 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Maestro_6
Date: 2010-11-23 02:26
I like them. They offer a more stable feeling, better articulation, easier altissimo, and some can be quite reed-friendly. So why are they not-so-much in fashion compared to the long lays?
I have myself a brand new Gigliotti P34. I tweaked it slightly, but the curve is 16mm. Strangely enough, I love the V12 #4 reeds even on its short facing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ddavani
Date: 2010-11-23 03:01
The short facing allows for you to have more freedom of your playing with less work from you. The idea is, with a shorter facing, you don't need to put in as much air into the horn as you would in a larger facing and you get a focused, direct, and beautiful sound. Having said that, if you look at the more open facings, they require more air, however, you get the same result with a much more full and powerful sound (even in the quiet range when you master it).
So yes, the closer facings do allow for more freedom, though, you will get more of a presence and vibrant sound with the open facings, as well as the articulation, altissimo, etc. That's really why people seem to like the wider facings much more than the closer ones.
-Dave Davani
http://allclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2010-11-23 03:19
Dave, I think you're getting beak length mixed up with tip opening.
The other points I'll let someone else comment on.
B.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill G
Date: 2010-11-23 03:50
I don't propose an answer to this question, but can report a recent good result which I have found with a short facing. I recently posted a question on this Board as to whether a short facing might be helpful with my overbite. It seemed to me that it might facilitate placing my lower jaw at the sweet spot on the mouthpiece. One member agreed that it might help, but no one reported any actual experience.
Shortly after posing the question I saw for sale a Vandoren B44 ( a discontinued short facing mouthpiece) and I bought it. I found that it gave great results, seemingly just as I thought it might. Query: To what extent might the desirable facing length be related to the player's bite?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-11-23 10:08
In my experience shorter facings tend to provide a "brighter", "harder", more "brittle" and more "compact" sound (unfortunately we have to resort to using inadequate words to describe tonal qualities). Shorter facings are generally played with lighter-strength reeds, which tend to be more fragile and maybe more variable in quality. These are just my personal opinions based on my own preferences, but as a long-time player and mouthpiece refacer I have a reasonably good experience base. It's all very much dependent on the player's embouchure and tonal concept, of course. When I was a young player I preferred shorter facings with relatively open tips; now I play the opposite type of mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-11-23 13:26
I think Gigliotti himself gradually lengthened the curve on his P facing to allow himself to use heavier reeds without losing response and vibrancy. He produced the P34 to accommodate players who weren't comfortable with the idiosyncrasies of the 19 mm curve of the P. The curve on the P34 is (or was) meant to be 17 mm (a 34 on an Eric Brand measuring glass with a .0015" feeler, the thinnest he included in his original refacing kit), hence the name P34. I'm not sure I'd describe it as "short," although if yours is actually 16 mm you're getting there. I've played mouthpieces that measured 30 (15 mm) on the glass.
The trade off is that you need to use softer reeds as you shorten the curve, heavier ones as you lengthen it. Many players find they hear different tone characteristics in their sounds when they use softer or harder reeds. The goal is to keep a responsive feel while looking for the sound you want to produce.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-11-23 13:48
I wrote "generally", Iceland. There are always exceptions. For my own playing I consider #4 and up (Vandoren strength scale or equivalent) to be 'harder' reeds, and 3.5 and lower to be 'lighter' reeds. Whatever......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-11-23 18:22
It's my feeling that many players take more mouthpiece in their mouths than players did years ago to get a "fuller" and richer tone. With a closed facing there is also a tendency to close off the reed easier since there's less reed vibrating. I never thought about it before because I've always like medium facings. Too long a facing makes it difficult to control the reed and as I said, too closed can make it to easy to close off the reed. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2010-11-23 18:41
Ok David I use V-12 # 3.5+ on Grabner SW1-Personal(who was then to be Chicago model) which has I believe 17mm facing and 0.98mm opening and would be considered as short facing. The best thing I like about it is better stability in the high register compared to Grabner K-14 I own and the feel I get by the fact that I need to put less mouthpiece in.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Plonk
Date: 2010-11-23 18:56
Can someone put into plain English what "short facing" actually means, thanks!
