 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2012-07-22 12:23
I'm still friends with Rico so I'll ask for a care package and take out the guys for lunch. Perhaps tomorrow.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tyler Murphy
Date: 2012-07-23 01:43
One day in February of 2012, my teacher called me and told me to come upstairs when I was done with class. I was pretty much done for the day. When I went upstairs, I was in a room surrounded by multiple men who truly knew their information on "Mouthpiece Lore."
It was here that I was given the opportunity to try some of the prototypes of this mouthpiece. I must say, now that they are available for purchase, if they still reflect the quality of what I played on before (which I'm sure they do), I will certainly be purchasing one of them. This mouthpiece was very impressive. I thought it was very responsive and had a very good and even tone throughout all the registers on the horn. I played some excerpts and did some of my daily warm-ups on it. I really enjoyed playing on the "Medium" facing. For me, this one was the closest in comparison in tone quality and color to the one I currently play on.
Overall, I was very impressed. Being just a student and not knowing too much of the "technical" details behind them, and not having that much experience as some of the folks on here, I can only go by what I remember. What I remember, was one very good and lasting first impression.
For comparison sake, I currently play on a Kaspar mouthpiece.
Tyler Murphy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2012-07-23 11:17
(Disclaimer - I manufacture Chedeville CNC machined mouthpieces and barrels out of rod rubber stock. Chedeville name mark and trademark belong to G-H,llc)
There was a recent thread about these mouthpieces - do a search. I have tried the mouthpieces. My question I guess is why Rico would go to the trouble and great expense (compared to molded mouthpieces) to CNC a mouthpiece out of other than the best rod rubber stock which has tonal qualities similar to the Chedeville rubber?
They too could recreate, possibly, a rubber similar to the old Chedeville blanks used by so many famous mouthpiece makers such as the Kaspars. The experimentation, time, and expense to make rod rubber reproductiions in the
way of the old Chedeville rubber IMO cannot be found in todays commercial market however.
Mouthpieces made by a couple custom makers including Behn and Hill IMO have a much different "sound" than Rico's new mouthpiece - could be the architecture plus the different rubber? It still takes a technician to hand finish the shortcomings of the CNC process to produce the finished mouthpiece which makes each mouthpiece a little different. CNC machining can never make a square corner or a smooth transition between two different curved surfaces so finishing is necessary.
L. Omar Henderson
www.chedevillemp.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-07-23 16:07
I'm waiting for them to send me some to try, I've heard good things about them but will have to decide for myself. I know all the things people say about the material and workmanship in a mouthpiece and of course they're probably correct about it all but the bottom line is what is a great mouthpiece for one person barely plays for another. I've tried many MP that other players sounded great on and haven't been able to sound anything near my best. In some cases barely able to play them at all. One of the best sounding MP i've ever tried was a real cheap Vito MP that came with a beginners clarinet so go figure. It was made of cheap plastic but had a beautiful round full tone. Unfortunatly it also splatered real easy when it hit the floor. The new Rico MP can be a gem or a bust, it will depend on the players that play them. ESP eddiesclarinet.com
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2012-07-23 20:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2012-07-23 17:18
I have heard very good things about these and look forward to trying them.
While material is important, dimensions seem to play a much greater role. I have tried a number of pieces over the years that were either vintage or copies of vintage material that were unplayable for me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2012-07-24 01:06
Sorry Dr. Henderson, but you've now opened yourself up to direct confrontation with your post. Are we supposed to take seriously your opinion as expressed above? I'm glad you put the disclaimer at the beginning, but honestly, does it not sound like 100% bias? You categorically call the rob rubber you use and the old Chedevelle rubber "the best."
Leaving aside the question of whether your claim about this "best" rubber being the same as the old Chedeville blanks is true, the very notion that it is the best and only sensible way to go is absurd. The vast majority of orchestral auditions in the United States being won today are by musicians playing Vandoren mouthpieces. Now, I'm not saying that's a product of the mouthpieces, but it certainly is a data point severely against your claim. And no, those are not milled mouthpieces, but show me the lineup of great successes from the current stock of Chedeville-chasing rob rubber mouthpieces.
Personally, I don't care if the material is the same as the old mouthpieces. I want something that is BETTER than a mouthpiece made 50, 60, 70 years ago. I'm sure Rico took the course of action they thought was best. It's been a well-managed company in recent years and they know what they're doing. I'm looking forward to trying these mouthpieces myself.
I want to be clear. Your specific claims may or may not be correct. Nonetheless, your opinion on this is tantamount to saying, "I don't know why our competitor would use B material when they couldn't have just used our A material!" If it wasn't already clear from the disclaimer to anyone reading this, it should be read with extreme skepticism.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2012-07-24 11:58
Same disclaimer as above.
I have often said that if there was one good mouthpiece for every player there would be only one but the difference in physical attributes, setup, playing style, and concept of a personal sound support a large number of manufacturers and custom makers of mouthpieces each offering several styles. Are recreations of old Chedeville mouthpieces and blanks better than any other mouthpieces ?? - this is up to the individual to decide. I admit that I am biased because I like to play them and manufacture them to satisfy a demand for Chedeville rod rubber recreation mouthpieces for others. If you take a poll I suggest that there are many, many orchestral and professional players that play original, Chedeville style or Chedeville blank mouthpieces. A majority or minority - who knows?
Many players under 50 and their teachers have never heard of Chedeville or mouthpieces made from Chedeville blanks by makers such as the Kapars, Bay, etc. If desirability, price, and demand from a segment of the clarinet community is any indication of worth then these mouthpieces are indeed much appriciated. Most of the top custom mouthpiece makers also offer their rendition of Chedeville architecture in their custom mothpieces often named "Chedeville Style".
All (except a few) mouthpieces today are molded from a different formulation and vulcanization conditions than used traditionally to make rod rubber in the Chedeville style. A few of us have taken the time, effort, and expense to recreate rubber which is similar to the old Chedeville rod rubber used to make mouthpieces in the 20's and 30's. Of course the rubber is not the same as originally made but a snapshot of the well aged and has similar acoustical properties of Chedeville rubber as it exists in mouthpieces from the era.
