 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-10-10 17:53
Does anyone know what the nominal blank thickness is for V12s?
I've been measuring a number of them over the past few days as a kind of project. I started out wondering which of a couple of different brands and models were made from thicker blanks than other others, as a possible way to predict (or at least explain) their response and sound characteristics. The other brands and models will have to wait a little longer, though, because I became fascinated with the surprising (to me) disparity among the V12s I've measured.
The samples I've used - several dozen reeds, all #4.5 - are of varying ages (I don't have them time-stamped in any way) and range from 2.89mm all the way up to 3.37mm, all measured for valid comparison on the bark just below the end of the vamp (many of them taper to a smaller thickness down at the butt end). A sample of 10 reeds from a box I just opened this month (with purple print instead of the old black) - all of which, BTW, are unplayably stiff out of the box - range from 3.08mm to 3.22.
The interesting thing to me is that, although I would have expected the thicker ones to be consistently stiffer (more wood) or more vibrant (softer wood from deeper in the tube), there really seems to be no correlation between playing strength (resistance) and the thickness. So the resistance level and, it would seem, the sound quality itself comes from dimensions elsewhere as well, at least in theory, as the natural density of the piece of cane the blank was made from.
I did measure a few 56 Rue lepic samples (which was actually the real genesis of this project), because I wanted to see if there really was a difference. I found the range to be similar, so that some of the Rues were thicker than some of the V12s and thinner than others. I haven't yet measured enough of my Rues to know how wide the range actually is for them, though right now I suspect it's about the same as for V12s.
I've not measured any Vandoren traditionals nor any of the Rico models - that will have to be later.
So the underlying question that originally prompted all of this measuring was, what really is the effect of the thickness of the blank on the reed's performance qualities? So far, I'd have to say I suspect it's mostly marketing hype and that the actual cut of the vamp and, perhaps, the cane's natural vibrancy, have everything to do with how the reed plays (or doesn't).
I'd be interested, if anyone knows, what the blank thicknesses of these Vandoren models are *supposed* to be and what causes the range I'm measuring.
Also, for anyone who makes his/her own reeds, do you try to maintain a consistent thickness in the blanks you use, or is it more a matter of sanding the section of tube flat and working with whatever the resulting thickness is?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2011-10-10 18:07
You might want to consider measuring the radius of the top of the blank (you can estimate this using multiple thickness measurements if you don't have a radius guage). I suspect that a lot of the thickness variation you are seeing is due to the blanks being made from tube cane of different diameters.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-10-10 18:40
It's probably the case that the diameter of the cane causes the variation in thickness. And I do wonder if players who make their own reeds try to control that by selecting tubes of a consistent diameter (and why the commercial manufacturers wouldn't). But the bottom line then is that the manufacturers seem to be using tubes of varying diameters to produce reeds of the same model that then result in reeds of different thicknesses. I think you're right that radius differences would explain the thickness differences, but in any case, the reeds are not being cut to consistent dimensions (I guess that shouldn't be a real surprise) even though the advertising implies that model A is made from consistently thicker blanks than models B and C even within the same brand.
Thinking about it, the diameter of the original tube might be expected to have an effect on the taper from the center to the rails of the vamp, but the cutting machines must simply remove more wood when the sides are thicker to achieve a consistent profile. (Or do they?)
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rdc
Date: 2011-10-10 23:25
I read somewhere once that the name V12 came from the blank thickness measurement of .124 inches. That works out to about 3.15 mm. I think it was the same source that stated this measurement was at the butt end of the reed, which I remember seemed strange to me, since all the reed-making books I read would take the measurement at the middle of the reed just below the vamp, just as you are doing.
I would be interested to know if you get any more consistency in your measurements at the bottom of the reed. I may have tried this once, but don't remember the results.
I have measured a few of the Reserve Classics I am now using with similar inconsistent results that you are seeing on the V12's. I used Grand Concert Select Thick blanks for quite a while, and remember that I was getting a fairly consistent blank thickness of 3.0 mm, which is what I aimed for when I used to make reeds.
Robert Chest
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-10-11 00:50
rdc wrote:
>
> I would be interested to know if you get any more consistency
> in your measurements at the bottom of the reed.
>
I'll go back and try this.
> I used Grand Concert Select Thick blanks for quite a
> while, and remember that I was getting a fairly consistent
> blank thickness of 3.0 mm, which is what I aimed for when I
> used to make reeds.
>
Interesting that those reeds were at the bottom end of the thickness I'm seeing on the V12s. I'll check their end thickness and see if it's any more consistent, perhaps not as thick as the middle.