I have a Vandoren B45 mp. What facing would that be?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Maestro_6
Date: 2010-11-23 20:04
A short facing means that the length of space where the mouthpiece doesn't meet the reed at the tip end is shorter on the typical measuring scale.
Turn the mouthpiece sideways (with the reed on) in front of a light. Facing length differences are notable just by looking at them like this. They can usually range from 15-21mm, yet there are some mouthpieces that are probably even longer or shorter. The B45 is in the medium-long category I believe...
Post Edited (2010-11-23 20:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-11-23 20:39
Vytas Krass said to me facing length has no influence on the sound at all. I belive he's right, because he refaced very nicely two mouthpieces for me, and it's clear that the difference between them is not effected by facing lenght and tip opening. Of course the feel is different, and that's exactly what is effected by the facing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Maestro_6
Date: 2010-11-23 20:49
Thats a nice point sonicbang! Perhaps it has to do with the reed selection? If there is more material near the higher part of the vamp, the sound is probably better on a shorter facing since there is more material along the curve to vibrate. I just tried out a Blue Box 4 and immediately noticed an improved tone over the brighter V12s.
Something to think about.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-11-23 21:07
I've always considered a 28 or 30 (14 or 15 mm) as short, 32-36 as medium and anything longer as long. This isn't hard and fast by any means. But I've always considered those 34 (17 mm) length facings - pretty much standard for French style facings and the length that the Gigliotti P34 is meant to be - as medium in length. His P facing is 38 (19 mm).
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-11-25 17:49
I don't agree that a short facing doesn't effect a mouthpiece, of course it does. Everything effects a mouthpiece, that's why there are so many on the market. The length of the facing is only one factor, you have the tip opening, the thickness and the curve of the rails and the tip, the way the baffle is cut, how deep the inside of the mouthpiece goes down, the bore size the material and who know what else. I don't know how V. Kraas can say it has no effect on the sound. If you took a mouthpiece that you liked with a long facing and put on a short facing it would become an entirely different mouthpiece. Every single difference between one mouthpiece and another makes some difference, some small some large. That's the reason that no two mouthpieces are exactly alike. I use an old Morgan clarinet mouthpiece and I asked him to try to match another one for me so it played exactly the same, he tried, he came close, but they are slightly different. He told me what I already knew, what Matson told me years before, you can get close but you can't make two mouthpieces exactly alike because there are too many variables to deal with. Everything has some effect and that of course includes the length of the facing. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-11-25 18:16
Of course with a shorter facing you have to use different reeds than you would use with a longer one. Yes, facing length has an effect on the type of reed required, and reed influences the sound. In this way, it's a correct statement.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2010-11-26 02:46
Some people I have talked to suggested that the next measurement closer to the tip is more signifcant. ie the .010 feeler guage with the old standard feeler guage set. .0015, .010, .024, .034 They also suggest that the difference between the first two measurements might be more important. ie curve of 34, 24, 12, 6 gives 10 difference in the first two points.. I suppose this gives it a nice ramp that isn't too abrupt. There are many opinions.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2010-11-26 07:19
There's a chicken and egg aspect to this. It seems that (as a very broad generalisation) facings used to be shorter than they now tend to be. Since the biggest determinant of sound and feel of a set up is created by the match of reed design to mouthpiece facing design (and by reed design I mean much more than merely strength), the characteristics of a shorter facing mouthpiece can only be properly appreciated with a reed that is designed to work well on it (irrespective of hardness). How can we know whether the modern array of reeds suits the now less usual shorter facing mouthpiece? It is too easy to assume that longer lays have advantages over shorter lays when the simple truth may be that this is made to appear so by the tendencies in the designs of modern reeds.
A supplementary question then, to help people like Maestro who feel that they would prefer shorter facings: can anyone recommend two or three available reed designs that are optimised for shorter facings?
