 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Aequore
Date: 2007-07-11 01:41
Hi everyone,
I was wondering if any Kaspar expert could help me out in telling
me the differences between Kaspar Cicero facings like #10-14...
Thanks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2007-07-11 03:16
Number 10 (or 14) is not a facing. It indicates the tip opening.
10 = 1.10 mm tip opening
14 = 1.14 mm tip opening
Usually Kaspar mouthpieces have medium 17 mm long facing.
Vytas Krass
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Professional clarinet technician
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aequore
Date: 2007-07-11 03:29
Which marking do you think is better or gives a better response. What I have researched is that #13 and 14 are the most popular..is that true??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-07-11 03:50
Vytas,
I was under the impression that a "mouthpiece facing" is a combination of two factors: facing length and and tip opening. Perhaps people differ on the terminology somewhat, but wouldn't you agree that a facing number alone, or a tip opening alone would not mean anything?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aequore
Date: 2007-07-11 04:36
It all depends..some say it involves symmetry or asymmetry with the tip opening or the facing. I myself cant decide, though the Kaspar numerology has nothing to do with the tip or measurement in specifics, no one really knows why Kaspar chose to mark them the way he did though.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-07-11 13:32
Hello,
Most people do only refer to facings by their tip openings, but yes, facing length is a very important factor, as is the rest of the curve, for that matter. I highly recommend that you have your mouthpiece accurately measured (I'm sure that any mouthpiece maker will be glad to do this for you at no cost). Save these numbers somewhere safe. When you drop your mouthpiece and it shatters, you can have another one made that is if not exactly the same, then very similar.
By the way, while in Vancouver, I tested a person's Buffet clarinet that Mr. Krass had overhauled. He seems to do very good work.
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: Paul Aviles
Date: 2007-07-11 14:56
Just to throw in some added confusion, there is also the effect of the different sized tone chambers and shape of the baffel (concave, flat, deeply concave etc.) that have a profound affect on the resistance and sound of the mouthpiece. Greg Smith pointed out that he must take the interior shape into consideration when finalizing a facing.
This was made most apparent to me when I chose two different mouthpieces with two different facing as my favorites due to their similar playing characteristics. Then I was told by Greg that the two could not have had more different facings.
hmmmmmmm............
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: redwine
Date: 2007-07-11 17:36
Hello,
Of course, the chamber has huge effects on playablility, but that is much more difficult to quantify with measurements.
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: Vytas
Date: 2007-07-15 04:50
J. J. wrote:
>"I was under the impression that a "mouthpiece facing" is a combination of two factors: facing length and tip opening".<
Not exactly! A mouthpiece facing is a curve. If a mouthpiece facing was a straight line than yes, but it's a CURVE and you can't describe a curve as a combination of two factors. A mouthpiece maker has endless possibilities how he decides to shape a mouthpiece curve. Usually five/six readings are taken to measure a mouthpiece curve. Some use as much as sixteen. Even these readings are not perfect. It doesn't describe the 'roundness' of the curve between the numbers.
Aequore wrote:
<"I myself cant decide, though the Kaspar numerology has nothing to do with the tip or measurement in specifics, no one really knows why Kaspar chose to mark them the way he did though".<
You are right about the "Chicago" series but the "Cicero" and "Ann Arbor" (some of them have no facing indication at all) series correspond exactly to the facing number. The confusion comes because these numbers are in metric system and not inches. Don't forget these folks came from Moldavia where they use metric system.
I've measured many original Cicero Kaspars and #11 has 1.11 mm tip. #13 - 1.13 mm tip. #18 - 1.18 mm tip etc. So there's no doubt in my mind where these numbers are coming from.
Vytas Krass
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Professional clarinet technician
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2007-07-15 06:21
Excellent point, Vytass. I was just confused before because I thought you were not including tip opening as a factor in facing. The two most easily quantifiable aspects of a facing are tip opening and facing length. Of course you are right that the degree of curve flling in the gaps makes a huge difference, but I misunderstood what you said before to mean that top opening does not factor into this curve or the overal "facing."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
