 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ray
Date: 2007-04-19 13:45
Some mouthpieces have flat tables and some have tables with concave curves. If there is a curve, when you lay a straightedge on the table you can see light pass under the center of the straightedge but not where it touches ends of the table.
The straightedge does not touch the whole table, only near the window and near the tenon end of the mouthpiece.
It seems to me that when I replace the straightedge with a reed that the reed will touch the mouthpiece in the same two places. It will be supported at the base of the window and at the bottom of the table but it will not touch the mouthpiece between those two points.
Now, when I clamp the reed with a ligature, what happens? Do I force the reed to conform to the table curve so that the vamp of the reed angles upward, away from the facing curve? (This would have the effect of making the reed play harder.) Or do I only clamp the reed to the table at the window and the base, with the center of the bark end of the reed free and not touching the mouthpiece?
If the reed stays straight and is only supported at the ends of the table, it will vibrate like a diving board - the middle of the bark end of the reed will flex up and down in the opposite direction of the tip. This would be very different from the vibration of the reed when the whole bark end is held to the table, whether curved or straight.
It seems that there are many possible effects depending on the depth and length of concavity, the ligature style, the thickness of the reed blank and the tightness of the ligature.
What is the advantage claimed for the concave table? From a logical point of view a flat table allows only one curvature (straight) for the bark end of the reed and would be a lot more predictable.
Sorry for so many questions in one post, but an understanding of this subject could explain why ligatures offer different kinds of response and why some mouthpieces like thin blank reeds rather than thick blanks and so on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2007-04-20 01:10
I believe that either a perfectly flat or slightly concave table is ideal but there are mouthpieces with very deep concave or convex tables that work (to some degree), so this subject can be very tricky. The key is to make the table of the mouthpiece work in harmony with the rest of the mouthpiece’s playing characteristics (material, facing, chamber, bore).
There are three different types of tables…convex, flat and concave. Each of these types is very common but only two are considered “correct.”
The type that is frequently dismissed is the convex table, but it appears frequently for two reasons. When a mouthpiece is faced by hand the typical method of flattening the table is to draw the mouthpiece on the sandpaper, backed by a flat granite or glass surface. This technique is flawed because in most cases it actually causes a slight convexity. The problem is that a mouthpiece's table extends into the window and as the mouthpiece is drawn across the sandpaper, hard rubber is removed at two different rates because the table that is associated with the window has less surface area than the table that isn’t associated with the window. The end result is that the table that is associated with the window has had a higher rate of material removed on the same sandpaper swipe than the rest of the table, and a slight convexity appears. This convexity is VERY common on hand-finished mouthpieces. Even though this common defect may allow for a high functioning mouthpiece, intellectually speaking it isn’t considered ideal. The other reason why a convexity may appear is if a mouthpiece has been used a lot, the table can warp causing any number of issues, including convexity. This type of convexity is typically associated with other problems like rail-tilt and or asymmetry on the rails, which make the mouthpiece function poorly.
When thinking of the various types of tables, one must also think of the degree of convexity or concavity. A flat table (when rendered properly) is absolute and has no level of degree. Flat is what it is…flat.
Convex tables are typically subtle, but when a high level of convexity appears, it generally creates a difficult environment for the reed to properly mate to the mouthpiece. This creates playing characteristics that can lead to shrill, edgy sound, squeaks, difficulty to control pitch, and a sound that is generally not very warm or sweet. Tables with only a slight convexity can play almost as good as flat tables but they tend to lack the hold and warmth of sound that come from a truly flat table or slightly concave table.
Flat tables are in many ways the perfect solution because they create an honest surface for the reed to mate to the mouthpiece. Flat tables play with the least amount of embouchure pressure and with a focused sound that is flexible and clear. The one potential drawback of a flat table is that if the reed warps, the honest relationship between reed and table becomes embittered and could create issues similar to a convex table. Essentially, a flat table is less forgiving with warped reeds than concave tables.
Concave tables are most common with machine made facings because as the machine cuts the table, the rubber expands due to heat and therefore the center of the mouthpiece bulges outward creating a slight hollow after the rubber has cooled down and shrunk to its normal state. Some machine made facings are also made with a concavity on purpose. So it can be either a case of machining operations or a case of design, but in both cases, it is very common. Zinner mouthpiece have very deep concavities that do not extend to the bottom of the table, but Vandoren mouthpieces have moderate concavities that do extend to the bottom of the table. In either case, they function as mouthpieces should with correctly shaped concavities, but they both have very different playing characteristics in part due to the depth of their concavities.