This rubber is different both physically and acoustically from molded rubber used to make mouthpieces today. Formulation and vulcanizing techniques used to make Chedeville rubber recreations are also different than those used today to make commercial rod rubber stock. Is it better? IMO recreation of Chedeville rod rubber can be used to make mouthpieces that have a different IMO tonal quality than molded mouthpieces and mouthpieces machined from commercially available rod rubber today. Some say that they appreciate the tone produced by these mouthpieces. I think that I am entitled to this opinion that the tonal quality is desirable for me and may be appreciated by many other players too.
I have also said that I believe that architecture trumps any contribution by the material of a mouthpiece. Some segment of the community believes that the architecture of the old Chedeville designs produces mouthpieces that are superior for them. Some also believe that the contribution of the material (Chedeville rod rubber) also contributes to the tonal qualities that they desire in a Chedeville style mouthpiece.
The CNC machining process is a hugely more expensive than molding mouthpieces. In the best conditions it can produce more reproducible mouthpieces than molding although some hand finishing is necessary in both types. If Rico wants to manufacture CNC machined mouthpieces from commercially available rod rubber that is their choice but the business model does not make sense to me from an expense and selling price point aspect. That too is their business. Even if their mouthpieces are CNCed offshore the price of the rod rubber, machine time, finishing time and expense, and marketing and advertising (from my experience) would seem to dictate a very slim profit margin for their product.
My question was and is - why pursue this business model if there is a proven demand for Chedeville style mouthpieces and especially those made from a recreation of the original Chedeville rubber? That of course is their decision. Perhaps they want to produce a new wave of mouthpieces to wow and woo the marketplace?
So, even qualified by a lot of IMO (in my opinion) statements to indicate my obvious bias, I have never stated categorically that Chedeville TM mouthpieces are the best.
L. Omar Henderson
www.ChedevilleMP.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-07-24 12:29
We're getting bent out of shape over RICO ??!!!!
I don't even care to try their reeds thank you.
..........................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2012-07-24 13:40
The Doctor wrote:
> All (except a few) mouthpieces today are molded from a
> different formulation and vulcanization conditions than used
> traditionally to make rod rubber in the Chedeville style. A few
> of us have taken the time, effort, and expense to recreate
> rubber which is similar to the old Chedeville rod rubber used
> to make mouthpieces in the 20's and 30's. Of course the rubber
> is not the same as originally made but a snapshot of the well
> aged and has similar acoustical properties of Chedeville rubber
> as it exists in mouthpieces from the era.
Omar, whenever this discussion pops up about "Chedeville rubber" I find myself wondering, did the Chedevilles have their own rubber produced for them, or is there evidence that they bought all their rubber rods from a specific maker? Do we know with any certainty that all of their production mouthpieces used one specific rubber formulation? I've always been curious why, except for reverse engineering based on individual specimens that have survived, there is (or seems to be) no record of what the content of the rubber actually was if there was a single formula the Chedeville designers preferred.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2012-07-24 15:58
Same disclaimer as above.
Good questions. Unfortunately all of the answers are not known by me. Perhaps one of the mouthpiece makers has more information but I have tried to locate a lot of the old records and know some facts.
From my investigations Chedeville probably did not make their own rod rubber and may have gotten it from one or more unnamed suppliers of rubber stock during the later 1920's through the late 1930's.
Of course there were many quality control issues in the beginings of the rubber industry in France and elsewhere. Much of the machinery for mixing and blending the raw materials are no longer made, the raw materials (especially latex) came from different sources and of different qualities, differing amounts of sulfur and other materials were used by different manufacturers, and the temperatures, timing, and tempering schedules during vulcanization may also have been variable. I have seen some of the original records from contemporary rubber manufacturers and many batches were not satisfactory and were scrapped and the quality of batches was not standardized or quality controled to any great degree. Several mouthpiece makers, and myself, have detected differences in the rubber from different Chedeville mouthpieces of the same production time period. I would suspect that Chedeville had certain criteria that they expected in batches of rubber from suppliers but I have found no records.
I was able to use some modern rubber manufacturing testing equipment including hardness, flexablility, and a special instrument that visualized cross-linking patterns in vulcanized rubber. I also had access to the most sophisticated instrumentation to measure content of other materials used in rubber samples. We were able to collect various Charles and Henri Chedville mouthpieces that were scrapped or broken but had some history and performed analyses on these samples. I believe that Brad Behn also has indicated they he sacrificed a good playing Henri Chedeville mouthpiece during his quest to duplicate the same qualities in his recreation of Chedeville rubber. We used a number of sample mouthpieces and found differences in the rubber of some and similarities within a group of samples that we used as our standards.
In my case it took a company willing to use many of the similar techniques used in the French manufacturing of vulcanized rubber to generate prototype samples that were analyzed and compared with data and cross-linking patterns from the original Chedeville mouthpieces samples. This was a long, expensive, and tedious process involving many manufacturing modifications over time and many prototype runs. Later we used proprietary methods and instrumentation to access acoustic properties of rubber samples which compared our final product with original Chedeville rubber samples. Our production Chedeville rod rubber is a custom and exclusive product manufactured to our specifications.
I hope that this sheds some light or some doubt on the current recreations of Chedeville rubber.
L. Omar Henderson
www.ChedevilleMP.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2012-07-24 17:41
The Doctor wrote:
> I would suspect that Chedeville had certain
> criteria that they expected in batches of rubber from suppliers
> but I have found no records.
It would be interesting to know, if there are people still around who worked in the Chedeville shop and might be able to tell us, what exactly were the criteria they expected. These were neither physicists nor chemists, much less specialized vulcanologists, so it's easy to assume that they weren't assaying the rubber for its chemical content or molecular structure. There must have been observable, physical characteristics that they applied to evaluate the rubber rods they bought. As I've read your accounts and Brad Behn's of the lengths to which you've gone to reproduce the rubber you've found in the specimens you've taken as models, I've always puzzled over how any particular rubber (unique in its formula or mixing method) could have been used consistently by a company that put out so much product if it didn't make its own raw material. Especially since, as the thirties saw war breaking out in so many places, rubber was (I've read - I'm not old enough to have been there) increasingly being diverted to making military equipment. It has always been hard for me to imagine that as a result of both wartime economics (in Europe, if not here) and the relatively less (than today) sophisticated manufacturing techniques of the time that a consistent rubber composition could really have been available to give those mouthpieces their acoustical qualities.
Maybe one day someone will find the answers among someone's old papers.
