 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ghuba
Date: 2006-01-04 14:33
In another thread on Selmer Series 9 clarinets, it has been pointed out that Selmer Big Bore clarinets -- K, L, M, N, BT, CT, Omega CT, 9 series -- may have much more even and intune scales with mouthpieces of the same era designed for the larger bore sizes Selmer [and others] used in the 1920s through 1960s.
Does anyone have any experience attempting to match modern mouthpieces specifically designed for bigger bore clarinets -- the Peter Eaton comes to mind but there might be many others -- to these older big bore Selmer and Leblanc clarinets?
George
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2006-01-04 14:41
I was thinking of having my M15 bored up to match the bore diameter at the top tenon of the top joint on my Series 9 pair, but have been warned not to, and with the hope it would sharpen things up a bit as it's always better to be slightly sharp than flat.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2006-01-04 15:21
Hi George - Your questions and info is very well put, IMHO, in that, from my quite un-scientific "experiments" with cls [and saxes], I have found that mps contemporary with the horn's ages [1950's thru '80's] just seem to play better with fewer [poor] intonation notes, which I usually try to improve. I did have [gave it to NMM] an ?L? Selmer F B [1920's I believe], now have a 1932 Sel F B RI, ?M ?N series, and have had/worked-on several C T's and my newer Omega [USA]. Having a number of older mps, glass and HR, I have "dedicated" some mps to individual cls. The same has been true with my Mark 6 alto sax, the older Sel C and D mps are better. I prob. should do the same for my Leblanc alto Model 100 ["Buck Rogers"]. Leb large bore cls, Dyn 's 2 and H, Pete F's [and prob. others] I believe deserve mp study as well. We need much skilled help/opinions for what you ask/suggest. TKS, Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2006-01-04 15:45
I'll dig out the old Selmer Table A mouthpiece that came with my Centered Tones to se what the bore diameter is on that - if I can find it.
My Series 9 A (S series) came with a butchered plastic Buffet that was no use for anything, not even a door stop. But my Bb (A series) came with a manky HS* that's too far gone - the ebonite has gone all green and won't take to being polished - I've tried, but too much will be taken off before a good finish can be achieved as the surface layer of ebonite is very soft.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2006-01-04 17:04
Permit me to state a minority opinion for the record, Your Honor....
My experience as a player (mediocre) and mouthpiece refacer (unorthodox) has been that the bore of the mouthpiece has little or nothing to do with how well it interacts with the remainder of the clarinet 'system'. Consider the design of the mouthpiece, how it has huge and rapid changes in size and shape along its short length --- does it really seem reasonable that millimeter-level differences in bore diameter between barrel and mouthpiece could exert much influence in comparison to the huge discontinuities (and/or rapid rate-of-change of geometry) taking place elsewhere in the mouthpiece? I do have some academic and practical background in both aerodynamics and acoustics, and to my thinking a bore diameter mismatch at the mouthpiece is 'in the noise' compared to all the other factors. As for the difference in total mouthpiece enclosed volume between various mouthpieces, I think Ralph Morgan's position is reasonable (if I understand him correctly); that it is the total volume that is important, more so than its distribution (in other words, if a mouthpiece has a large bore dimension, its chamber internal volume should be made corresponding slightly less to result in the same total internal volume --- I think that's his premise, but I may have misinterpreted him). If this premise is accurate, then the bore mismatch shouldn't matter as long as the chamber portion is made slightly smaller in internal volume to compensate.
I have used many mouthpieces of a wide range of diameters on an equally large variety of clarinets, some of which (e.g. Boosey & Hawkes) have even larger bores than the Selmer Centered Tones. I have found that by far the biggest influence on the response and intonation of a mouthpiece is the facing curve/tip opening, followed in importance by the chamber size and shape/baffle design. The latter has probably the greatest effect on general tuning, as well as specific tuning tendencies (particular the portion of the baffle very near the tip). I've observed that a mouthpiece that plays well on a "standard-bore" clarinet will also play well on a "large-bore" instrument, and conversely a bad mouthpiece is a bad mouthpiece on any instrument. I've gotten very good results in the past using "standard-bore" mouthpieces on large-bore B&H and older Selmer clarinets (and others), including the Symphony 1010s.
I'm well aware that my opinions here are very much out of the mainstream, but these are the things I've observed over the years.
Post Edited (2006-01-04 17:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ghuba
Date: 2006-01-04 17:20
Don, one thing that I have noticed in some non-systematic and not especially scientific experiments is that if you take a half dozen of the extremely well done modern mouthpieces (various Zinner blank derived ones, modern Selmer and Leblanc mouthpieces) and try them in older Selmers (such as a late 20s K or a 30s BT or a early 50s CT/Omega) the results seem far more variable than if you try the same mouthpieces in modern smaller bore Selmer clarinets (Series 10, Recital). That is, there appears to be a greater interaction between modern mouthpieces and older Selmers than between modern mouthpieces and newer Selmers. I suspect that some acoustical theory equations relating the bore size of mouthpieces, barrels, and joints probably explains all of this to a significant degree and most modern mouthpieces have been optimized to the Buffet bore. Given the quality of innovation in modern mouthpiece and barrel design and crafting, I am hoping to identify modern ones that have bores that work especially well with the older big Selmers. In my experience, the older Selmers are an awful lot of "fun" to play but have the well-known eccentric scales that do seem to get significantly better or worse depending upon mouthpiece choice. George
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2006-01-04 17:56
Points very well taken [as usual], Dave, I certainly cant disagree to any extent re: my slight knowledge of cl acoustics. Brymer on pg 110+ gives a good description/opinions, with mp terminology, as I'm sure most other authors do, and I'd suggest we adopt their terms in future discussions. I read on our GREAT BB recently, of the A and H "appearances" when viewing mp interiors from the tenon, which I believe means [slightly] angular vs vertical opening to the palate. Looking thus into my Eb, Sop, Alto, and Bass mps, there is some variety, I tend to believe that the vertical [H] appearance-mps are the "darker" ones. {FWIW}. EXPERTS, we badly need HELP. 'Nuff for now! Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