In talking about concavities it is important to note the difference between a functional concavity and a non-functional concavity. When the concavity is made, it can extend into the table that is associated with the window (functional concavity) or simply be a part of the table that isn’t associated with the window opening (non-functional). The idea of a concavity comes from the old wood mouthpieces. Because wood is so volatile in nature, in the old days when mouthpieces were commonly made from wood, manufactures found that by making the table concave, it helped allow the reed to vibrate in a more stable and predictable way. The idea was if the wood mouthpiece warped while playing, the table would go convex and it would cause severe playing problems, so to help improve that problem by making the table concave, it created more “breathing room” for the mouthpiece to move while not going to the point of convex-despair. What was then discovered was when properly fashioning the concavity to extend into the window just beneath where the facing begins, this (functional) concavity created considerable influence over the playing experience. By creating a clearly defined fulcrum for the reed’s “springboard” like vibration, it made for a warmer sound that was highly responsive and three-dimensional in scope. It made for a clear and flexible soft dynamic that one could nuance with greater ease.
But the problem was how much concavity is too much. It is a subjective thing to answer, but in my opinion, to much concavity creates a lack of hold, the playing experience requires a constant bite to keep the focus, and to maintain a spread-free sound.
The correct amount of concavity, when balanced with the facing and all other elements of a mouthpiece’s design and material, allow for the reed to vibrate comfortably. You won’t be conscious of playing the clarinet any more, but you will simply make music without unnecessary interference from an otherwise less-than-ideal mouthpiece.
Some specifics: Ligatures when tightened will in effect spring the reed a little bit away from the tip and make the mouthpiece feel a little more open to play. Generally, a mouthpiece with a slight concavity will play very similarly to a perfectly flat table, but concavities that are deep will greatly change the playing experience. The vast majority of clarinetists playing on machine finished mouthpieces are experiencing concave tables.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2007-04-20 03:36
All machine made facings have concave tables. It seems this is the only way machine can cut the facing. I think that slight table concavity is not a bad thing even though I prefer perfectly flat table. When a slight concavity appears in the middle and in between the ligature lines it can be easily adjusted/controlled via the pressure from the ligature. Different pressure creates different playing characteristics.
Sometimes a concavity appears at the wrong place and creates various problems even leaks. I've seen many instances when concavity appeared partially on the table and then extended into the window area creating leaks.
I don't think that the typical method of flattening the table is flawed. It all depends on the skill, experience and correct approach of a maker. Not many can do it, that's for sure!
Vytas Krass
Clarinet Repair
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2007-04-20 04:58
To add to the already voluminous and varied content already posted in this thread, some clarification about the distinction between machine made and hand made mouthpieces vis-a-vis table shape may be needed.
To be precise, there are machine made mouthpieces that are hand "finished" to use the term loosely (anywhere from Vandoren to Backun the obvious examples), and there are machine made blanks (Zinner or Babbitt for example) that can then be truly hand finished by the maker to a very high degree depending on the maker's desire AND depending on the maker's predetermined starting dimensions as ordered up directly from Hans Zinner or JJ Babbitt. The options in that case are almost limitless.
This distinction is significant because the maker can determine in their work on each mouthpiece whether or not, or to what degree they will employ what type of concavity.* This also includes the option of creating a flat table or convex table if they so choose. This option is not available for pre-made machine-finished mouthpieces unless one has the mouthpiece worked on later.
Gregory Smith
http://www.gregory-smith.com
*Indeed, the pronounced concavity of most Zinner blanks are viewed by their proponents as one of the mouthpiece's greatest assets - offsetting or working in a complimentary way with all other design elements that make the Zinner design unique and revolutionary in almost every way. As has already been stated, it's the final, manifest recipe that counts rather than what seems to work geometrically-speaking on any kind of theoretical drawing board.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-04-20 10:42
Many thanks to Brad, Vytas, and Gregory for explaining this subtle aspect of their craft as mouthpiece makers. I can appreciate the technical aspects of their craft explained in terms that a scientist and engineer can appreciate but also recognize the art that goes into the final product that they produce. This comes from one that has tried in vane to document the many variables that go into making up mouthpiece form and function. With every tidbit of knowledge my appreciation still grows for the control that they exhibit over the multiple interactive variables needed to make a great mouthpiece.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2007-04-20 11:10
I'll echo Doc's thanks and appreciation for the insight provided by these pros.
