 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2010-03-20 18:18
Warning - technical information contained below. This thread is admittedly aimed towards those that want an in depth analysis or discussion of the issue.
This topic has come up fairly often and there seems to be some confusion on the subject, with good reason. A lot of different factors affect resistance and the term is used to describe two different, yet similar, phenomenon. I'll start off by posting my perceptions of 30+ years as a professional player and technician. Please feel free to add, correct, question, or discuss any of this if you wish.
There are two types of resistance from a player's perspective. The first is, of course, the amount of air pressure necessary to make the set up play. The second, though, is the maximum amount of air that a set up will allow through. While many players might find a closed set up free blowing, other players that want to move a larger volume of air will find it resistant because they are having to blow a lot harder to try and get more air through the horn.
The largest factor regarding maximum air allowed is the tip opening. This is why it's important for a player to find the right tip opening for the amount of air he or she feels comfortable blowing. This is also part of the confusion in terminology, as many players will describe a close tip opening as resistant because they are dealing with the same problem as traditional resistance, too much air pressure is required to play the way they want.
Factors that affect resistance are:
1) Reed Strength - a stiffer reed requires more pressure to be made to vibrate. Many players use more embouchure pressure with a stiffer reed. This effectively closes down the tip opening and somewhat reduces the extra amount of air pressure needed.
2) Facing Length - generally, the shorter the facing, the greater the pressure that is required to get the reed to close. I say generally because, without getting too technical, there is "functional" length to a facing that can vary some from the facing length if a nontraditional facing curve is used. Typically, mostly air pressure, rather than embouchure pressure, is required.
3) Tip Rail Thickness - a thicker tip rail will increase resistance very quickly and can require a lot of extra air pressure. Thicker tip rails make the sound darker and fuller. Often a player can use a softer reed to help with the resistance without getting a reedy sound. The biggest drawback to a thick tip is that it slows down response, especially when tonguing.
4) Tip Opening - technically, all other things being equal, a larger tip opening takes more air and/or embouchure pressure to make work. This is usually more than compensated for by using a softer reed and the fact that bigger tip pieces usually have longer facings.
5) Side Rail Thickness - many feel that thicker side rails increase resistance. I have found that this is a function of the window being narrower. Thinning the rails from the outside of the piece doesn't really affect resistance. Thinning from the inside, essentially making the window wider, does decrease resistance and makes the piece slightly brighter.
6) Window Size - a narrower window (distance between the side rails) increases resistance. Some feel a narrow window makes a piece stuffy and unresponsive. Also, a shorter window can add a little resistance, which is more noticeable in the low register. Obviously, window shape can have an effect since it changes these dimensions.
7) Baffle - There are two functional areas to the baffle, the area right behind the tip and then the rest of the baffle, sometimes called the floor of the mouthpiece. The area behind the tip, if high, will add resistance. However, a high baffle also increases reed response by speeding up the air stream. Too high and it really can choke off the low register response. If it gets too low, the high notes will go flat. Higher baffles can also be a little brighter (this is a complicated subject), though nothing at all like with sax mouthpieces where the baffle can be proportionately much closer to the reed.
8) Chamber and Throat Size/Shape - these things have a small effect on the actual resistance. However, they definitely have an effect on sound and a player may find they have to blow a lot easier or harder to get the sound they want, all other factors being equal. This means a player may perceive a larger change of resistance than there actually is by changing these factors.
9) Barrel - generally, the larger the bore, the less the resistance. Larger bore barrels get a bigger sound. Tapered barrels seem to function somewhat as an average of the largest and smallest diameters, although closer to the smallest diameter. Also, the shape of the taper can make a barrel's resistance change significantly between dynamics. For example, a tapered barrel can seem to get inordinately more resistant as a player gets louder.
10) Horn Bore Size and Shape - generally, smaller bores are more resistant, darker, and get a smaller sound. The polycylindrical bore still has the resistance and darkness of the smaller bore but with a larger sound.
And, of course, each of these factors is affected by changing any of the other factors. Balancing the preferred resistance between the reed, mouthpiece, barrel, and horn to also end up with the desired sound and response obviously is very complicated. It's more art than science, especially since every player is different.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2010-03-21 06:01
I've always been a little puzzled by a couple of these areas. The area of the baffle right behind the tip: many of the mouthpieces I've liked not only have a perceptible hump or raised area just behind the tip, but also the raised area is not regular - it looks uneven, almost accidental. Other mouthpieces I like equally appear to have straight surfaces in the same area. What really is going on there?
How do you accurately measure the depth of the baffle? Matson used to use popsicle sticks at the bottom of the window, and I'm sure depth gauge on a standard vernier caliper would do as well, but the shape from the tip to the throat would, I imagine, be just as important. What is an accurate way to measure the shape of the baffle closely enough to compare one mouthpiece to another meaningfully. Most players I know just sort of look at it and say they can see the shape. Unless the difference between two mouthpieces is extreme, I'm never sure what I'm seeing.
