 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2005-08-07 17:25
Just got a new Mitchell-Lurie M3. It is intended to back-up the one I'm playing in case of problems.
The old one has sandpaper marks on the table and lay, so I assumed that it had been refaced.
The new one has a hollow in the table near the opening. It is about .007 inches "swayback," so the reed will get bent by the ligature. That can't be good.
Waddya think, should I lap it flat on a piece of glass?
BTW: the box had the Rico logo on it.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2005-08-07 18:43
Intentional table convexity was something some mouthpiece makers applied.
As the reed took on water, the seal improved. Kaspar did this.
As for your item, I doubt it was intentional, but if you exhange it, see if the new one also has the convexity.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-08-07 19:09
Bob - The BB has several experienced refacers, who, hopefully, will respond. Also the mouthpiece-work Yahoo group would give you some good advice I believe, I learn from them both. IMHO, a 7 th's non-flat table is much too much, even if intentional.! Best choice, Can you return this one and try again? If not, and if it plays poorly/differently, I would try flat-sanding the table only, in stages, with inspection and play-testing, so as to stop before ruination ! I use 600 or finer SiC paper/cloth, and remove most of the sand-lines by follow-up mild abrasion on newsprint. Have improved some !! I recommend some trials with less-good mps. Luck, Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2005-08-07 19:41
the concavity on the mouthpiece table is something that mouthpiece refacers will argue about- there was a posting here some years ago that discussed it. In the best (ie- "it works") examples the refacer has taken it into consideration when working on the facing.
many factory mouthpieces have a concavity on the table, and it's unclear sometimes whether this is deliberate or a result of the machining process.
i would advise against "having a go" at removing the concavity as there's a fairly good chance that the mouthpiece won't play well without a complete refacing.
I am a moderately talented mouthpiece refacer (players in the NZSO have used my facings but i certainly don't reface to the level of the top US people) and have seen quite a few examples of "diy" mouthpiece refacing over the years- virtually none of which i could say had improved the mouthpiece and most of which had made the mouthpiece worse. if you do decide to flatten the table, please make sure that you apply pressure to the mouthpiece evenly and don't "lean to one side" while dragging the mouthpiece across the sandpaper.
keep playing the good tunes
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2005-08-08 16:03
Bob...try it first....it may be intentional
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2005-08-09 15:46
A "warped" table is NOT the same thing as a flat table with a deliberate concavity in the center. The former situation is unacceptable; the latter is an artifact representing the refacer's personal preference (I've personally found the added concavity, which is generally oval in shape. to be of no detectable utility but no harm either).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2005-08-09 17:34
Hello,
It sounds like a manufacturing defect to me. I'd send it back for a replacement from whomever you bought it. I don't know what a Mitchell-Lurie costs, but I would bet that a reface job might cost as much as the mouthpiece. Maybe I'm wrong.
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: Arnoldstang
Date: 2005-08-10 19:41
Does the new mouthpiece seal? If you get a good seal with lots of reeds I wouldn't flatten the table. By the time it's flat...your facing length is shorter which might not be better. John
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2005-08-10 20:55
Two things:
You state that your original mpc has indications of refacing. Keep in mind that the new one is going to play differently reguardless of whether it is warped or not.
Re: The concavity that you mention....
I get the impression that it is concave on the table at the bottom of the window. Does the hollow INCLUDE the base of the window?
Intentional concavities do not (to the best of my knowledge, and relying on examination of some of my older specimens) extend to the window itself. This might affect the seal.
And one other thing...
You like your present mouthpiece. If ANY new one fails to work as well for you, I would avail myself of the refacing skills represented here on this BB--as posters or as listed in the retail section-- to try to come as close as possible to the characteristics that you prize in your original. This could mean sending both away, or visiting one of them. (Dave Spiegenthal, Walt Grabner, Ben Redwine, Lomax, Hawkins, Brad Benn, Vytas Krass, Terry Guidetti, etc. Hope I did not unintentionally leave out anyone )
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
Post Edited (2005-08-10 20:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