I continue to try "my hand" at mp refinishing.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2007-04-20 14:39
Wow......concave, convex or flat......with the mpc blank makers "predetermined starting dimensions" vs the craftsmans unique finishing configurations resulting in "almost limitless" possibilities for the final product?? No wonder that clarinet mouthpiecies are like snowflakes--no two being exactly the same.
I think that D Bonades advice in selecting a mpc was best--the "bottom line" being that, in the end after you select one, you simply have to "go home and learn to play it".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2007-04-21 02:07
The concave table seems to allow free vibration with less restriction on reed movement than the flat table. A convex table would result in inconsistent reed placement. The concave table allows the unrestricted vibration about two fulcrums while the flat table results in reed vibration somewhat like a clamped bar. These modes are discussed in textbooks on mechanics. More fun!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-04-21 02:29
Now that we have the attention of the mouthpiece gurus - would someone like to explain functionality of the Backun ribbed table?
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-04-21 03:53
I'd only be telling you fibs
if I tried to explain Backun's ribs!
A table that's flat
is (I think) where it's at
so I won't bore you with my ad-libs....
Kaspar the Friendly Mouthpiece Ghost
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2007-04-21 16:05
Food for thought--wouldn't a concave reed butt design provide the same "spring" effect as the concave mouthpiece table?
(it's early--only on my first cup of coffee)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2007-04-21 17:28
One of the benefits of making your own reeds (or mouthpieces for that matter) is that it allows total flexibility to make any design you wish. There is a school of thought that by cutting your reed blanks from tubes in a way that is off-cant so the xylems are angled slightly upward, away from the tip of the mouthpiece, adds an additional “spring” to the response and increases the lifespan of the reed.
Another technique which is perhaps less common is to actually camber the reed in a way that compensates for the typical warp that sets in, during a reed’s adolescence. I remember a conversation with a Hasty student who actually used the pillars at the practice hall to back the sandpaper and therefore trace the radius of the curved pillar onto the reed’s table. It would create a concavity that ran longitudinally along the reed. I tried this but didn’t have very good success. He spoke very highly of the technique however and actually showed me a sketch of a reed-sanding-base that Hasty had devised just for this purpose. I have to assume it was a worthwhile endeavor because Stanley Hasty used it and the student I speak about is an amazing musician. Tom Martin.
There are countless ways to approach reedcraft and it is a wonderful process of discovery. I prefer to look at the tone production system holistically, and in so doing try to avoid unknown variables and inconsistencies. The way I see it, a mouthpiece is much more an absolute than the reed and by adding concavity or off-cant cuts to make a reed vibrate a certain way is (for me) unnecessary. Cane grows out of the ground and no two pieces are identical (even two reeds made from the same tube, made with identical shapes will not vibrate the same), and therefore I can’t assume that either of the above techniques actually influence my playing experience in such a positive way to merit further pursuit of my time. The above exercises were however well worth the education I received and quite frankly I learned a profound lesson about concavity. The Hasty/Martin-pillar-reed-concavity-idea was something that led to much contemplation and experimentation. It got me to thinking about how to accurately and beautifully produce mouthpiece table concavities, and one thing led to another…
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2007-04-23 13:05
backuns ribbed table kinda reminds me of those old "Vibrator" reeds that has slots (aka ribs) in them for the lig to press against. And thus the later ligs with "ribs" or channels. I guess it evolved down to the mpc now.
Omar - do you have a link to that Backun ribbed mpc ?
I should also ring in .. i find this information/discussion absolutely .. for lack of better words .. incredible
==========
Stephen Sklar
My YouTube Channel of Clarinet Information
Post Edited (2007-04-23 13:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ray
Date: 2007-04-23 14:33
Thank you very much especially to Messrs. Behn, Krass and Smith who invested so much time and effort to give such good answers to my questions. I see I was basically on the right track but only had a shallow understanding.
It was the recent post on Ben Armato's suggestion to put foil under the reed that got me thinking about the shapes of tables. Initially I lumped the foil under the reed idea under the same category as the aluminum foil beanie, but now I see that it could have a big effect on a mouthpiece with a concave table.