Thanks for all the information you provide here, Omar. I think its a fascinating subject.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2012-07-24 18:11
I've got 2 of the close facing on order, so I'll post what I think of them when they come.
As for Rico Reeds, I didn't want to try them back in 1993 when I was asked by Marcus Eley of Rico while at the Belgium ClarFest to try them. He basically had to beg me to try them, as I loathed the Mitchel Lurie's, etc that they made.
Once I tried one, he didn't have to ask me to try more - I was there.......
But everyone has their own choice, and playing style, opinion.
But they sure worked for me!
(I'm a Rico Reserve Artist)
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
Post Edited (2012-07-24 18:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rdc
Date: 2012-07-24 21:00
I ordered the medium facing from Muncy Winds and was able to try it today. I compared it to a Zinner faced by Brad Behn and to my own Behn Vintage. I must say, I like this mouthpiece, and look forward to recommending it to students to try.
The mouthpiece is beautifully finished, with a symmetrical facing that I measured at 35, 22, 12, 6, 104 which was very close to the Behn Zinner at 34, 22, 11, 5, 101. Both mouthpieces had similar response and tone quality and worked with the same reed, a Rico Reserve Classic 3.5+. The Reserve mouthpiece had perhaps a little more core in the sound, but this could have been because it has a slightly more resistant facing than the Behn.
This is a deep baffle, low pitched mouthpiece and tunes similarly to the Behn Zinner which was made from the lower-pitched Zinner "A" blank, one line up and two down. I didn't measure the exit bore of the Rico, but the diagram on the packaging indicates it is .595 (I assume inches, or 15.1 mm), which is on the large side. I was using a shorter barrel for both the Rico and the Zinner than I use with my Vintage, which plays at a higher pitch level.
The mouthpiece shows no evidence of handwork. There are very slight reaming and milling lines on the bore and tone chamber, less in the tone chamber than I would expect. The Doctor's comments about the difficulty of CNC machining making straight corners are well-taken, and can be seen in the change from side rail to tip rail. Nevertheless, I was impressed with the way this "problem" was incorporated into the design. You'll have to see one to see what I mean.
Someone in another thread reported that the rails were narrow, but I did not find this to be true. Perhaps not as wide as some hand-finished Zinners I have seen, but wider than Brad Behn's work on the Zinner I have from him. I had asked Brad for slightly wider side and tip rails on this mouthpiece. The Rico has about the same width side rails, and a slightly wider tip rail. I haven't looked at a Vandoren M13-series mouthpiece in a while, but I would estimate that the Rico's side rails are slightly wider, and the tip rail slightly narrower than, say, an M15 (I may be wrong about this!).
Although the Behn Vintage I use has a different design, I could perform on this mouthpiece comfortably. At the price point ($119 at Muncy Winds), it is more expensive than a Vandoren, but cheaper by about $75.00 than the least expensive hand-finished Zinners that I have seen. If the quality and consistency can be maintained, I think we have a new mouthpiece to recommend to students that will appeal to many. The example I obtained had the tenon cork installed improperly, so Muncy Winds is sending out another one. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to compare two of them for manufacturing consistency.
Robert Chest
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2012-07-24 21:57
Hi,
I'm a doubler who has played Portnoy BP02s and other very open MPs for a long time. I do have several VDs that I sometimes rotate through but this new Rico, particularly if there is an X15 and an X20 down the road may be exactly what I need.
It makes me ill to think of spending $300 on a MPs since I still treasure a B45 with a chip in the tip that I got on a junk clarinet. And I also use a couple of the very cheapest Rico sax MPs for wind band, classical work, and shows; they play rings around my classic Selmer Soloist MPs.
Go figger!
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2012-07-24 22:07
I will be meeting with some people at Rico for lunch and then trying some of the MP's this week. I'll keep everyone posted. I'm sure they will give me some to test as long as I write a report.
Eddie Palanker, should I ask Rico to send you some? It will happen for sure. Folks I can't ask Rico for a bunch of them. I took lessons from Eddie, so there is a keen friendship here. However I promise to give a full report. Includes measurements.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2012-07-24 22:12)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2012-07-26 13:43
I think Rico's new mouthpiece is a marvelous accomplishment. My hat goes off to Rico for what they have done. I believe their mission, and their obvious quality of execution should be celebrated. To make a mouthpiece, from scratch isn't an easy thing to do, I know. And for them to do it all in the US, for them to do it with such a high level of quality, and under such good leadership (Robet Polan, Lee Livengood, Mr. D'Addario) gives me something to find inspiration from.
My advice to everyone is to go out and get not just one, but all three of their offerings. They will help shape your tonal perspective and improve your playing experience.
Then, after you have had a chance to digest what you have learned from the experience, go out to the concert hall and have fun. Be inspired and sing from the heart with the knowledge that what you are sounding beautiful.
It may seem weird that I would recommend you to get a Rico mouthpiece, since I am also a maker of mouthpieces. The reason why is simple. I respect what Rico has achieved, I know that their quality and their voice is good, and I believe in their concept to make beautifully executed and efficiently structured facings.
This type of recommendation comes with hopes that Rico's price structure and distribution network will enable the world-clarinet-community to experience a "good" mouthpiece, and will therefore influence similar points of view as I have espoused for years. Point being, Rico will help influence the clarinet community back to a playing perspective and a tonal sentiment which I believe in, and this will "sweeten the pot" if you will. I congratulate them and send my best wishes.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JamesOrlandoGarcia
Date: 2012-07-26 19:01
Does anyone know where the mouthpiece is pitched? I love the fact that my M30 13 series mouthpiece keeps my comfortably at 440 where I've seen many other clarinetists pull out the joints of their clarinets like no one's business to keep stable.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMR
Date: 2012-07-26 21:24
JamesOrlandoGarcia wrote:
> Does anyone know where the mouthpiece is pitched?
They are pitched at A 441. I was curious about that when the mouthpieces were announced & contacted Rico for the answer.
Lots of people who are accustomed to playing mouthpieces tuned at 440 or 442 probably would shy away from one that differs from their normal setup. Splitting the difference seems to be a pretty solid marketing decision. This ought to work fine with my preferred barrels.