Next question, which is better, facings that tend towards being nearly flat upon departure from the table (old English lays apparently had that curve characteristic) or ones that have a marked curve characteristic? And which reeds go with those?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-11-26 15:49
This has become an interesting topic. One has to consider the formation of a persons teeth when discussing this topic too. If a player has a substantial underbite with the lower teeth or the opposite, a large overbite, that will influence greatly whether they can play a shorter, medium or longer facing because the pressure placement on the reed will be at a different point for each. So a short facing with a player that has an underbite will be taking in almost no reed at all in their mouth, and of course the opposite with an overbite. There are many factors involved in why one person gets their sound and another person can't no matter what equipment they use and that certainly applies to the type of opening and length of the mouthpiece facing. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-11-26 17:26
In general reeds with a soft tip work well with short facing. I thing this is the reason why are such mouthpieces are ignored like an original Selmer HS**. It is very open with a relative short facing. This requires an extra soft reed and a well developed air support. However a medium or medium short ( I mean 17-16mm) can be comfortable with a medium or close facing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2010-11-26 19:25
When trying to classify length of facings, the tip opening must also be considered with facing length. A 17 length facing is medium on a 100 tip but towards the short side for a 110+ tip. The second number is considered the most important by many mouthpiece workers because it's really the working part of the facing, the point where the reed has to start bending significantly around the curve. However, on a properly shaped curve, the second number will be proportionate to the first one and will only vary slightly due to the manufacturer's or refacer's desires.
Shorter facings are more resistant, offer a more compact sound, are easier to control, respond better in the high register, and can be played with a softer reed without getting a reedy sound. To my ear, they tend to be darker as opposed to the warmer, livelier sound of longer facings. Of course, shorter facings do work better for those that want to take less mouthpiece.
I can see why someone might say shorter facings are brighter because they have a different type of sound. There is a solid, dark core and then the brightness seems to be separate, almost on top of the core. On longer facings, the fuller, more spread sound and general presence of mids (warmth) in the sound seems to mask, or almost absorb, the brightness.
Vytas is pretty much correct in one aspect, that the length of facing alone doesn't have much affect on brightness/darkness of tone, especially not when compared to comparable variations on saxophone mouthpieces. However, it can significantly affect the perceived brightness/darkness of a piece, depending on how you are listening to the sound. By this, I mean that manufacturers and refacers tend to listen to sounds the same way a machine would measure them, asking how much did a design change increase or decrease the highs, mids, lows, reediness, size, or focus of the sound in each register? Players tend to just listen to the balance between these aspects and tune in on which parts of these components dominate a sound. So, a facing length change may sound significant when listening as a player because it changed the balance of sound characteristics but may sound like a relatively insignificant difference to someone analyzing each component of the sound separately.
In other words, this gets very complicated very quickly and just one reason is because we all hear sounds differently. For example, I think I get a fairly dark sound on clarinet, even when listening to myself on studio recordings. Many other players tell me I get a pretty bright sound, but I just don't hear it. Oddly, when listening to other clarinetists, we pretty much always agree on what a bright and dark sound is.
Post Edited (2010-11-26 21:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2010-11-27 16:54
It seems a number of manufacturers are promoting new long-facing designs (e.g. the Vandoren 'M' series).
As someone brought up on 5RV I find them hard to get on with. But I don't know how much of that is me...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clancy
Date: 2010-11-29 14:43
In answer to the original question of this post:
Actually short facings are very popular right now, people just don't realize it.
Most all Zinner made pieces (aside from a few) have short facings - well shorter facings than anything else made today. Those pieces occupy a large part of the market so in truth short facings are very popular.
I do not have the time to get involved in this discussion, but I will say this - when discussing mouthpieces one has to look at many more factors than just a rough tip opening and length. It is a far more complex science and craft than people realize.
Also regarding the comment about facing length - the length of a facing does influence the sound - any change to the facing alters the way the player forms their embouchure and shapes the air, the reed vibrates in a different manner, etc. The differences may be minute but are audible.
Thats it for me with this post - good luck
R Wodkowski
www.ramonwodkowski.com
Post Edited (2010-11-29 15:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2010-11-29 15:45
I don't like the term bite in clarinet playing. You might add some lip pressure specially high up but to bite is going to give you lot of trouble. Sure you have to bite to control unbalanced reed and that's why you should always play on balanced reed but to use the term bite when it's just a matter of some lip pressure is confusing I think.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2010-11-29 16:38
The facing will affect playability, feel and response of the reed. The tone has very little to do with the facing as far as the mouthpiece design is concern. You can put a perfect facing on your mouthpiece but it will not change the tone native to this mouthpiece. The tone is governed by the baffle, distance and the shape of the side walls. But if we look at the larger picture then everything has influence over everything and all of this is equally important to the final result of the sound production. (Without reeds there would be no mouthpiece. Without mouthpieces there would be no clarinet. Without clarinet there would be no player and so on..)