All who have posted have made this thread priceless - a great example of why this Board is so valuable. I feel like a fool for not making a donation this year.
But wait! Mark's donation page is still there and it still works. I was able to make my donation today even though I thought the drive had ended.
You can, too: https://secure.donax-us.com/donation/
Best,
Ray
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2007-04-24 18:26
Just to be clear, I want to add that I do not make mouthpieces with any degree of convexity. But because it is so common I felt it necessary to mention that it does exist. Additionally mouthpieces with slightly convex tables can on occasion function rather well. It is simply not ideal. Highly convex tables are most likely poor players.
I prefer (and make) mouthpieces with either perfectly flat tables or slightly concave tables, but in both cases, the nature of their tables must be in balance with all other elements of their design.
Regarding the functional or non functional style of concavity, it is my opinion that only the functional style has merit. This is a concavity that extends into the window portion of the mouthpiece and when properly made actually encourages a very good seal. On the other hand I have found that mouthpieces made with either highly convex or highly concave tables can cause problematic sealing issues.
Regarding the “ribbed table” issue I think it is important to indicate that the table in question isn’t ribbed but it has three horizontal troughs that are routed across the table.
Some old Bonade mouthpieces made from Chedeville blanks of the late 60’s received a similar modification and in my opinion were designed merely for show and lacked any positive or negative performance characteristics. They were made to separate their mouthpieces visually from the rest of the field. The good news is that those Bonade mouthpieces tend to be rather good players in spite of the unnecessary modifications and are worth a try. But they tend to require a good refacing before their true potential comes to the surface.
Regarding the foil under the reed idea, I wouldn’t ever do it. On another recent thread, there was a rather lengthy discussion about the damage swabbing a mouthpiece can cause. Well, I would much rather swab my mouthpiece (and I do from time to time) than ever put anything metallic between my reed and my mouthpiece. Metal will most likely over the course of time scratch or erode the surface of my mouthpiece’s table (something that is created with care and precision) and this alone is unacceptable. Additionally, the thought of changing my reed/mouthpiece relationship by adding material (temporarily) to the table seems to throw a monkey wrench into the simplicity of the equation. Again, I prefer to eliminate as many variables as possible and by adding something into the mix seems to corrupt the simple recipe for resonance. I suppose one could argue that if it makes the sound better than why not. The logical answer for me is that I would rather find a different reed than potentially ruin my mouthpiece.
On the other hand, a quick and harmless way for anyone to experiment with the potential of playing a concave tabled and closer tipped mouthpiece is to simply place a small paper shim (anything from a thin piece of cigarette paper to a thick tare of Kalmus music) between the mouthpiece and reed’s butt. The idea is that this little shim elevates the reed’s butt in a way that is similar to a “functional concavity.” In other words the reed contacts the table at the butt end and just beneath where the facing curve begins. This technique isn’t meant to be used as a permanent solution but simply as an experiment to see if a concave table is worth considering. But something to keep in mind is that as the shim kicks the heel of the reed out, it brings the tip of the reed in to a closer relationship with the tip of the mouthpiece, so with this test not only are you experiencing the effects of a concave table but you are also experiencing the effects of a closer tipped mouthpiece. For what it is worth, I have found this experiment worth using when I feel the need to forecast the effects of a closer tipped mouthpiece without actually doing anything permanent. It lets me determine the causes and effects of some specific refacing adjustments without any risk.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Mills
Date: 2007-04-24 22:35
Vandoren does the concave table but Selmer does not. I like my Selmer CP100 better after I made the table concave since the reed will not stay perfectly flat, I feel. So let it warp or contort a little with no fault to its response for tonguing or just beginning the tone. I use a metal ligature with a firm but small narrow area of contact along the center of the reed's shank entirely up and down along its length for maximum freedom to vibrate as the reed's sides are free of contact with the ligature's bands, for the best vibe as I believe anyway. I use not quite a Bonade ligature because the narrow flat bar pushing down on the reed is opposite of the screws side.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-04-25 00:27
Yes, my thanks again to the MP gurus that bring so much knowledge and insight to these discussions. In addition to the ligature lines being cut across the table I believe that there are micro grooves horizontally etched on the table of the Backun mouthpieces - I am familiar with the old Bonade MPs but these are new and perhaps deal with the "Boundry Layer" physics effect mentioned. Any thoughts on this? I must say that I am becoming a bigger fan of the Chedville rather than Kaspar genre of mouthpieces but this is one players opinion for what it is worth.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-04-25 01:35
Doc Omar, I'm surprised that a person with your scientific background would give any credence to the 'boundary layer' nonsense! It's pure marketing. I'm expecting someone to next come up with a magnetic device to clamp onto the mouthpiece to 'straighten the airflow lines of force' or something like that. Jeez..................
