 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-08-27 19:45
I read somewhere about the structure of the mouthpiece. The author wrote the best shape of a facing is 'A section of a perfect circle-an arc, in other words. Not a flat and a curve, a curve and a flat, or any combination of compound curves. Just a plain but gradual, even curve.' Somebody else says the best shape of a facing is like a bullet. What is the difference between this two types? I mean when everything is the same except the shape of the curve. Is it a controversial thing like symmetrcal vs asymmetrical facing?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2010-08-27 21:32
Looks like all the experts are with other customers at this time. Yes, it's a controversial subject just like many other clarinet subjects.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2010-08-27 21:40
Yes, by all means there is one and only one correct and perfect facing and chamber.
.
.
.
.
.
And with that statement, I will leave it up to you and the rest of the posting population to inform us how it is constructed.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-08-28 03:35
OP- "I read somewhere about the structure of the mouthpiece. The author wrote the best shape of a facing is 'A section of a perfect circle-an arc, in other words. Not a flat and a curve, a curve and a flat, or any combination of compound curves. Just a plain but gradual, even curve.' "
First, if the author uses the word "best", it is an opinion. For that person and their playing they *believe* that a section of a "perfect circle" is the best. For someone else, it might not be.
Each kind of facing produces a different result, each suited to different players with different bodies and, most important, different goals. [edit- Two players that play in the same orchestra and aim to blend with each other and have a similar sound might be using a similar mouthpiece/reed/instrument/etc.. Where as a clarinet player that plays more chamber music will probably ahve very different equipment than a clarinet player that plays jazz a lot.]
I have a facing that is best for me, but when I make a 'piece for someone else, I try to make something that is best for them. Also, my facing is not best for me all the time. In some music　my "everyday mouthpiece" won't work well for the result, and I don't feel any guilt to use one mouthpiece for one kind of music and another mouthpiece for another kind of music.
Post Edited (2010-08-28 04:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Franklin Liao
Date: 2010-08-28 04:24
I find it bizarre that mp and barrel seem to affect each other. Some mps fare poorly with certain barrel, but are delightful with others. I guess I am starting to understand why the elusive search for the best setup is such a hot button issue for the pros.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-08-28 08:48
Thanks for all the posts but I'm still curious what is the difference between the two types. Does anyone has an experience whith this? Or can anyone tell me examples?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2010-08-28 12:08
Some mouthpieces open up much more toward the tip.......probably more common with mouthpieces that have longer lays (longer distance from the tip down to where the reed and mouthpiece meet). This though, must be coupled with how your reed is cut (or how you finish them). If your reeds are much thinner at the very tip, you would probably want a bigger curve at the end...........or rather, if your mouthpiece has a bigger curve toward the tip, you would finish it thinner there.
A good example may be the pairing of the Pyne mouthpiece and those Spanish reeds whose name I can't remember.
....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2010-08-28 15:11
Alexi,
Nonoe of these. I don't think they exist anymore, but almost every Pyne person to a man used them because they had that really soft tip.
Anybody?
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-08-28 16:32
Thanks for all the posts but I'm still curious what is the difference between the two types. Does anyone has an experience whith this? Or can anyone tell me examples?
You should register with the Yahoo Group called "MouthpieceWork". It is free to get a yahoo.com account, if you don't already have one, and registering in MouthpieceWork is also free.
They have a lot of information and discussions about these issues.
Not to sound cold, but I don't think that most mouthpiece folks will tell the results of their experiments openly here.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bennett ★2017
Date: 2010-08-28 16:48
If you Google 'bullet shapes' you'll see that they come in all sorts of shapes, including some that appear to be spherical (= arcs of a circle). I think your question must be answered: yes and no.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-08-28 16:48
What are they afraid of??? I have never understood this attitude. Thanks for the advice, I will check out that group.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-08-28 16:51
Search for Clark Fobes's blog on google. There he describes this bullet shape with a drawing too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2010-08-28 19:50
Sonicbang: "What are they afraid of??? I have never understood this attitude."
If you had invested years of your life in R & D with an eye towards improving a product and making money, would you openly and freely give away all you have learned to your competitors? Probably not. However, I think I can answer your questions at the level you asked from common knowledge.
Facings of different curves give different sounds/resistances/responses. So, the "best" facing curve will vary from player to player, depending upon what best fits an individual player's needs and desires.
