 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-03-20 21:05
(Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with any of the brands mentioned here. I did not get discounts nor compensations nor special treatment from any manufacturer.)
Recently I was hit by yet another GAS attack. With the spiralling-down dollar I felt the urge to replace money with tangible assets and went shopping for mouthpieces. Nothing out of the extraordinary, just yet another beak for my clarinet. I was intrigued to try one of Brad Behn's Ouvertures and inquired about them.
I was surprised to learn that there isn't just "one reliable facing", Brad offered the "standard" and "vintage" facings, and because I'm bad at deciding (you'll see that later again) I ordered them both. With ~35$ apiece you can't do much wrong, I thought.
Yesterday the two specimen arrived, and instead of thoroughly noodle them somewhere down in the basement I did what many people do when the go "gear shopping" in a physically existing store. I gathered all my mouthpieces of that class (cheap plastic student mouthpieces), took clipboard, pencil, a couple of reeds and did "testing". Looked very scientific in the beginning, and it ended like a Merlot sampling at the Wine Fair - in the late end, I couldn't tell them apart very well.
Still, there are some findings: I tested with a #3, #3.5 and #4 Mitchell Lurie (all broken-in) and a #3 Légère Ontario, Rovner Dark and my Marigaux RS 351. I tested my two Behn Ouvertures ("Vintage" and "Standard" facing), a Fobes Debut, a Hite Premiere and a Yamaha 4C. (I did not measure neither temperature nor humidity)
The #3 performed best on Behn's "Standard" and Fobes. On the Hite I found it a tad too bright while on both the 4C and the "Vintage" it appeared a bit stuffy - not unpleasant in sound put harder to play.
The #3.5 was excellent on the "Standard" and Hite; on the other ones it was "only" very good. Solid and all, but not an eyebrow-lifter like on the first two.
The #4 performed nice dark and creamy on the "Vintage"; on the "Standard" and the Fobes it was easy to play, the Hite and the Yamaha appeared a bit more resistant. Nice sound, but a red face.
The Légère was okay everywhere, maybe a tad brighter on the "Vintage" and the Hite. Nothing to write home about, but still a good card in one's sleeve.
A second round with the same reeds did what stirring in a pan of overcooked beans does - the differences got mushier and mushier, and I could play good and bad on any reed, any mouthpiece. Maybe my embouchure isn't locked-in yet and I adapt too easily.
The usual question after a test would be: "which one?". Tough call. If I had the choice of one and only one, I honestly wouldn't know. Behn's "Standard" would certainly make it on the lone island, as would the Fobes. On the other hand, if you know zip about mouthpieces and the choice is limited, the Yamaha 4C isn't the worst choice either. While it doesn't excel anywhere, it is always a solid #2 or #3, and if the quality is consistent across systems (Alto Clarinet, Tenor Sax, ...) it is a safe choice. Then again, the Hite's price is hard to beat.
A killer argument might be Behn's choice of facings. I've never seen (nor expected) a mouthpiece offered with a facing of the user's choice. This is certainly one step ahead of the "one size fits all" pack and worth serious pondering.
On http://www.hochstrasser.org/wiki/pmwiki.php/Clarinet/StudentMouthpieces I posted pictures of these five mouthpieces. One could think that the first four (Behn, Fobes and Hite) are made from the same blanks. For some reason, Behn's don't have any ligature ring grooves; the Yamaha is substantially slimmer than the other four and is made of a different material.
All in all I learned: I suck at testing. After enough noodling I can't tell X from Y. I haven't got the mental instrumentarium nor the experience to make an educated assessment. I'm still standing at the lower end of the food chain, so see that review from a student's perspective. I can adapt and if I only have a Graftonite and a #4 Rico Royal, so be it. Can't be as bad as my one (and only) attempt of "improving a mouthpiece's facing". ;-)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: 53engine
Date: 2008-03-20 21:49
This is very interesting. Doesn't this kind of remind us of the ofter heard belief that, after awhile, a good player sounds like himself on just about any piece equipment. It just takes less work on the right equipment. I mean wouldn't (I wont even use any names) so and so sound great on any equipment.
I have pondered this and other things like-if any company can cut any reed to any shape perfectly using computer assistance, why doesn't Rico make the same reed as Vandoren. Okay, it's the cane. But what about the cane. Then I say, flute players prefer gold headjoints over silver and platinum over gold and, I believe, rhodium, over platinum(may be wrong there). Now, what is it about these things that make the differences.
This is not brilliant, just for some comments. I think that the salient quality that makes the really good players sound about the same on any equipment is that the good players can correct rapidly and probably somewhat automatically. But that means that the material has to be responsive and what property of the material would make it responsive. I think it's density. The denser materials, Vandoren cane compared to that of Rico, platinum v. gold v. silver, reflect any subtle corrections more rapidly and accurately. These are heard by the player and then another feedback loop occurs. Kind of like using a billiard ball instead of an orange to make a difficult billiards shot.
I just doesn't seem to me that Rico couldn't cut the same reed as Vandoren or whatever and with today's technology, how much can it cost to make these changes. But if a reed maker has to cull a lot of cane to find the denser pieces, then that could add cost.