R. Wodkowski wrote:
>>"Actually short facings are very popular right now, people just don't realize it".<<
Popular? Where? For the past 15 years not a single player ordered a mouthpiece with the short facing from me. There is the reason why short facing is NOT very popular amongst professionals.
Maestro_6 wrote:
>>"They offer a more stable feeling, better articulation, easier altissimo, and some can be quite reed-friendly".<<
The shorter facing offers easier altissimo that's why beginners love them. The rest of your statement has nothing to do with it.
* Short facing - favors the high register but the low register suffers.
* Long facing - favors the low register but the high register suffers.
* Medium facing - the best of the both worlds.
Facing length in US:
15 mm - short
16 mm - medium short
17 mm - medium*
18 mm - medium long
19 mm - long
20 mm & up - very long
(* in other countries the 17 mm facing length considered to be short).
Both Kaspars used 17 mm medium facing exclusively.
Vytas Krass
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Professional clarinet technician
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-11-29 17:06
RE: Zinners having short facings
Most zinners do have short facings when they are "blanks". Bb mouthpieces tend to be around 32 or so, I have an Eb that is a 30.
Some makers keep this short to have a more compact sound, or because they have opened up the tip significantly. Adjusting a 32 to a 36 is a relatively simple process, and that would be my guess as why zinner blanks come with a short facing.
Most zinners sold by US makers\refacers DO NOT have short facings. Most zinners that are in common\traditional tip openings (smaller than 1.10) are at least a 34 and can be as high as 42+.
The shortest zinner I've seen was 32 with a tip opening of 1.08 or so. The mouthpiece was not very vibrant or flexible and had a fair bit of resistance. The short facing contributed to these limitations.
If you order one of each of the most popular mouthpieces from makers here in the U.S. you would be hard pressed to find one with a facing shorter than a 34.
Personally, I think most people would be best served in the 34-38 region for facing length. There is a significant variation in sound and feel in this area, which I think would accommodate most players desires.
As far as the OP question:
Short facings add resistance and can have the affect of having a brighter sound. Even the more open mouthpieces that are popular today (Vandoren M30 for example) have longer facings to get a darker and more flexible sound.
As I mentioned above, I'm of the opinion that you get diminishing returns with extreme facing lengths. A shorter facing gives you more stability and a compact sound, but at some point it stops being of benefit (too resistant, limited dynamic and color possibilities). The same is true for longer facings, which give added flexibility and a deeper sound, but if taken too far give a washed out sound without a center or point. That's why I believe 34-38 is the area where 90% of mouthpieces should be to function well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2010-11-30 06:58
I think Vytas's asterisk says it all. If 17mm is medium in his view that is not likely to be the perception in the UK. For instance, Ed Pillinger's shortest advertised facing length is 19mm. So he does not even advertise a lay which Vytas would regard as "medium". Quite a while ago Ed provided me with an historical replica mouthpiece with a 17mm length facing and it was striking to me then how very short that facing felt. By Vytas's reckoning, Pillinger offers most of his models in a "very long" facing. I think this discussion is at cross purposes as to what is meant by a short facing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2010-11-30 08:02
Question: how did we end up with the half-millimetre as a standard unit of facing length (viz. NBeaty above)?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-11-30 13:20
It's the system devised by Erik Brand.
In measuring anything you have to measure according to significant digits. For example, if you're measuring how far it is from Texas to New York you would consider how many miles. If you were measuring the distance from the back of your house to the front, feet or meters would be more appropriate.
For example, measuring to the mm would mean that these measurements would be the same:
36+, 22+, 11+, 5+
and
35, 21, 10, 4
These two facings would be significantly different, so more specific measurements would need to be used even though they are both essentially a 18-11-5-2 mm facing.
Even though we use half-mm, glass gauges do only go by every two (2, 4, 6, 8, etc), so it becomes very important to have a good light and consistent placement of the glass on the mouthpiece in order to provide accurate measurements.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clancy
Date: 2010-11-30 15:04
I should have been a bit clearer with my post....