Seems to me the original "thick blank" reed that was sold here commercially was the Morre that Marcellus famously used in preference to Vandorens. I wonder how thick they actually were.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-10-11 16:31
Re-measuring at the butt end a subset of the reeds I originally measured at the end of the bark, I found that the only consistency was that these measurements, too, were inconsistent. Some of the reeds were thicker at the butt. More were actually thinner and a few were within a hundredth of a millimeter or two of the same thickness middle and butt. The differences, whether the reeds were thicker in the middle or at the end, ranged from a few hundredths of a millimeter to one that was 2 tenths of a millimeter thicker (at the butt).
I'm planning to open a box of recent traditional Vandorens to see how they compare to the V12s. They've always *looked* thinner to me, but I've generally been looking at the butt end and the side rails. I've never actually measured the thickness of those reeds down the spine with any kind of measuring tool (I'm using a vernier caliper for this). I'll also check some of the Reserve and Reserve Classics I've bought recently, although I suspect they won't be much different from the V12s. But who knows...I've been surprised before.
One day when I have much too much time on my hands, I'll put some of these different reeds on my Perfecta-reed and see how all 48 of its measurements compare.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2011-10-11 16:49
Quote:
The interesting thing to me is that, although I would have expected the thicker ones to be consistently stiffer (more wood) or more vibrant (softer wood from deeper in the tube), there really seems to be no correlation between playing strength (resistance) and the thickness. So the resistance level and, it would seem, the sound quality itself comes from dimensions elsewhere as well, at least in theory, as the natural density of the piece of cane the blank was made from.
I have generally found the thicker reeds to have a slightly softer cane, as the tip is from the portion farther away from the bark. Consequently the dimentions are slightly different as seen here: http://www.vandoren.fr/en/3d.html
There is also the issue of the density of that particular piece of cane. It is one of the reasons why even when carefully measuring, there are still variances from reed to reed, even if their dimensions match.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-10-11 18:45
Yes, the density of the cane seems to be the primary source of resistance (along with possible differences in the profile), and Vandoren and, I think, Rico both say they sort their reeds for strength by mechanically testing the reeds' flexibility *after they're cut,* not by cutting them differently. And the conventional wisdom is that the thicker blank means the vamp is cut farther in from the bark where the wood is (or is assumed to be) softer. But the advertising attributes much of the difference among the various models to the thickness of the reeds.
I started checking this when I got confused as I read another thread recently posted here about the comparison between V12 and 56 Rue lepic reeds. I couldn't remember which was *supposed* to be thicker, so I started measuring them. I found that (a) the thickness of neither reed was very consistent (as I've already described) and that (b) both models seem to fall basically within the same thickness range. It's possible that if I actually work out the arithmetic, the average Rue may be a little thicker and the distribution curve may be a little different, but they're all within the same overall range. So the differences between them (to the extent that they exist) aren't explainable by differences in thickness (advertising notwithstanding). I've just checked 10 traditional Vandorens (#5) and found that they are, indeed, thinner than the V12s, although the thickest one I measured actually overlapped slightly the thinnest of the V12s.
The profiles of these reeds are probably different, something I'll accept for now and eventually will actually measure. The one clear difference between V12 and Rue, which I noted in the other thread, is that the Rues are single-cut while the V12s are double-cut, which definitely changes the response and the sound (for good or ill is up to the player) - all you need to do to verify that is to trim the bark back to a straight line on a Rue lepic or Rico Reserve (Classic or standard) and compare the result.
My main point in posting this was just to share my surprise that the measurements were so inconsistent. I'd still be interested to find out if anyone knows what the nominal thicknesses of any of these reeds is *supposed* (i.e. designed) to be. Robert suggested that V12 might be designed to be 3.15 mm, which is probably (again, I haven't done the actual arithmetic) somewhere close to the median thickness if not the mean.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2011-10-11 22:53
The VD website quotes reed thickness as
Rue 56 0.11 tip 3.25 mm heel
Trad 0.09 tip 2.8 mm heel
V12 not quoted as far as I could see
There is also a 3D chart depicting the general profile differences between the 3 cuts.
(just realised that's the chart in Ed's link above)
Post Edited (2011-10-11 22:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2011-10-11 23:48
When I worked at Rico and designed the Grand Concert thick blanks I aimed for 0.123." I'm very sure that is still the goal. It is hard to make every reed at 0.123" This is also the same thinkness as the Rico alto sax reeds. This can vary from .118" to 128." The butt of these reeds vary even more. My measurements were where the bark and the vamp cut starts, and I measured them from the bark. Rico uses 220 course sand paper and I asked them to use 600 wet and dry paper, which is a lot different then sand paper. That was rejected. Some players may wish to sand the reeds using a 600 grade wet/dry paper, which really helps seal the reeds.