Specifically, and to use your terminology, a circular arc type facing is less resistant and gives a warmer, fuller sound. Think old Chedeville style. The bullet shape is more resistant, gives a snappier reed response, and has a more compact sound. This is more of a Kaspar approach. Generally, players that take less mouthpiece will prefer the bullet shape. Players that like to use thick reeds, especially at the tip, will probably like a more arc like facing. Players that like thinner tips that don't want a reedy sound will find bullet shapes help more.
Asymmetrical facings are ones where one rail is higher than the other. Some manufacturers make all their mouthpieces this way and some make both symmetrical and asymmetrical. Most just make (or try to make) symmetrical mouthpieces. There are volumes about it written here and elsewhere, along with many a heated discussion, so I do recommend a search.
IMO, there is no "best" facing. The refacer I know that is the leading proponent of the ideas in your original post is the one whose mouthpiece work I most often see being resold by his customers. To me, that speaks volumes about a "one size fits all" approach.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-08-29 00:12
I'm feeling a little lost in this thread. What exactly was sonicbang's source describing? I've never seen a mouthpiece facing that looked like a section of an arc - they all look like they curve very gradually near the table, then more quickly as they approach the tip, like a half parabola.
I have mouthpieces that are advertised to be copies of vintage H. Chedevilles, C. Chedevilles, Cicero Kaspars and Ann Arbor Kaspars, and they have essentially identical curve measurements (obviously the interiors are meant to be different). It seems to me, if we're talking about arc segments vs. bullet shapes, that one end or the other of each of these curve types or their lengths would measure quite differently.
Can someone familiar with what is meant by this distinction between arc- and bullet-shaped facings explain or describe them in a little more detail? Are we talking about curve beginning where it separates from the straight line of the flat table (and from the reed)? Or is some or all of the table included in the "bullet" shape the source cited?
TIA,
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-08-29 01:39
The OP is talking about wh you look at the mouthpiece from the side.
A circular arc is one that is taken from a circle, thus has an even curve from.
I think that the "bullet" shape he is talking about is a parabola.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-08-29 01:53
Regarding the circle/arc principle you can look to mouthpieceworks. It seems that there is a long held theory that sax mouthpiece facing curves should have the shape of a radial arc. Not only is it a radial curve but it seems it must be tangential. Mouthpieceworks has many graphs related to this subject. It also seems that the clarinet curve deviates from this model being more elliptical in shape. There is also some interesting material on the website of theo Wanne. He has come up with several curves that he believes are close to ideal. They are based on theory and practice.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-08-29 03:17
Well, I know what the words mean (though, maybe, I'm not quite sure what is meant here by "even") - I've just never seen a clarinet facing that *looked* like a true arc (but I've admittedly never actually tried to derive a complete circle from the measurements I get with feelers). As far as a bullet shape is concerned, the bullets I've seen have parallel (straight) sides and then come into a point either conically or by some kind of parabolic shape. So far as I've ever been able to measure, none of the facings I've ever seen seemed to have flat areas (as suggested in the original post) once they'd started to leave the plane of the table (which I can only assume is not for the purpose of this discussion included). The curves (again, only eyeballing in conjunction with the standard 5 measurements along the curve) seem continuous - only the rate of curve increases as it nears the tip.
Of course, I'm also thinking only of clarinet mouthpieces - I've never really looked so closely at the sax mouthpieces I've used.
I will look at the material Arnoldstang suggested. It's an interesting idea I'd never run into before.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-08-29 14:35
Karl, I forgot to include this info......mouthpieceworks is a yahoo group. The arc that is referred to is from a circle but one has to imagine a line hitting the outside of the circle at one point and then continuing outside the circle. The straight line could be thought of as the reed and the arc eminating from it would be the mouthpiece curve. Although one thinks of a circle as being symmetrical in its curve about its center this particular relationship shows a curve that starts out curving slowly and then increases dramatically. One has to find the appropriate diameter of circle for the application. Hope this non science clarifies the theory here. In any case it does have some application and perhaps the numbers involved are more than just "trial and error". If you email direct I can go a further with this. I have a system that I used.....my own recipe for excel graphing.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-08-30 18:27
I made some observation on some Vandorens I have and it seems they have a rather 'bullet shaped' facing curve. Maybe it's a stupid question but does it mean that the Vandoren mouthpieces have some relationship with the Kaspars? I forgot to mention: I have B45 profile, B45Lyre, B45 Lyre profile, B40 and I took a look at one M30 too. I think that's why I can play on a B40 with Vandoren 3 ( both traditional and V12) because the resistance is in the mouthpiece and not in the reed. Maybe not. Any guess???
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