The timing is great for me. I'm recovering from recent rotator cuff surgery & just beginning to play again. I'm anxious to test some that are on the way & compare them to my M30s.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2012-07-26 22:19
Tried several, but not at Rico. Everyone of them played differently and for the money I think it would fit a young student because they play better then any beginning stock MP and the kids wouldn't have to fight the major part of learning the clarinet so alot of kids will stick with the clarinet and not give it up. I am not saying these are for kids only. Hardly! They can make some pros very happy.
For pro's... I didn't find anything that worked for me, but as a MP maker I was looking for that WOW factor. They are good and based, like most other mouthpieces, the chedivilles. If you have the time to test several of them and compare them to other MP's on the market you will find them to play very well. If you have them reworked by someone good, to fit your style of playing they could be at a symphony level. As we all know pro's are looking for that special mouthpiece just for them. We need to hear about these from other people that had the Rico MP's redone just for them. Maybe that Wow feel will happen. I asked Rico if I could try a few and the answer was no, not even to look at them. This seems fair because of the CEO's response of having serial numbers on them an no MP's can leave the Rico without knowing where the mouthpieces will be going.
I think it is worth for everyone just to try out. For now, at the moment, and at the price, Rico did a good job, but as with a lot of their products, will the quality remain well above average? I sure hope so.
I wasn't able to try these at Rico. I guess they have their reasons, so I tested them from other sources.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2012-08-13 01:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CarlT
Date: 2012-07-26 22:31
I am both amazed and somewhat elated at Brad Behn's endorsement of the Rico mouthpieces. It appears to be genuine and unsolicited.
Apparently Mr. Behn is not worried about competition. He probably has more work than he can get done anyway.
Now if we could just get our politicians to be as nice to each other...
CarlT
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2012-07-27 00:29
Quote:
Rico was never into the pro market, just the student market.
I think that has changed in the recent past. The number of top players using their reeds and the great quality they have achieved speaks volumes.
Great words from Brad, who not only demonstrates his great knowledge as a craftsman and musician, but also his grace as a true gentleman. We are fortunate to have such a fine artist and person working today to further the art.
Post Edited (2012-07-27 03:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-07-27 03:57
Interesing read. I'm NEW so to me I find that a mouthpiece can make some difference. I would pay more attention to a good reed than the mouthpiece. I have several mouthpieces from the clarinets I have "collected" in the last few weeks. I have a Vito II, a new Bundy, Ebolin "Brunart" Special (with serial number, A. Gigliotti, Vandoren B45(2), Selmer Goldtone 3, Vandoren 5RV,Selmer "L", and one with no name.
For an older man of 59 is there some special quality in a mouthpiece to watch for? Are the new Ricco mouthpieces worth their salt?
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: PR
Date: 2012-07-27 23:11
1 Stop Clarinet Shop has them for $79.99.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jmsa
Date: 2012-07-28 06:23
I am using a Legere 2 1/2 Signature reed. Can anyone advise me as to which facing would work best with this strength reed? X0, X5, or X10.
jmsa
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-07-28 18:04
I just received and tried an .05 facing, I had asked for a .10 as well but that didn't not arrive yet. Since I use a medium opened MP I thougt that would be better to try as well. I must say though that I am very impressed with the way this plays. Even though it is more closed then I'm accustomed to, I realize the tip opening is only one factor, I am able to play it fairly comfortable on the reeds I already use. My regular MP is an old Morgan, much different from the facings of todays Morgans. In an case I am extremely impressed. I've tried a great many "costume" mouthpiece in my time and in a great many cases, I could hardly get a decent tone on most of them. In many cases I was unable to ever play them on my reeds. This Rico that I tried just played for me on all my reeds, some better than others of course. On first playing I can't say I'm ready to switch MPs to the Rico but I am very impressed. I can't wait to try the .10 facing to see if it's a better or worse fit. It comes in three, a 5, 10 and 15. Perhaps the best commericial MP I've ever tried, and better than most costumes as well.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DaveKessler
Date: 2012-07-28 18:49
Ed Palanker wrote:
> It comes in three, a 5, 10 and 15. Perhaps the best commericial
> MP I've ever tried, and better than most costumes as well.
Correction that yes, it comes currently in 3 sizes... but they are the X0 (1.00 mm), X5 (1.05 mm) and X10 (1.10 mm).
I would not be surprised to see an X15 and X20 models come out in the future as well though.
Dave Kessler
Kessler & Sons Music
http://www.kesslermusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2012-07-28 18:51
According the Rico site, the facings are:
Reserve X0: Close facing (1.00mm)
Reserve X5: Medium facing (1.05mm)
Reserve X10: Medium open facing (1.10mm)
Edit: Looks as if Dave beat me to it!
Post Edited (2012-07-28 22:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinet60
Date: 2012-07-30 15:59
To update those who are not aware, when Rico was bought by the D'Addario company a few years ago, they got a new parent that is very serious about engineering. D'Addario is a company that has an owner, Jim D'Addario, who is an expert in manufacturing high quality products and this are well-represented across many of their product lines. It's not like the old Rico company which only focused on inexpensive, student products. Plus, they enlisted Lee Livengood who is a top notch clarinetist and mouthpiece maker to help design the mouthpiece from the ground up, as well as Mark Nuccio of the NY Phil. I believe that Rico is making a major push to take some market share away from Vandoren and with these new mouthpieces, they will certainly make some headway. I've tried the .00 and the .05 pieces and they play extremely well with the right reeds.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2012-07-30 16:32
I stand corrected but I shorten the numbers to 5 and 10 but of course I mean 1.05 etc. I figure people understand that. I did think there was a 15 when they asked me which one I want to try, my mistake.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2012-08-09 13:10
I just picked up a X5 (1.05) as an affordable "back up" to my Greg Smith 1* Chedeville. Always been a bit anxious about not having a safety net in case of a mouthpiece accident.
The Rico played very nicely right off the bat with several Rico Classic Reserve 3.5+ reeds of different age and use. It compares very well with the Smith. Looking forward to playing/comparing it some more.
PS: for those of you in NYC, Roberto's now has all of them in stock, so you can try/buy them there. According to the salesperson, I was the first to purchase one - that fact alone adds significantly to tone and articulation quality
Edit: Also trying a X0 now - this one is a beauty and compares directly to the Smith 1* (via experience and according to Rico's mouthpiece comparison chart). It really sings in the upper register, lovely resonance down below. Maybe better than the Smith, but after 10 years my Smith could probably use some facing touch up and cleaning.