You don't mention the bore beyond the throat. What is the effect of larger/smaller bores and tapers? I once had a teacher ruin a mouthpiece that had played fairly well (I thought) until he applied a reamer to the bore that had been designed for him in the process of developing his own mouthpiece. Suddenly the mouthpiece was stuffy and unstable.
Thanks for any insight.
Karl
|
|
|
|
|
Author: TianL
Date: 2010-03-22 20:11
ww.player,
thanks for the great information.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-03-22 22:59
I have a student that had a lot of resistance in his set up. I suggest that we try several different mouthpieces to find one that was less resistant for him. He ask if he could try my Backun barrel that I have on my Buffet, I also use a Selmer, clarinet just for curiosity.Either one of us ever imagined that it would make as much difference in alleviating the resistance in his clarinet. He's ordering several to find one that's plays similar to mine. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
|
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-23 00:41
Stefan Schiller (Principal oboe in Munich) said in a master class yesterday that resistance should be "a 50-50 with you and the reed". You should never win or lose the battle. You shouldn't be able to overpower it easily and it shouldn't be able to overpower you easily either.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2010-03-23 06:32
ww.player: May I add a few details to your posting?
"1) Reed Strength - a stiffer reed requires more pressure to be made to vibrate." True, but only on a short or medium facing. On a long facing with a close tip, a stiffer reed is practically mandatory to prevent it from closing up.
"2) Facing Length - generally, the shorter the facing, the greater the pressure that is required to get the reed to close." True, but only if the tip is too open. For example, because I have embouchure dystonia, I reface my mouthpieces to a 0.032" tip opening with a 26 facing length. That is an extremely short facing length, however because the tip opening is so small, I am able to play with extreme ease.
"3) Tip Rail Thickness - a thicker tip rail will increase resistance very quickly and can require a lot of extra air pressure." True because increasing the thickness of the tip or the side rails effectively reduces the area of the reed which is hit by the oscillating air. However, this is only true if the tip of the reed is at the tip of the mouthpiece when closed. Pushing the reed down to the middle of the tip (when closed) will reduce the resistance.
"7) Baffle... The area behind the tip, if high, will add resistance." Sorry, but this is not true. A higher baffle actually reduces the resistance. Look at your next sentence: "However, a high baffle also increases reed response by speeding up the air stream." How can you have increased resistance and an increased reed response by speeding up the air stream? The only way to have an increase in the air stream or reed response is to reduce the resistance.
I'm certainly no expert, however I have found the above to be true.
Just my 2 pennies worth.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2010-03-23 08:04
Re the thickness of the tip and side rails, it seems that it depends how they are made thicker or thinner. I guess their in comparison with the reed i.e. inside is the most relevant, but this doesn't only change their thickness but also the inside shape/volume of the mouthpiece in this area. Making them thicker outside the reed could maybe change slightly the shape of the mouth when playing (the mouthpiece will be "fatter"). So it seems to me that changing those must also change other things. For the tip thickness, you could move the reed slightly higher or lower, which would also change the tip opening, right?
Dan Shusta wrote:
>> True, but... <<
For 1 & 2 in your list, I assumed ww.player meant when compared with the same mouthpiece. Comparing these things with different mouthpieces, like in your examples, is not actually comparing these things.
BTW what do you mean by a facing length of 26? I assume 26mm. That is not a short facing at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-23 12:19
Mr. Shusta,
I would not try to connect responsiveness with resistance in such a direct manner. Many very closed mouthpieces have excellent response, or more open mouthpieces with high baffles (creating a similar experience as a closed mouthpiece). Resistance, I would argue, is the setups willingness to larger amounts and faster speeds of air.
A mouthpiece of fast response does not equal a mouthpiece of great blowing ease and low resistance.
Also, because moving the reed down decreases resistance does not mean that his statement is any less true about tip and side rail thickness.
When discussing reeds interaction with mouthpieces, I agree.
Clarnibass:
He is referring to length on the Brand gauge (half millimeters). Most mouthpieces measure between 32-36, so 26 is quite short. Most mouthpieces made by both mass produced and custom makers fall between 32-36, so yes. This is quite short. It seems to suit Mr. Shusta, so to each their own as to what works.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2010-03-23 14:26
From clarnibass:
"...inside is the most relevant (I agree), but this doesn't only change their thickness but also the inside shape/volume of the mouthpiece in this area." Here, I would say "not necessary so" because the mouthpiece maker could simply make the inside volume or chamber larger to compensate.
"For the tip thickness, you could move the reed slightly higher or lower, which would also change the tip opening, right?" I would say "no" because the tip is supposed to be perfectly flat. So, moving the reed down on a flat tip should not affect tip opening. IMO, moving the tip down would expose more of the thinner tip portion to the oscillating air.
"For 1 & 2 in your list, I assumed ww.player meant when compared with the same mouthpiece." I agree, however, that was not specifically stated and that is why I brought up the need for a very stiff reed with a long to very long facing.
NBeaty:
First of all, I want to tell you how much I enjoy reading your responses. Always very informative and I certainly learn a lot!
Now, back to the subject of resistance. To me, resistance is directly connected with effort. If tone production requires more effort, then the resistance is high and vise versa. However, I believe my definition of resistance also fits into what you wrote about moving large amounts of air. I.e., if a player can move large amounts of air with little effort, then the resistance is low.