Is everybody going to say, "well duh" or can we get some comments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2008-03-20 22:28
Ben,
I like your post. My approach when testing/choosing so much equipment is to only do 2 at a time.
say you have 4 mouthpieces a,b,c,d
Play a vs b until you decide which one you like best. say you like "a" best. then put b away and never look at it again.
Now compare a and c, do the same procedure...
This way you only do 3 tests, much easier to keep your mind fresh and your ears open.
Changing the mouthpiece shoudl really be the only factor you vary otherwise you have too many things to try and not enough short term memory to really figure out what is best for you.
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2008-03-21 00:35
I rarely post anymore, however, I couldn't pass up the opportunity to say a few kind words about Brad Behn.
I have embouchure dystonia and Brad made several "adjustments" to his original Overture mpc for me. Yes, this mpc went back and forth several times and, of course, I paid all of the postage.
What makes Brad Behn stand out to me is that he was more than willing to reface his beginner, plastic mpc several times for me.
Now, I ask you, how many other mpc makers would work so hard on a $35, plastic mpc to please a customer?
Perhaps there are others and I simply don't know about them.
Just my opinion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2008-03-21 00:37
Dan,
I think very highly of Mr. Brad Behn too. One of these days I'll be able to afford his vintage mpc. I know he prefers the long facings and he really likes the old Selmers. I have a variety of old selmers and understand his appreciation. I've had a couple good email conversations with him .. just not the $$$ to snap something up.
==========
Stephen Sklar
My YouTube Channel of Clarinet Information
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2008-03-21 00:59
Nah, say it ain't so —
"In a demonstration of the power of marketing, researchers in California showed you can increase a person's enjoyment of wine by just sticking a higher price on it, according to a study released Monday....
"Antonio Rangel, an associate professor of economics at Caltech, and his colleagues found that changes in the stated price of a sampled wine influenced not only how good volunteers thought it tasted, but the activity of a brain region that is involved in our experience of pleasure. In other words, "prices, by themselves, affect activity in an area of the brain that is thought to encode the experienced pleasantness of an experience," Rangel says."
http://www.physorg.com/news119531708.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2008-03-21 01:49
say it ain't so .... or so it ain't say
note sure how true this is .....
excerpt from (another forum website) post #13
http://forum.saxontheweb.net/showthread.php?t=76108&highlight=wine
"I used my access as an NIH scientist to the full scientific article to get a few more specifics on the study design."
.....
"The wines were different varieties of Cabernet Sauvignon, and were dispensed in 1ml amounts (that's essentially the same as 1 cc) through a straw-like tubing. Subjects' mouths were rinsed out by a synthetic saliva-like solution in between tastings. Subjects were instructed to actually swallow and rate the wines only in a fraction of trials, so I suspect they did not get intoxicated.
Critically, the subjects were not members of some wine-tasting club, but:
"All subjects were screened for liking, and at least occasionally drinking, red wine."
So, the authors may not have been able to do the experiment with individuals with experience discriminating between small nuances in wine. However, the findings are very applicable to the many many purchasing decisions made when a consumer/buyer has limited familiarity with a complex type of product that they have not purchased before."
....
==========
Stephen Sklar
My YouTube Channel of Clarinet Information
Post Edited (2008-03-21 02:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2008-03-21 02:03
(Disclaimer- I am a future maker of rod rubber mouthpiece blanks and barrels - I receive no compensation from any mouthpiece maker)
Another Hip, Hip, Ho Ra for Brad. I am friends with several of the custom mouthpiece makers and trade, barter, or pay for mouthpieces from just about all of the high life’s and lower lives in the mouthpiece business. I too had Brad make a mouthpiece for me from an old Chedeville clunker and bought one of his intermediate Zinner mouthpieces. With several rounds of emails testing my strengths, playing style, and also weaknesses he faced the mouthpieces perfectly for me. He indeed offered to make further adjustments if needed, now and in the future, if things change for me. He is truly an artisan of the highest level.
Just a word (and IMO) about rational cost analysis of the more expensive Behn mouthpieces - I know from my own current experience that making proprietary rod rubber by the old methods is very expensive and there are rejects along the way which add greatly to the cost of the raw material. The R & D getting to the final formulation runs into the 10's of thousand dollars and several years of work (for me at least). I was not pleasantly surprised either at the cost - several thousand dollars - to get precise measurements of a prototype mouthpiece both inside (the costly part) and outside and translate them into CNC jargon. The best way of getting inside measurements to date (IMO) is to do a CAT scan and digitize the measurements of the scan. The CNC process too requires special new tooling and trial and error tweaks to get the inside hard angles as precise as possible. The later craftsmanship of finishing is an art form - something that I do not do - and requires a lot of work to produce the final product. Does the rubber make a difference or is it the craftsmanship, or both - well you must be the judge.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
Post Edited (2008-03-21 02:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2008-03-21 02:34
that's a really genius idea of using a cat scan as the cat scan breaks the images into planes. wow, accessories and mouthpiece line too? right on omar
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. they are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which was already but too easy to arrive as railroads lead to Boston to New York
-Walden; Henry Thoreau
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2008-03-21 19:29
Sometimes you just gotta get them both. The truth will out with time and concerts. And it's always good to have one and a spare.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: S. Friedland
Date: 2008-03-22 01:29
I've spent a lifetime playing the clarinet which means also playing the mouthpiece as well and after all of that, I have developed a few rules of absolute necessity in trying mouthpieces.