I'm thinking that perhaps the X0 will be good for slightly harder, fresh out of the box reeds, and the X5 could be useful for softer, more broken in reeds. Just speculating, will test that theory.
Post Edited (2012-08-12 13:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2012-08-09 23:29
I just bought one and am using it right now in a variety of settings to give it good running test. I like it, it seems to be pretty reed friendly, i've tried a fresh out of the box V12 3.5, 56rue lepic 3.5, an older legere signature 4.25, a brand new legere signature 4.25, and an older v12 4. The legeres were all a little hard, and off the bat, the rue lepic worked best out of the box (could be that i randomly chose one that works though).
For the X0 facing that i bought, i would probably use v12 size 4 reeds or legere signature size 4 reeds. It sounds very nice with all those reeds and the size four owould probably be a good a choice for reed that works, but can be adjusted, whittled down a little bit adn still work.
As for the mouthpiece, i do like it. Cheap, and works well. I can understand the statements above about it being maybe not as good as a custom mouthpiece, but a GREAT mass produced mouthpiece. I do think it's great, and i think it may replace my 2 year old m15 at least for a while.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: A Brady
Date: 2012-08-10 02:28
I ordered an X5 model, as I like to keep up with the options available for my students. I have already used this piece on an outdoor concert at the Shore I played last night, and I must say, I am very pleased with the centered, focused tone and excellent response and intonation. It is actually more reed friendly than my main piece, a Chicago Kaspar, but does not have the amazing "ring" of the Kaspar, but at less than a hundred bucks, this has to be the best low cost mouthpiece I have played. All of my current reeds (Reserve Classic, Pilgerstorfer Rondo, Legere Signature) work very well on this piece, and I'm sure if I adjust some specifically for it, will work even better. Bravo, Rico, quite a breakthrough.
AB
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rdc
Date: 2012-08-12 01:27
I received a replacement for the Reserve mouthpiece with a loose tenon cork, but was not satisfied with it due to a slight manufacturing defect at the extreme outside edge of the right tip rail. It’s just speculation on my part, but it almost looks like the rubber was melted due to a coolant failure in that one spot during the CNC process. In the limited trial I have had with this mouthpiece, the defect does not seem to affect the way it plays, but I will be sending it back. At any rate, I ended up ordering three more on trial and now have had the opportunity to try a total of four X5’s and one X0.
The X5’s all have similar facing measurements. I had reported that measurements for the first one were 35, 22, 12, 6, 104. The three middle measurements are the same on all four mouthpieces. The only differences I found are with the first and last numbers. Along with the 35, two are right on 34, and the other one I call 34+. The tip openings show the most variance-the four mouthpieces measure 104, 105, 106, and 107.
These mouthpieces all play great! The differences in the way they feel are in keeping with the variations in tip opening and/or facing length. The more open mouthpieces play with slightly more resistance. The slightly longer facings play with less resistance. There are indeed small differences in tone quality, but everything else about them shows remarkable consistency.
I tried the X5’s because of Rico’s advertising that they are equivalent to the Vandoren M15 facing. After trying them, I would characterize them as more open and thus more resistant than the M15.
Since I decided to get more of these on trial, I asked for an X0, and I am glad I did so! This one measures 34, 22, 11, 4, 100 and is my personal favorite, perhaps because the facing is closer to that of my Behn Vintage than any of the X5’s. This mouthpiece plays beautifully and is beautifully finished!
I will definitely be recommending these to students, and I am confident that for every three or so that I get on trial, I will be able to find at least one very fine mouthpiece among them.
Robert Chest
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TM
Date: 2012-08-15 08:57
Hello ,
Yesterday I got a X5 model from the internet shop to compare with my current M13 lyre and M15.
I think it has a little bit more resistance than M13 Lyre with the same reed and the sound is darker. The altissimo notes are clear and in general it gives a more solid sound than the M13 lyre.
Very nice mouthpiece!
Tunman
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2012-08-15 19:19
Like Hank, I'm also a doubler who primarily uses the Portnoy BP02. Have had the chance to play the 1.05 Rico model for a week or two and like it. There is more resistance and less flexibility than with the Portnoy, but a more open model may change that.
The Rico is very consisten through the registers and avoids some of the harshness that can creep into my town using the Portnoy. I like the roundness of the sound and would prefer it (so far) for some chamber music and show work. If quality control is better than with Vandoren, this could be an excellent mp to get some sounds under control in high school bands.
Of course, you first have to get the band directors to not slam the door on you when you mention the word "Rico"
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Richie Hawley
Date: 2012-08-16 20:22
Hello Allen, If you want less resistance and more flexibilty you will want to go to a more close model , the X0, not the more open X10.
-Richie Hawley
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phurster
Date: 2012-08-17 08:18
Richie, would that be dependent on the strength of the reed? Even an open mouthpiece can have little resistance if you stick a soft enough reed on it (Maybe you meant for a given reed strength and I'm being pedantic ?). I also would have thought that a more open mpc might give great flexibility, at least with dynamics and possibly with pitch. The closer lays seem to me to give slightly more core to the sound, perhaps a 'thicker' quality of tone.
Chris Ondaatje.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Richie Hawley
Date: 2012-08-18 16:02
Hello Chris,
You are very correct about putting a light reed on an open mouthpiece to provide less resistance. I was making a general statement in my post that if you try mouthpieces with the same reed, a more open mouthpiece will feel more resistant . Thanks for catching me on that for clarification.
A slight resistance in one's clarinet setup is essential for producing proper airflow and sound production from the player. We all need something to blow against. This (slight) resistance that I find is helpful for most players and can come from the clarinet, the barrel, the mouthpiece or the reed. Unfortunately, many students go overboard in this manner in trying to produce a "dark tone". Many seek out this resistance in every piece of equipment that they use. They get a stuffy clarinet, a resistant barrel, an open mouthpiece and a hard reed!!! This perfect storm of bad choices often happens as many young clarinetists associate the feeling of massive resistance in their setup with creating a rich dark sound. In reality it usually only produces fuzz, a dull sound and challenges with articulation.