![[huh]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie11.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-04-25 02:27
David - I believe that we had a marathon discussion on the BB one weekend trying to explain the "boundary layer" principal and crashed and burned to ashes with our own knowledge bases as well as those of several esteemed aeronautical engineers. I was hoping that either the maker or some other knowledgeable mouthpiece guru who obviously would be interested in what would make a mouthpiece perform so well and/or cost so much would give us an explanation of the principal, or the dissolution of the smoke and mirrors surrounding the marketing hype. I feel professional courtesy may be coming into play - which is admirable but frustrating - and will have to sit down with Morrie myself at ClarinetFest and get the straight story to satisfy my own curiosity - I may be sworn to secrecy but will die a happy scientist with the answer tucked away in the secret place with the other glimpses of the Holy Grail.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-04-25 02:53
Doc Omar, I wish you the best of luck in your quest for ultimate scientific knowledge! Perhaps you will break the Laminar Flow Code and return to us with The Word From Vancouver.......I will try to suspend my disbelief (which is partly the result of undergrad and grad studies in mechanical engineering and acoustics, with over fifteen years working in the aerospace field plus about twenty years of flying light aircraft). Yes, I'm skeptical of clarinet designers confusing their musical instrument acoustics (which to this day are still not well-understood by anyone, except perhaps for the late Dr. Benade) with aerodynamic fluid flow. Dr. Hank, help me out here!
Let's instead discuss something much more well-documented like, say, the effect of unobtanium mouthpiece plating on the tonal quality of the articulated G#.....
![[rotate]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley25.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-04-25 15:56
David - scientists just found Kryptonite >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18289647/< so can the Boundary Layer be far behind? My new motto is trading my cleverness for a sense of awe - Lao Tzu
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2007-04-25 16:37
Looks like they plan to call the newly-found mineral "jadarite", Dr. Omar. But regardless of name, I'll bet it makes a great-sounding ligature material! Or perhaps we could grind it up, mix it with some epoxy binder, and make a new synthetic reed out of it?
KRYPTOREED!!!!!!!!! from Doctor's Products
Guaranteed to play perfectly and last forever, or triple your money back!
Throw away those stinky old brown-box Ricos!
KRYPTOREED is here!!!!!!
![[toast]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley15.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2007-04-25 20:14
i don't know anything about the "boundary layer" and i'm not a scientist (though my best friend does top secret research for the NZ govt!)... but i can testify that the "horizontal grooves" do effectively obscure the words "Zinner hand crafted" off the mouthpiece blank.
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2007-04-25 23:00
I received some email questions regarding off-cant reed preparation and I have decided to make my responses public to this forum. Please forgive the intrusion if this added information seems unnecessary or useless, but for those interested I am happy to offer my help.
At this time I typically do not make reeds with the below described off-cant cutting process but I used to do it all the time. Please accept the following observations.
Off-cant cutting of blanks during the initial phase of reed preparation is a fairly common and accepted approach to reedmaking. This technique of cutting the blank in a way that angles the xylems slightly upward, away from the tip of the mouthpiece creates added spring and is thought to make reeds last longer. With an off-cant cut reed, you will probably experience a playing experience that is similar to using a mouthpiece that is a little more open at first (until the reed has been properly broken-in) and this may or may not be a good thing.
The way I make blanks with off-cant cutting is very simple, but it does require making blanks from tube cane because modifying pre-made reeds or pre-made blanks does not allow for the ideal amount of cane removal and is therefore not recommended.
After splitting and cutting to length the tube cane, it is time for the reed planer-guide. This jig is essentially a base with a hollowed out section where the reed blank sits into. Along the sides of the base are rails for the plane to track. This simple piece of reedmaking gear is essential because it allows everything to track and cut under controlled conditions and it gives the reedmaker sufficient flexibility to cut off-cant reeds to varying degrees. The reason why cutting with a jig is advised (for off-cant cutting) is because a knife on the other hand would tend to split/cut the cane along the same plane as the xylems and would not easily cut at a bias of your own design.