"Also, because moving the reed down decreases resistance does not mean that his statement is any less true about tip and side rail thickness." I agree if what you are implying is that the sound or tonal qualities would not change. That being said, the response should increase making articulation easier and also making higher pitched notes easier to produce.
Yes, my 26 facing is really 13mm.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-23 16:30
Hi Mr. Shusta,
I still mean that the reed position effects resistance (as you say), but that it is independent of the factor of side and tip rail thickness.
The thickness of the rails and tip can increase or decrease the resultant affect of moving the reed up or down (or side to side for that matter). So in a sense they are connected. When you change any one thing in a mouthpiece, or reed, it affects other things.
When the rails are thick, a more responsive reed is needed to compensate for the resistance of the rails. When rails are thinner, or when they are (IMO) too thin, it requires the player to "put" stability into the reed. As with most things, to me, the truth is somewhere in the middle, a balance.
-Nathan
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2010-03-23 18:10
Hi Nathan,
When you wrote: "When the rails are thick, a more responsive reed is needed to compensate for the resistance of the rails." To me, a more responsive reed means a softer reed and I agree. I fail to understand how side rails (by themselves) add resistance. To me, side rails simply hold the reed in place. However, thicker side rails makes the window area smaller and this also reduces the area of the reed which is exposed to the back wave pressure. This, IMO, is really what necessitates a softer reed.
Perhaps we're really saying the same thing only we're using different words.
I agree with you in that when the side rails are too thin, problems certainly do result. (I've done some filing of side rails just to see how it affects playability.)
So, yes, I agree that side rails and tip width can be either too thick or too thin and, as you wrote, the balance (for best, stable performance with the least resistance) is somewhere in the middle.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: jasperbay
Date: 2010-03-23 18:12
Many thanks to ww.player and Mr. Shusta for this thread. Combining this info with Tom Ridenaur's short video on reed sanding/finishing, I've finally been able to reface a cheap no-name mouthpiece that you could barely get a (ww.player resistance type 1)squeak out of, to play nearly as well with a DIY finished Rico cheapo reed as my favorite Vandorens play. Its really nice to finally get some idea about the way tip opening, rails,facing length and reed strength inter-relate, without all that voodoo mumbo jumbo clarinet geeks are prone to when discussing mouthpieces. Maybe there's hope for all those stock Buffet mouthpieces yet!! , but some things may be beyond hope.
Clark G. Sherwood
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2010-03-23 18:46
ww.player wrote:
"10) Horn Bore Size and Shape - generally, smaller bores are more resistant..."
If you're talking about the volume of air, I believe I can agree with that statement. However, if you're talking about response, a small bore clarinet with appropriate undercutting of the tone holes can, according to my understanding, make the instrument very responsive.
According to all I have read, undercutting of tone holes always improves response (easier tone production) and quality of and evenness of tones.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-23 23:50
Dan,
I think we are making mostly the same points. The thing with "side rail resistance" is that it creates a degree of "hold" or more specifically "dark stability" to the feel and sound of the piece. Many zinner mouthpieces with wide side rails have a great deal of this type of effect. It inhibits the freedom and flexibility of the mouthpiece. Many makers use this to create a darker sound and a more mellow sound.
This is why, in my opinion, there are a lot of zinner based mouthpieces that sound AMAZING in chamber music situations when blending is of high importance and projection is slightly less important when you're not trying to play over an orchestra.
Basically, thinner side rails allow a "zippier" and more "vibrant" sound that is quicker and more flexible. As we've already stated, it can become a point of diminishing returns when the rails become too thin.
It would be much easier to describe my point if we were all in the same place with a few representative mouthpieces. Alas, I hope my point is now SLIGHTLY clearer?
-Nathan
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2010-03-24 02:51
Nathan,
It still seems to me that what you refer to as "side rail resistance" creating a degree of "hold" is simply less reed area reacting to the back wave pressure which gives the impression that the side rail is somehow holding onto the reed.
I'm going to email Brad Behn and ask him to join this discussion. Perhaps his explanation can help me understand what you are referring to.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-24 15:17
I'm looking forward to his possible contribution. At the very least, the wider the side rails, the narrower the camber of the mouthpiece is to some extent. I think that contributes somewhat to a feeling of resistance .
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2010-03-24 16:02
Actually, I'm pretty sure a narrower chamber "reduces" resistance and gives a brighter sound output. I've seen many an advertisement where a larger chamber produces a more full and rounded sound. (Don't you just love the people who write this stuff??!!!!)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-03-24 18:28
The mouthpieces that I have with the "A frame" chamber, being slightly larger than more narrow and straight ones, have less resistance and allow more air to pass. Many of them also make the sound a bit too wide and diffused.
I want to start writing for mouthpiece companies. Things like "This mouthpiece will provide a red velvety color along with a hint of blue and white".
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2010-03-25 09:27
"To me, resistance is directly connected with effort."
And to me, that effort is greatly increased if the clarinet has leaks.
|
|
|
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