I have played on many combinations of setups that have been well balanced for resistance through my career. During my career as Principal Clarinet of the Cincinnati Symphony, I found that having a neutral colorful clarinet and barrel combined with a free blowing (close facing H. Chedeville mouthpiece) and a very firm reed (4.5) was the magic combination for me and how I wanted to sound in the orchestra. The reed was where I chose to put the resistance. The vintage H. Chedeville mouthpiece with a close facing allowed me to have ease of articulation and a rich dense core to the sound. The firm reed gave me something to blow against, it was the resistance I needed to project my sound out over a full orchestra into the massive hall in which the Cincinnati Symphony performs.
Using a close facing mouthpiece in the orchestra gave me the flexibility to use a very light reed when a conductor wanted me to play softer than I ever thought possible. (example: third movement of Beethoven Symphony #5-- bar 255-258-- the MOST DIFFICULT 8 notes to perform under pressure when the conductor wants it to be "pppp") A close facing mouthpiece in the orchestra also gave me the flexibility to put on a very hard reed to produce a massive sound that could soar above the orchestra (for example: Nielsen Symphony #5 first movement solos)
Everyone has their own manner of getting their equipment dialed into the zone of perfection. Half of my students play successfully on close facings and half on open facing. It is not so much about the lay or the facing opening as much as how the player decides to use the facing opening in conjunction with their other equipment.
Generally speaking, to get the benefits of any mouthpiece, you must select a reed that is the appropriate strength for the facing. A close facing mouthpiece requires a harder reed to realize its benefits and a more open mouthpiece necessitates using a lighter strength reed.
The Rico Reserve mouthpiece is amazing and what I am currently using for my performances. I use the XO (close facing) mouthpiece. The Reserve mouthpieces have a wonderful core in them that is a result of a great all around design and not just the facing. The Reserve XO (close facing) mouthpiece has a comparable tip opening number to the M13/M13lyre but it will actually play with more of the resistance of the M15 or the long forgotten M14.
When D'addario invited me to help with this project over a year ago, I was skeptical that they would be able to produce a professional level mouthpiece via CNC machining. The engineers that worked on this were from the aerospace industry and assured me that no matter what angle or dimension was required that they would be able to invent a tool and a technique to reproduce it. I believed that the final product off the machines would still require finishing up by unskilled hands (other brands that make molded mouthpieces call this clean up "hand finished"--but it really is just cleaning up the seams that are left over from the molding process--there is no clean up necessary in a perfectly milled mouthpiece). Thousands of changes and many hundreds of prototypes later, this milled (not molded) mouthpiece really started taking shape--all without ever needing to be touched up by hand. Every change that I requested of Lee Livengood and team Rico Reserve manifested itself into a better and better mouthpiece. The finished product really blew me away and I switched over to it immediately.
Richie Hawley
Professor of Clarinet at the Shepherd School of Music, Rice University
Retired Principal Clarinet of the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra
Rico Artist and part of the development team for the Reserve Mouthpiece
Buffet Group USA, Artist & Clinician
Post Edited (2012-08-18 18:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2012-08-18 17:23
Hi Allen Cole,
Let me know if and when you settle in with the Rico and consider moving from the BP02?. I also have several Stowell Wells Schneider MPs that are very close to the Portnoys in playability and believe that a more open Reserve - if it comes out - might fit us both.
IMHO, as doublers, we do have some different demands for a MP. But hearing that a 3 1/2 works well with one of the current models was encouraging.
HRL
PS Richie, I loved the "perfect storm of bad choices..." Right on!
Post Edited (2012-08-18 17:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jeffreyc
Date: 2012-08-24 08:09
Hello all,
I usually just lurk on this site and rarely post anything, mainly because I am finishing a DMA - and who has time to actually write anything for fun during a doctorate? :-)
Having mentored with Richie Hawley, I was quick to order two close facing Rico mouthpieces. They arrived yesterday, ten minutes before I was supposed to teach a lesson. I got the email notification that the shipment was delivered to the college office and immediately went to fetch them.
I took the mouthpieces into the studio and began teaching the lesson. The student was having difficulty with negotiation of a turn and I got out my instrument to demonstrate.
I was fighting the temptation to put on one of the new mouthpieces. Going against my best judgment to have my first notes on the mouthpiece heard by a student, I did anyway. The student waited while I found a mouthpiece patch, put grease on the cork, adorned a new reed, etc. and then I began to play.
Immediately, I knew it was a winner. I have tried hundreds of mouthpieces over the years, owned my fair share of Kaspars and Chedevilles, worked with some of the finest mouthpiece refinishers in the United States, and even played on stock mouthpieces picked from dozens of trials for a time. I once had a very special Kaspar that felt this way, but it warped and since refacing it never felt the same.
This one Rico mouthpiece is so amazing to me that I have yet to even try the second one! My advice is that you try them - and I certainly know what I'll be recommending to my students.
Jeff Carwile, BM, MM, AD, DMA (in progress)
Professor of Clarinet
Northern Kentucky University
http://carwile.musicteachershelper.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2012-09-03 13:31
I did a quick sound check of the Rico x-10. I think it's a very well built mouthpiece capable of a really nice sound and articulation. I feel the designers achieved that vintage resistance found in the old mouthpieces
http://snd.sc/OFHvKM
Tom Puwalski
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-09-03 17:35
Tom -
My router blocked your snd.sc address as a "known phishing site." It wouldn't even let me click through. Could you please give your ordinary URL?
Thanks.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2012-09-03 17:56
Nice and very rich, even sound. The first bunch of these should arrive to Hungary in 1-2 weeks. I would gladly try some.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2012-09-03 19:03
I have to say I think Richard Hawley's post above is one of the most articulate and accurate posting having to do with mouthpieces. Having been to Lincoln for the clarinet fest, I was amazed at the amount of people who would walk by mouthpieces put one on (aways with the same reed they had on their Kasperville) blow 4 notes and either pronounce the mouthpiece "Awesome" or a piece of "crap" when the reality is that they have gained very limited knowledge about the mouthpiece.
Dialing it in can take a little while. I've been playing for a while on Vandoren M30s and M15s and a Moba P facing that I've modified to have a longer facing that standard. When I play M15 I use Rico reserve 3.5, when I use the M30 I use an Evolution 3 or a Rue lepic 3 or Legere 2.75 or 3 and the resistance of the two facing Vandorens is identical. The Rico x-10 is a tad more resistant than the Vandorens, that's not a bad thing at all, if you get the resistance that you're use to when you play it. So now that I've found the resistance that I'm used to in the Rico, I will play it solidly for a few weeks, and see what I glean.