1. One must limit the variables.
We are after all, only human and we truly cannot tell what we are listening to after a certain number of variables have been added. If our ear is the commodity which is testing the mouthpieces, can it be confused by the array of variables?
a. how good and how sensitive is our ear? How is the memory of the ear?
b. What happens if one adds another reed to this mix?
c. Lord, what happens if we add a synthetic reed to this mix?
During a long career, I have endeavored to limit the variables as much as possible.
I try as few reeds as possible, perhaps three to six at a time.
I once heard a very great and world-class teacher say that a mouthpiece must immediately feel better in order to be kept. This gentleman strongly suggested that all students use a "medium" mouthpiece, nothing extreme.
In addition I believe that one must have a good reason for trying a new mouthpiece. It is not just for fun and there is no holy grail of a mouthpiece waiting , just out there, over the horizon to bring you the riches of the world of music.
Finally , a costly mouthpiece, no matter what its provenance , new or old, is simply not worth the money. As far as artist mouthpiece makers, what is the ear with which they are trying their mouthpiece as they make it?
Will it suit your way of playing , your sensitivity, your embouchure and your ear?
With all due respect, it just doesn't happen that way, at least not in my experience.
Sherman Friedland
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2008-03-22 13:52
In the end, the player adjusts to the mouthpieces, finds and adjusts suitable reeds as necessary, and continues to sound like him/herself. I find an analogy in driving multiple automobiles, which I do routinely --- although all of my cars are substantially different from one another, once I get in and turn the key I immediately adjust to all the differences and drive away happily. Musical instruments are no different. Humans are very adaptable.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ohsuzan
Date: 2008-03-22 14:34
<Finally , a costly mouthpiece, no matter what its provenance , new or old, is simply not worth the money.>
While I respect Sherman's experience, in my experience, there really are times when more *is* more.
Given a refined clarinet-playing skill level and all the time and access in the world, one probably could find an economical stock mouthpiece that would perform as well as some of the custom pieces.
But some of us actually don't have "world enough, and time." Hence, we become willing to pay to experience a master player's skills and judgment as manifested in an expensive custom mouthpiece.
Two $$-worthy mouthpieces, in my estimation, are the Fobes SF line (of which the inexpensive Debut is the entry-level) and Greg Smith's custom mouthpieces, which are a kick upstairs from even the best stock Fobes. These are mouthpieces that offer that "immediate" (and in my experience, dramatic) sense of improvement in one's playing, and continue to be among the things I'm happiest to have bought.
Susan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: doublej
Date: 2008-03-22 18:11
the best way I have found to test mouthpieces is pretty simple. Try a few reeds on each, upon doing this right down how it feels and not how it sounds. I try to make no opinion on how it sounds. However, I make a recording of all the mouthpieces when I try them. I then simply listen to the recordings as if I was listening to someone else. I decide whether I like the sound and compare that to the feel of the mouthpiece with the reeds. It must match up the two components if not the best in both categories then it needs to be close. I find that by separating the two I can be concentrating on only one thing at a time.
I have to add a note about Brad Behn, I sent him an E&S blank which was a chedeville. It was really unplayable when I sent it to him but you could still hear that there was something to it. When Brad sent it back to me it was great. I now use it as my backup mouthpiece. You may ask if it was so great why is it a backup well I tried his vintage line and found exactly what I have been looking for. That is why the recording is so important it gave me exactly what I had been looking for in sound enhancement. As an aside, I like to run thinkgs by someone who does not play an instrument. My mom and brother will listen for me. When I put on the kaspar based vintage from brad, my mom within 15 seconds said thats it. There was such a noticeable difference that she heard what I had heard on the recordings. The mouthpiece had allowed me the freedom and comfort to produce the closest sound that I hear in my head to date.
best
JJ ohsuzan wrote:
> <Finally , a costly mouthpiece, no matter what its provenance ,
> new or old, is simply not worth the money.>
>
> While I respect Sherman's experience, in my experience, there
> really are times when more *is* more.
>
> Given a refined clarinet-playing skill level and all the time
> and access in the world, one probably could find an economical
> stock mouthpiece that would perform as well as some of the
> custom pieces.
>
> But some of us actually don't have "world enough, and time."
> Hence, we become willing to pay to experience a master player's
> skills and judgment as manifested in an expensive custom
> mouthpiece.
>
> Two $$-worthy mouthpieces, in my estimation, are the Fobes SF
> line (of which the inexpensive Debut is the entry-level) and
> Greg Smith's custom mouthpieces, which are a kick upstairs from
> even the best stock Fobes. These are mouthpieces that offer
> that "immediate" (and in my experience, dramatic) sense of
> improvement in one's playing, and continue to be among the
> things I'm happiest to have bought.
>
> Susan
>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
