:17
Hi,
I spent some time this last weekend with RD again and had a great time as usual. I brought some MPs I had been playing since I saw his last and watched him do his measurements.
In the past years, he has taken a whole lot of measurements of many different mouthpieces and has a spreadsheet. I found that interesting.
My question for this year (the thread is 3 1/2 years old) is:
If there are difference is the slope of the rails from one side to the other, is there a big difference in the playing? I know that Ben Redwine and DS have differing opinions as stated above but has anyone "mellowed" or come up with new info in the past several years on rail measurements.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2009-04-07 22:29
Ben says a lot of good stuff here. There are SO many factors to consider and it is important to balance of all of them. Regarding the side rails, Matson used to thin them from the outside, as otherwise you would be changing the dimensions of the window.
Over the years, I have played mouthpieces that seem to have all of the same dimensions (including internally) and yet played quite differently. There is so much of it that is science, but even more of it is an art!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2009-04-07 22:49
Hello Hank, et al,
If I understand your post, you are referring to the "asymmetrical" facing, where one rail moves away from the theoretical flat plane that the table defines faster than the other rail. When you have this asymmetry, it creates resistance, and my theory is that mouthpiece makers do this to either increase resistance or to compensate for asymmetrical reeds. In my thinking, I prefer to make the mouthpiece symmetrical and then to balance the reed to match. All of this, of course, is easier with measurements. Once you have the measurements, then one has to "finish" the mouthpiece so it plays well, sometimes diverging from what should be good numbers. Putting a mouthpiece to good measurements gives you a consistent place to start from.
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2009-04-08 00:56
Ben,
Exactly. An asymmetrical facing. So, once you have those measurements exactly the same, the process (secret, of course) is to then finish the MP.
Without giving any secrets aways, after you have a symmetrical MP and finish it (a little of this and a little of that), do you ever go back and measure again to see what was done? This seems to become art at this point.
Thanks,
HRL
PS I am just trying to get a better understanding of process.
Post Edited (2009-04-08 00:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2009-04-08 02:21
Hello Hank,
Yeah, the tired old adage of "measure twice, cut once" applies to mouthpieces too.
When I have the measurements where I like them, then I have the player play the mouthpiece and based on what I hear and what the player feels, I alter parts of the mouthpiece, either facing, or chamber, baffle, bore that will change the desired characteristics. At this point, if the player is happy, then the measurements really don't matter, so except for curiosity, I might not remeasure. Of course, if the player is smart, they'll ask me to measure and will write down their measurements so I can reproduce their mouthpiece later, if necessary.
Ben Redwine, DMA
owner, RJ Music Group
Assistant Professor, The Catholic University of America
Selmer Paris artist
www.rjmusicgroup.com
www.redwinejazz.com
www.reedwizard.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2009-04-08 13:43
Ben,
"Of course, if the player is smart, they'll ask me to measure and will write down their measurements so I can reproduce their mouthpiece later, if necessary" says it all.
Or maybe is they become famous someday, you will have the measurements and can duplicate that person's MP and make millions of dollars. LOL.
Thanks,
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-04-08 14:04
I have no doubt that measurements are very important when refacing or making a mouthpiece. As far as choosing one though, it's how it plays for you, regardless of what the gauges say. We all play differently because we're all build differently so what works for one won't necessarily work for another. I've never held stock in someone that first measures your mouthpiece first and tells you this is no good, or visa versa. How does it sound, feel, articulate and play in tune, that's what's most important for you. If the "correct" measurements were the same for everyone then everyone would sound great on the same mouthpiece. It simply doesn't work that way. Play it first, measure it after. Of course if you need or want to get it adjusted, refaced, or copied then that's another story. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2009-04-08 14:04
(Disclaimer - I am seller of Chedeville mouthpieces and barrels)
I have the highest regard for the art of the mouthpiece maker especially since I have gotten into the business of reproducing some of the classic and well respected Chedeville mouthpieces.
In the process I have had to get mouthpieces "measured" by the most accurate methods available which include laser measurements for the outside and more sophisticated methods, and hugely expensive, for the internal measurements. These measurement techniques have shown me that most mouthpieces are not symmetrical and have had to have special engineering techniques used to create a symmetrical parametric model for CNC machining reproduction.
The differential cooling of the molding techniques now used to make mouthpieces produce even more varied alterations in the molded mouthpiece even though the mold may be symmetrical. This is where the art of the mouthpiece maker comes into play to alter the blank in a way which plays well for a particular player.
The measurements of the table may be a guide for the mouthpiece maker but there is no way that they can tell from a few measurements where to make subltle changes to improve the performance - this is their art form. Measurements may be their starting point and help in creating a form but the ultimate mouthpiece is a one of a kind item because the other measurements will never be exactly symmetrical in a molded mouthpiece.
In making measurements of classic mouthpieces the parametric or symmetrical model must be evaluated against the original measurements of the mouthpiece by an artisan to determine, from their years of experience, if the differences from symmetry actually make a practical difference in the playing characteristics of the mouthpiece. The facings must always be hand applied by an artisan.
L. Omar Henderson
www.ChedevilleMp.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: atasic
Date: 2009-04-08 16:16
@L. Omar Henderson
I checked you web site but your mouthpieces and barrels are not available at the moment?
when we can expect to try them?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Grabnerwg
Date: 2009-04-08 16:58
I am going to echo what Ed had to say:
<<I have no doubt that measurements are very important when refacing or making a mouthpiece. As far as choosing one though, it's how it plays for you, regardless of what the gauges say.>>
From my perspective, in terms of measuring you can "hit the numbers" and still have a very average mouthpiece.
In my mental concept, this is where "facing" leaves off and "voicing" begins. This is where the mouthpiece technician enhances the blank/mouthpiece to create the desired tone quality, improve response, and adjust tuning. There is no ONE technique that always works.
As Omar says no two blanks are the same. You have to use as many different measurements as you find useful, and couple that with a good ear, and an intuitive knowledge of how you want the mouthpiece to feel.
Walter Grabner
www.clarinetxpress.com
World Class Clarinet Mouthpieces
New Buffet Clarinets
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2009-04-08 19:24
(Disclaimer - I will soon be selling Chedeville mouthpieces and barrels)
Soon.
As Walter indicates the true mouthpiece artisan takes a molded blank and makes a playable mouthpiece out of it - this is the nature of molded blanks - they are each assymmetrical in different ways. Only a machined mouthpieces can be made symmetrical to within a few ten thousands of a millimeter. Here again though it must be faced and any further changes to the interior documented by precise measurement. The interior measurements are the most costly to do.
If you want to reproduce your favorite mouthpiece it will take the artisan to work on a blank and/or you can have it measured exactly for a few thousand dollars (outside and inside or about a grand for just the outside) and then get a blank reshaped to those exact measurements. I would go with a favorite artisan totally and forget this approach however.
L. Omar Henderson
www.ChedevilleMP.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: timw
Date: 2009-04-09 00:58
Hank- Some years back I sent away to wwbw for a B45 and a Portnoy bpo2.
I loved the Portnoy but did not like the B45 at all! Glad they suggested the Portnoy (I hadn't) because I thought it was great.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2009-04-09 01:57
Hi Tim,
I still love the Portnoy BP02, the SWS, and a B45 (got last year with a junk clarinet - it has a small tip chip but plays great).
The interesting thing is that my pal RD measured each of them and they are within a smidgen of each other. And they all play well with a VD 3 , 3 1/2, and Rico Grand Select 3 1/2s.
Glad you still like yours. I have several but none play as well as my 1972 BP02. I will not let anyone touch it and the rails are still symmetrical. I get a huge sound with it.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