I read Omar's post about the rubber, and I would say this I would buy a buy a few rods of his rubber and have Rico make the identical mouthpiece on their machines and play test them. I will state this at the onset, I believe that dimensions trump material, but I'm open to be proven wrong in in a very scientific "blow out". I think Rico's process is one that could provide the closest thing to "Scientificly" repeatable mouthpiece process, so I hope the research will continue.
I personally would like to try the X-0, I also have the X-5 but found it trickier for me to get the resistance that I was used to 3's were too soft 3.5s were too hard. So I'm thinking the X-0 with a 3.5 or 3.5+ might work really well for me.
Tom Puwalski.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2012-09-03 21:41
Dave,
I can't say I agree with your statement because I've never been able to isolate the variables, especially on mouthpieces. With Backun Barrels and Bells I can say that the specs are tight enough that I can make a generalization between two woods.
I think Rico has some really great dimensions on these mouthpieces, I would love to see some experiments using different materials. I for one, would love to see what an X-10 would sound like on a Crystal blank. I think it's great that Rico undertook this project.
Tom Puwalski
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2012-09-03 22:03
Dave,
it might I would love to try one against a hard rubber or vintage rubber made to the same dimensions. And doubting that it would is based on the fact that you've never liked the sound of any "plastic" mouthpiece you've played. Because plastic mouthpieces are sold to the low end student market it would make sense that people who've marketed them haven't payed as much attention to the creation of them. That's where I think Rico is coming out on top here. As soon as Rico has a few made in different materials I will want to try them and see if there really is a difference between the materials.
Tom Puwalski
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2012-09-03 23:05
From what I've been told from Gennussa back in the day, that the plastic is a much more stable materiel to use in molds and than hard rubber. But once again different materials will end up coming out of molds differently before they're faced. I have a theory that crystal mouthpieces ( I've never liked them) would play better with the right facings on them and that the material is inherently hard to work with as far as getting dimensions the way you like.
Different materiels might machine differently from a billet also. But even back in that magical day, when all mouthpieces were great I believe that the decision on the material was made on the basis of what was easily workable, and inexpensive and available, not as I think we would all like to think "the sound". I mean all those old Brilhardt sax mouthpieces were made at a "Comb" factory which I guess use the Same "Acoustic" rubber. But I seem to be getting "unscientific" in my rant.
Tom Puwalski
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2012-09-04 00:38
The Kaspers et al. were as concerned about the economics of manufacture as any maker is today. I strongly suspect that they bought the best rubber they could for the best price they could get it. I doubt that it was a mysterious formulation worked out by practitioners of the black arts, or even by the best industrial chemists of the day. It was just the best they could get for the best price. The rest was in their unique skill.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-09-04 03:23
It's pretty late and I need to hit the hay, but wanted to ask if the Ricco mouthpiece is plastic or hard rubber? It may have been stated somewhere, but at the moment I am just curious.
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-09-04 15:27
Thanks Dave! The few posts up from this had me confused for a moment, and my bad. They should do well.
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2012-09-04 17:37
I put the Intro and Theme up this morning, on the Theme I switched to a legere 2.75 so the Intro and Variation 1 are Rico reserve 3 and theme is Legere 2.75. I play double lip and I jam a lot of what ever mouthpiece I'm playing down my pie hole.
http://snd.sc/RCM6Aj
Tom Puwalski
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-09-04 20:20
I say this as a hypocrite as I am sitting on a pile of glorious old rubber mouthpieces that I scarcely use...
And I say this in a bit of ignorance as I have not tried the new Rico mouthpiece yet...
Is there not something inherently beneficial in having a mouthpiece, which if broken or the like, is quite easily replaceable.
Perhaps some may say that a machine made mouthpiece could never be acceptable... or that it is constructed using inherently defective material.
So be it, no one is forcing anybody to use it...
But I'd play a mouthpiece made of dried-pasta without hesitation, professionally, if it let me do what was needed AND was easily replaceable.
And if a piece of equipment is used professionally, and effectively, is it not of professional quality regardless of the material. (Didn't some famous clarinetist recently "win" a big audition on a composite mouthpiece?)
I realize I'm preaching to the choir for some readers.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2012-09-04 23:24
Tom,
To my old ears, the Legere sounded better. More tone colour.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-09-05 03:45
I apologize David (B.), I read more into your innocuous post than what was intended.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2012-09-09 14:56
"... I'd play a mouthpiece made of dried-pasta ..."
I have got to try this. I'll call it my Cannelloni model. If it doesn't work, I can stuff it with a meat or cheese filling and bake it in pomadoro sauce, with a little bechamel on top.
Ciao, Chow,
Fabio
Post Edited (2012-09-09 14:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-09-09 18:46
Just curious if it would work well to make a mouthpiece out of Gabon Ebony rather than hard rubber rod? It may not work as well due to the grain of the wood, but at least Ebony would be tight grained. I think it would also cost a bit more.
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2012-09-09 22:09
FYI, it's been about six weeks since I bought this mouthpiece and I've been using it everyday. I've gotten more compliments on my tone than the mouthpiece prior, and it is very very easy for me to control. I like it.
Try it if you are looking for a good cheap mouthpiece.
Alexi
(using the X0 model, with blue box 3.5 reeds right now, but will probably end up using 4 or 4.25 legeres once my order comes in)
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-09-10 02:13
And for using 2.0 reeds what Mouthpiece would work best?
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-09-10 04:20
for a 2 reed strenth, then X10 would be the Medium Open about the only one that would work right.... unless I sent it to Scott Kurtzweil and had him re-face it for #2 reeds.
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ariel3
Date: 2012-09-12 18:47
After reading and digesting all of the above, I tried the Rico X5 and X10 mouthpiece. For the past 12 years I have used the Pyne Bel Canto Medium. I confess that I did not know that it was an asymmetrical mouthpiece at that time, but I liked it so did not change because I was already using it.
However, after I tried The Rico Reserve I was surprised with the experience. It felt as if I had a mouthpiece that knew what I wanted, responded so well and allowed for the subtle nuances with ease. The tonal qualities were the equal of the bel canto.
The Rico that suited me was the X5. I tried it with 18 of my 3.5 Forestone reeds - not the latest generation which I prefer. They all played very well in all registers.