However the reed strength may/will go down depending on how much you sand off. I also feel Vandoren does somewhat the same. I now use VD's and sand the reed a tiny bit so I buy a 1/2 strength box of reeds. (V12's 4 1/2.)
Bob
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2011-10-13 06:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2011-10-12 01:44
A side note, but important none-the-less:
Are you using a very high quality caliper? It seems with calipers that you really do get what you pay for. Generally, money is directly related to quality and accuracy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2011-10-13 06:15
Most cheap calipers come from places like China. You can find them for about $10 at a place called Harbor Freight, a place that carries tons of tools at amazing prices. I have a few, just sitting around the house, however, for very critical work, when less then a mm is needed, I go with Starrett's. Easy to adjust for perfect readings every time. The only problem with all calipers is dropping them. Most likely they won't be balanced after a hard drop.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-10-13 11:27
My caliper is made by Kobalt. Seems very solid, clear digital screen, and I do get the same reading with the same reed each time I test.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-10-13 12:33
By the way, since we're on the subject of measuring instruments, I have an Armato Perfecta-Reed that I've been using to do some vamp measurements. I've found that if I let the spindle down gently I get a good deal of variability in the reading. To get a consistent reading I have to pull the spindle up and then let its spring drive it down to the reed. I get a little nervous about doing this, particularly at the positions closest to the tip of the reed. I haven't broken a reed yet, but is there something I'm missing in using this tool?
Is this problem inherent in all dial gauges? I had the same problem with a different gauge I tried to rig up myself before I bought the Perfecta-Reed. Going back even farther, the tip gauge that came with my Brand mouthpiece measuring kit 30+ years ago is a dial gauge set under a piece of glass that you place the mouthpiece against and the tip rail presses the spindle of the gauge down to produce the reading. But it also gives inconsistent measurements. Seems like the internal friction in the spindle's travel interferes if the movement isn't forceful enough to overcome it.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2011-10-29 22:56
A clarinetist once told me that Vandoren reeds of different number strengths actually have the same blank thickness, and that the difference of strength comes purely from the differing density of the cane. This seems weird to me, as I always assumes that harder reeds were thicker.
I don't own any reed thickness measuring equipment. Has anybody ever measured and compared the reed thickness of say, Vandoren V12 no.2 to no.5? I'd be curious to know what the difference is.
Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-10-30 00:02
Yes, although I have only #3 up to #5 available without buying a box just to measure them. The ones I've measured fall within the same range for the same model both in blank thickness and near the tip. I haven't measured enough all the way across and back from tip to bark to know for sure. FWIW I've always heard the same thing - that the reeds are all cut to the same measurements (on the same machines) and then graded for **stiffness** in a separate process and boxed accordingly.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Simon Aldrich
Date: 2011-10-30 03:40
"A clarinetist once told me that Vandoren reeds of different number strengths actually have the same blank thickness, and that the difference of strength comes purely from the differing density of the cane. This seems weird to me, as I always assumes that harder reeds were thicker."
I had always presumed the same thing. However Robert Vandoren gave a talk here in Montreal at least 10 years ago in which he stated there was no difference in the thickness of Vandoren reeds between 2.5 and 5. Reed cane density was what determined hardness (or resistance). I had stumbled across this when I started making my own reeds. Not only did I notice that Vandoren reeds were of a uniform thickness across their strength numbers, but when I made reeds I saw right away that reed hardness had no correlation to its thickness. I was using, in the beginning, a ReedDual that produced reeds with thicknesses all over the map and the thin reeds were not necessarily softer than the thick reeds. That realization in itself saved me hours of reed scraping, since you cannot reduce the cane's density by scraping.
If you look at the butt of a Vandoren reed you will see "teeth" marks. Those are the marks left by the gauge that measures cane density. Vandoren reeds are made to (ideally) the same thickness and it is their individual density that determines what strength number they will be assigned.
Simon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2011-10-30 09:25
whirrr... cogs in brain slowly starting to turn...
So- are harder (denser) reeds more/less consistent than softer (less dense) reeds? I'm talking about consistency regarding response of the reed in changing temperatures, humidity, etc. If there is a difference in consistency, then one could save oneself many hours of frustration by using a set-up with more consistent reeds.
Or are my hopes sadly unfounded?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