At this point I place the blank in the jig (planer-guide) and do an initial cut. This step is to be done prior to any off-cant-bias-cutting and its purpose is to plane enough material from the blank to easily glean from the xylem structure which end is going to be the tip. I think this is a very important step because often a reed has inconsistent density and xylem consistency, so by planing enough material to really get a good view into the nature of the piece of cane in question, it gives one the beneficial flexibility to make the best reed possible.
After determining which end is up and which end is down I then place the reed blank in my planer guide, making sure that my pre-determined tip end is closest to me and the butt end is farthest away from me. In other words, the tip end of the reed must be where the plane initiates its cut. But before I make my first off-cant cut, I must shim the butt end of the reed (the end that is opposite where the plane initiates its cut).
Shimming the blank is fundamental to achieve a consistent and repeatable off-cant cut. By lifting the butt end of the blank, it forces the plane to be cut in a direction that is slightly non-corollary (off-cant) to the plane in which the xylems exist. For shims, I use either a couple of pieces of reed-shavings or a folded up piece of paper, or even a mouthpiece patch. You can use just about anything but it is important to try to determine how much is best for you and then be able to repeat it as accurately as possible. Repeatability is important because over the course of time, it will give you perhaps enough information to make conclusions, and therefore judge if your selected degree of cant is sufficient or insufficient.
In my experience, less is more. I don’t like to use shims that are too thick because it ends up making the reed feel too open and wild. So, my goal is to make a reed that is slightly off-cant, by using a shim made out of a mouthpiece patch, and then create a reed that plays comfortably right off the reedual (I don’t like to play reeds that feel uncomfortable to play, even during the break-in stage).
Hint: Make sure your planer blade is sharp. If it is dull, it will tare the cane and follow the existing path of the xylems. The idea is to defeat the natural tendency of the blade to split the cane.
After the blank has been planed with an off-cant bias, the rest of the reedmaking process would continue in a familiar fashion. Some people cure and others don’t but nevertheless, sanding/curing the blank to the finished stages of reed preparation from here on out would follow all the steps that you would normally take.
For those that are interested in off-cant biasing pre-made reeds, a lesser degree of cant can be attained by simply sanding a hard reed and weighting the butt end of the reed. With practice, the reed can obtain a perfectly flat base that has been canted slightly. This technique can easily be mastered with reed blanks, but it is much more difficult with pre-made reeds because the reed’s tip is in grave danger of distortion, or worse. But with care it can be done.
Good luck.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2007-04-26 00:22
I saw a mpc on eBay a short time back I think from Vandoren. It had an adjustable table. I have a home made project mpc that also has an adjustable table. It basically changed the overall angle of the table to the rails. AND I assume it created a concave or convex table dependent upon how much it was adjusted.
That in itself must have made some people crazy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2007-04-27 05:03
Wes wrote:
> "The concave table seems to allow free vibration with less restriction on reed movement than the flat table. A convex table would result in inconsistent reed placement. The concave table allows the unrestricted vibration about two fulcrums while the flat table results in reed vibration somewhat like a clamped bar. These modes are discussed in textbooks on mechanics." <
A facing length and tip opening is the area where the vibration of a reed counts the most. A lot of different playing characteristics can be created by restricting or allowing more reed vibration. But there is always a limit how much is too much or too little. By favoring one side we loose something on the other. The mouthpiece with closer tip and shorter facing results in more restricted reed vibration than a mouthpiece which is more open and has longer facing.
Long facing: Many players prefer longer facings because of the warmth of sound in the chalumeau. Long facings favor the low register of the clarinet but you have to work much harder to get a good response and timber from the altissimo.
Short facing: Some players (especially beginners) prefer shorter facings for easy response and timber in the altissimo. Short facings favor the high register but the chalumeau sounds somewhat dull just like someone turned the low frequencies off.
Medium facing is the best of both worlds. (Matson, Kaspar etc.)
Open mouthpieces usually have more volume than the closed ones but not necessarily better projection.
Do you think the unrestricted reed vibration a good thing? Is more = better?
Vytas Krass
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Professional clarinet technician
Former professional clarinet player
Post Edited (2007-04-27 17:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