I wasn't suggesting that short facings are popular in the profession. My US clients include many of the major orchestral players, professors and soloists - very few play a short facing. But I wasn't talking about them so much.
If you look at the larger scope of sales in the US, Zinner mouthpieces obviously have a presence. Of those mouthpieces there are 2 or 3 makers who dominate the scene in terms of numbers of mpcs sold - they use a shorter lay. Those pieces are very popular in the college and amateur scene, and in the pro arena as well (in some circles).
So I was merely pointing that out - the short lay does have a presence..
Of course I agree with Vytas that the baffle, chamber and bore determine the inherent sound of a mouthpiece - that is blatantly obvious. But I do disagree that the facing only determines playability. That however is for another discussion.
Some people have emailed me to contribute to this discussion - I don't have the time and understand why many of the other makers aren't getting involved - like running across a firing line...
R Wodkowski
Post Edited (2010-11-30 15:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DixieSax
Date: 2010-11-30 17:30
Generally speaking, the amount of reed that is capable of vibrating is the portion of reed which is free to vibrate - i/e that portion which is not touching the rails. In order to maximize reed vibration, the ideal position for the lower lip to touch the reed is at the point where the reed leaves the rails.
Having said that, most of the posts here so far are right on point - a shorter facing requires less "work" to play, and the reason is simple - there is less reed to vibrate, and less opening for air to flow through. The small amount of reed which is vibrating in this case also favors the higher overtones in the sound produced, and makes jumping into altissimo easier.
Ed has it right when he states that more players are taking more of the mouthpiece into the mouth. This requires a longer facing to bring the point of contact with the lip low enough on the reed to match the facing length. The longer facing allows more of the reed to vibrate, creating the longer wavelengths and favoring the lower overtones, resulting in a deeper, more full bodied sound.
What you are going for is all in your sound preferences. The point is also valid that a shorter facing can be helpful to a player with an overbite, as the "sweet spot" for lip contact with the reed moves higher on the mouthpiece - closer to the "beak." It's my experience that often players who attempt to learn clarinet after being a saxophonist will also progress faster with a short facing, because of their tendency to hold the clarinet at a greater angle between the body and the instrument in an effort to simulate the mouth angle used with a sax mouthpiece. While my own first instrument is clarinet, and it's not an issue, I've made this suggestion to some big band players who were learning to double, and were having problems becoming accustomed to the instrument angle.
Anyway, good luck with wherever you are heading with this.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-11-30 18:28
DixieSax wrote:
> ...a shorter facing requires less "work" to play, and the
> reason is simple - there is less reed to vibrate, and less
> opening for air to flow through.
I'm not so certain that, as you've written it here, this is really true. Looking at the reed as a simple lever, the shorter the distance from the fulcrum (where the reed leaves the mouthpiece at the bottom of the curve) to the tip (where the player's air stream causes the reed to move toward the tip rail), the more effort it should take to move the reed forward. You compensate for that by using (as everyone has already pointed out) a less resistant reed. So the actual amount of effort the player needs to exert to play a short facing is controlled by the resistance presented by the material (cane or synthetic) the reed is made from and the profile of its cut. Same thing essentially happens with a long facing - the longer lever should inherently need less effort to make the reed tip move. And, as everyone has also noted, players compensate with more resistant reeds to keep from closing the reed too easily.
It seems to me it's possible to argue that the shorter facing allows the player to get away with less delicate articulation/"attack" and the longer facing requires greater delicacy to prevent distortions in the sound.
I think, though, that mostly these choices depend more on what lineage a player comes from. Preferences are passed from teacher to students, often in fairly authoritarian ways, and those students become accustomed to what their teachers have told them works best. Some of those students will experiment, although I would suggest that most won't stray too far - moving as many American clarinetists have over the last fifty years from the 32-34 lengths the French-trained players introduced to the US in the early part of the 20th century to 36-38 is not nearly so drastic a change as moving from a standard French facing to a much longer, narrower German one with a reed change to match.
