 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Alan McDonald
Date: 2010-05-28 15:03
Hello
I have read some of the older comments in regards to the Boosey and Hawkes 926 Imperial, and as I have just acquired a 926 or at least I thought it was fully a 926. But then discovering that the upper section had a different number than the bottom section I noticed upon greater inspection that the upper section is in fact marked Boosey and Hawkes Emporer
I have been playing this clarinet with a B45 Vandoren mouthpeice but am rather curious as to whether this mouthpeice is quite sufficient or whether I should buy a Boosey and Hawkes 926 mouthpeice?
If the bore of this Emporer section is smaller in diameter could it be rebored or is this being too drastic?
Any advice would be appreciated
Thanks
Alan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2010-05-28 16:06
The B&H Emperor and Imperial 926 models both used a 0.593" bore so you shouldn't have a problem in that regard. As far as mouthpeices go I believe that the myth about having to use B&H mouthpieces has been largely debunked. I use a regular Fobes mouthpiece on my B&H and it plays just fine.
Post Edited (2010-05-28 16:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-05-28 18:38
I regularly play two B&H clarinets and have overhauled/modified/sold numerous others, purchased by customers or by me. All models from the 1-10/Regent on up to the Imperial 926/Emperor (including Edgware, Series 2-20, Stratford, Series 8-10, etc. as well as stencils under different brand names) have identical .593" bores. I have no problems playing any of these with any mouthpiece. Your mileage may vary, void where prohibited, yada yada......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: chris moffatt
Date: 2010-05-30 00:15
The emperor was a notch below the Imperial 926 in the B&H hierarchy but I shouldn't think any difference is big enough to be noticeable especially in playing characteristics. This morning, trying to decide if I need a new mouthpiece or not, I triaged the 16 or so mpcs in the drawer by testing them all out on 1. my oehler, 2. my Selmer 10, 3. my BH 926. The results for the 926 turned out as follows from best to not so best (but still eminently playable): 1. Buffet C crown (and no - I don't need a new mpc), 2. Noblet 3V, 3. Vandoren B46, 4. Selmer C*, 5. BH 926.
FWIW: the BH926 mpc worked better on the oehler than on the 926 horn. Tests carried out using Rico Reserve 3.5s and Mitchell Lurie 3.5s and the same ligature was used throughout.
As an added note- these 3 horns have been spiegelized. If you have not yet done so I highly recommend you give your 926 the same treatment
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ito
Date: 2010-05-30 13:21
Hi,want to ask anyone change the barrel of the B&H 926?if so,what barrel did you changed to?thanks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alan McDonald
Date: 2010-05-30 13:48
Hi,
I haven't changed the barrel. Barrel is original B&H marked 926.
I'm quite happy with this instrument. I was unsure whether I really needed a 926 mouthpiece and whether it made any difference in the upper part being an Emporer.
I appreciate the feedback.
I'm now a little wiser.
Thanks to all
Alan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ito
Date: 2010-05-30 14:25
Hi alan,
I ordered a Ed pillinger 926 mouthpiece,it play with ease and the tonal quality is wonderful,,you might want to check it out,i myself play only a B&H 926 clarinet too,sorry to hi-jack your thread to ask if anyone have change the barrel for it..as i am hoping to get it change..
Thanks,
Ito
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
