The Clarinet BBoard

The Clarinet BBoard The C4 standard

New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search | Help/Rules | Smileys/Notes | Log In

Previous Message | Next Message

Re: new Vandoren Masters mouthpiece

Author: NBeaty
Date: 2011-09-01 18:07

I agree with TianL.

The CL5 is unplayable to me, as it is too resistant due to the tip being very open. I play on pretty soft reeds (Rigotti 3 light or Blue Box vandoren 3) and couldn't get it to go.

The CL4 is better, due to the closer tip it is less resistant. However, there were some general problems I found with the mouthpiece:

1) The feel is too resistant.
2) The sound is too mellow\dark and covered with little to no "ping" or "ring" in the sound. The sound is dead.
3) The pitch is a bit high (similar to a traditional vandoren that is not a 13 series).
4) The facing is generally too long (an attempt to compensate for the open tip, but not enough).

On the bright side: I bought a CL4 from a major retailer. I do a lot of refacing work and have refaced countless Vandoren mouthpieces (from Eb down to Bass). I figured that, based on my trials of the two designs at ICA, that the facing was just not great but I wanted to see what type of blank they had come up with.

Keeping in mind the measurements of two at ICA:
CL4: 1.06mm tip and 38+ length.
CL5 1.08mm tip and 39 length.

The CL4 that I got brand new was: 1.10mm tip and 40 length. All measurements done with the same tools.

So- as with most vandorens, there is significant variation from mouthpiece to mouthpiece and the Masters is no different.

I put a very vibrant reed on the CL4 and found it to be a bit resistant as well as being very mellow and covered sounding. Since I play\like more "traditional" facings, this was no huge surprise.

I set out with one goal: MAKE THIS MOUTHPIECE PLAY AS WELL AS POSSIBLE by adjusting the facing and tip opening.

I closed the mouthpiece from 1.10mm to 1.00mm and tightened up the facing from 40 to 36.

Result?
1) The sluggish response was fixed. It responded quickly and with ease.
2) Much of the resistance was alleviated and the mouthpiece felt comfortable.
3) The sound had much more "ring" and LIFE to it.
4) There was still enough "lows" or "darkness" in the sound, but the sound was now fuller and more resonant.

Conclusions:

The design of the table (it has some shaping done to the bottom) doesn't make a difference compared to a standard shape. It just looks more interesting.

I couldn't tell any noticeable difference from their "specific bore and chamber" shape compared to their traditional models.

The facings they are using are not very efficient and are far from ideal for an efficient and projecting sound with clarity.

The ligature aspect of the equation is meaningless- every ligature I tried on the mouthpiece fit just fine. The "masters" ligature is not necessary.

The material of the mouthpiece is the same as other vandorens.

OVERALL: With a decent M13-M15 style facing, they play as well as any other good vandoren. At the end of the day, it lacks character and depth that you can get with higher quality materials and better designs.

Reply To Message | Avail. Forums | Flat View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Topics