In the end, I think most players choose a basic approach to a mouthpiece/reed combination according to their training and then explore within that basic realm for the combination that allows them to produce most easily what they want to produce (which is also mostly based in their training). The potential physical capabilities of the various facing styles can generally be manipulated and compensated for well enough to allow a player to find a comfort zone somewhere within the basic style he/she has grown used to.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2010-11-30 19:10
There is often confusion over the actual "length" of a lay.
The Brand system and I believe most US makers adopt the length as between the tip and point where a 1.5 thou feeler stops.
I actual fact the real length (to the point where the lay starts to diverge from the flat table) is somewhat longer - can be 1-3 mm longer.
Just try substituting the 1.5 feeler for a piece of burnished and straight cut kitchen foil (typically 0.5 thou) and see how much further this goes in, and thats not the whole length.
Some makers specify this full length as the lay length.
I am pretty sure Vandoren used this approach for a long time but may have swapped to the Brand approach now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2010-11-30 20:08
>> For example, measuring to the mm would mean that these measurements would be the same <<
You could simply add 0.x if you want smaller/bigger than 0.5, or more digits, etc. The half mm measurement is just confusing, for example I had no idea what it meant before reading the explanation. For example I'd rather see 17.5 than 35, it's much clearer.
Re long and short facings, the last post by Norman Smale is interesting. For example my mouthpiece has a facing length of 21.25mm according to the maker. AFAIK this maker uses an extremely accurate machine to make the mouthpiece so the measurement is probably exactly the way it's made i.e. the full length vs. a measurement that is actually shorter than the full length.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2010-12-01 07:46
> There is often confusion over the actual "length" of a lay.
Well that's a very good point. The transition between the curve of the facing and the flat (ish) of the table is quite difficult to pin down exactly.
Hold a straight-edge against the rail and the table and look against the light. Where does the wedge of light run out? What about the other rail? You can see some strange things this way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2010-12-01 08:32
Just to confuse things still further, with some of the modern ligratures like the Rovner one can 'tilt' these to alter the length of the lay somewhat.
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2010-12-01 08:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-12-01 12:48
I think the reason the Erik Brand system is so widely accepted is because it is clearer and easier than just mm measurements. I'd much rather see integers than numbers and decimals. It's just plain easier when you're working with these things.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-12-01 13:50
You couldn't measure the actual curve length at home or even on the workbench without some fairly sophisticated sensing equipment. Without that, you can only rely on less accurate tools like feeler gauges, which are inexpensive and easy to find. Brand made the choices of which feelers to use for his equipment and mouthpiece makers and tinkerers have adopted them as a standard. But if you didn't want to use .0015" as the bottom gauge, you'd need to pick something else that's thinner. Unless you could convince others to use the same one, the measurements you get would no longer be meaningful to anyone else and useless as description. There are mouthpiece makers who use finer gauges in their own work to get finer control of the curve, but the measurements are really meaningful and useful only to them.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2010-12-01 14:33
>> I think the reason the Erik Brand system is so widely accepted
>> is because it is clearer and easier than just mm measurements.
>> I'd much rather see integers than numbers and decimals. It's
>> just plain easier when you're working with these things.
It's definitely less intuitive. But I don't see why it's easier at all. Interested why anyone would prefer using, for example, 35 instead of the clear 17.5mm. Using half mms seems almost a random choice. Tip opening measurments are using the latter. Other measruments in the woodwind world are using it too, like pad size and thickness, thickness of bumper and linkage materials, barrel lengths, etc. Actually the half mm measurment makes no sense to me at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2010-12-02 15:53
Clarnibass:
Regardless of whether or not it's confusing or difficult for you, it's what is used. I've never met a mouthpiece maker that has had a glass gauge in MM. Some makers discuss mm for general reference on their websites, but that's just that- general reference.
I think if we consider that all glass gauges are in half mm (every line being a mm, but indicated in half-mm...i.e. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 etc.), we should come to the conclusion that this is the most common and most relevant to mouthpiece facing measurements.
I never have to refer to anything with decimal places in facings, ever. At worst, if a measurement doesn't land either on a line or directly at halfway between (half mm) I can simply indicate + or - (35+ rather than 17.75).
When measurement tools are in half mm, there is simply no reason to convert to mm at any point, unless the mouthpiece is finished and you're describing it to someone who uses mm (you, for example).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