I did try the X10 as well, and it was equally superior, but the X5 matched my reed strength better.
Interesting thought - does "asymmetrical" have anything to do with this experience ? Whether or not there is a case, I have changed to the Rico Reserve.
Gene
Post Edited (2012-09-12 18:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EBC
Date: 2012-10-14 17:04
(Disclaimer: I understand I'm resurrecting a dead thread, but I thought one more review couldn't hurt.) I recently had the privilege of trying several of these mouthpieces at a Rico event with Lee Livengood sponsored by Twigg Musique in Montréal. After testing about five each of X0, X5 and X10, I found an X0 that fits me like a glove.
My Previous Setup: I used to play primarily an M13 lyre, and own a B40 that I'm quite comfortable with as well. For my M13 lyre, I play an assortment of Vandoren 3.5 (blue box) and 3.5+ (V-12 and 56 Rue Lepic), and for my B40 I play Vandoren 3 (blue box and V-12).
The Review: The increased (positive) resistance compared to my M13 lyre seems to iron out the imperfections in my reeds, allowing me to produce a beautiful tone on many more of them. The tone itself is richer, rounder and projects beautifully at the smallest dynamic levels. The response is comparable, and, in fact, more comfortable in the lower altissimo (like my B40). The intonation is excellent, although not really an improvement over the M13 lyre, which was already perfectly serviceable. My only concern is the volume ceiling, which seems slightly lower than that of my M13 lyre (already on the low side).
I'm not usually one to spend much time fooling around with equipment, nor do I often find much benefit from it, but this mouthpiece is truly a joy to play, and despite my efforts to dislike it (I REALLY wasn't planning on switching mouthpieces), I've been won over. I have to add, though, that despite finding an X5 that was also excellent, the other mouthpieces I tried were a mixed bag (at least for me). The X10s were all unattractive to me largely because of the response, which I just couldn't get working, despite bringing an assortment of reed strengths and experimenting quite a bit with embouchure. The X5s in general seemed quite consistent, although didn't quite bring the "wow factor." The X0s were more variable, although even the bottom of the barrel was relatively good. Still, none of the others allowed me to produce the beauty of tone mine did. Of course, I'm just one person, and the results will be different for everyone.
Final note: I know I'm just an undergrad student, but Rico, I'll endorse you. Just guarantee me a lifetime supply of these mouthpieces and a really cool keychain and I'm in. Actually, forget the mouthpieces.
Hope this is useful!
Eric
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2012-10-15 15:57
I recently tried the new Rico mouthpieces in the X0 facing as that is closest to what I generally use. I have played one of them over the last week or so in a number of settings and have been very pleased with the results.
The consistency in these mouthpieces is quite remarkable. Of the three that I tried, they played very much the same. I would probably have difficulty telling the difference once I warmed up and settled in on any of them.
These mouthpieces are very, very even in response and tone color from note to note. The color is full, rich and resonant in each register with lots of presence and depth to the sound. There does not seem to be any tendency to get reedy or thin, whether in the throat or highest register. The intonation is excellent with very little variation across the range. The focus and projection is excellent.
There is a blowing resistance which gives the sound a lot of hold. There is always a bit of give and take with any equipment. Some mouthpieces tend toward free blowing but may allow the tone to break a little when pushed to the extremes. The hold in the Rico gives it a lot of control. I felt as though I did not need to work a lot with my embouchure to control the dynamics, color or intonation. It often felt as though I could just set my embouchure and play. I have been able to find many reeds that work comfortably.
A word about reed strength- I have performed on this mouthpiece using both Rico Reserve classic 4 and 3.5+. The lighter reed was great when I played in a setting where I needed a little more freedom. Initially, I anticipated that I might need a stiffer reed due to the close facing. Because of the slight hold in the blowing resistance, which I believe is due more to internal dimensions, I have found that this is not the case. I would advise players to try a variety of reed strengths when testing these, including some slightly softer than what one might expect from the facing numbers due to the resistance.
Over the years I have had the opportunity to play a number of mouthpieces -stock, vintage and custom. I believe that Rico is really on to something with this new mouthpiece. It outplays many others that I have tried. It has many great qualities and it could easily be used by any number of players, from students to pros, with great results. The price point, easy availability and great consistency will make it especially attractive to many. As with any piece of equipment, it may not be for everyone, but I feel that it is well worth a try and that it will find its way into many playing situations. One might wonder whether there is room for yet another mouthpiece with all that are available today. The Rico Reserve is a fine player and a welcome addition.
Post Edited (2013-03-21 10:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2012-10-15 16:29
Here is a short clip of something I recorded using the Rico X-10 Intro, theme and First Variation of the Weber Homage. I used a Reserve #3 on the intro and theme and a legere signature on the first variation.
http://soundcloud.com/klezmertom/hommage-weber-intro-theme-var
I think this is a very useable mouthpiece very nice hold to the sound and the intonation is good. I've been doing some recording for my great gear under $2k page that will be up on my web site soon. But I used the Antigua by Backun on this recording.
I've played the X-10 and the X-5. For me, a double lip player who take a lot of mouthpiece in (down to the ligature screws). I find the X10 played with number 3 reeds, Rico reserve 3, legere3 and vandoren Rue 56 3s. I felt that the X5 felt to me to be a little in-between reed strength for me, 3s a smidge to soft, 3.5 a little to hard. Which leads me to suspect that I would love x-0 with a 3.5 on it. I think this mouthpiece X series warrants a serious look.
I had a chance to play a few X-10s and they all played really similar well within the different reed margin of error. Which feels two moutpieces and feel real close with the right reed on each of them.
Tom Puwalski. www.clarinetgourment.com author of the Clarinetist's guide to Klezmer and Klezmer Basic Training.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2012-10-17 20:42
I ordered the most open one last week as the tip opening is close to the VD 5RVs that I like.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2012-10-17 21:09
Here is another endorsement for the X0.
It is the most comfortable mouthpiece I have played maybe ever.
I still find myself wishing for some of the tonal qualities of my M13Lyre. The X0 is a little too round and dark for me, it doesn't "open up" as well as an M15 or M13Lyre. It's also a little sharper tuned than the M series (13 pitch).
Nevertheless, the tradeoff in comfort, ease of articulation, "hold" (no scooping), consistent resistance across registers has turned this into my new #1 mouthpiece, for now... 
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2012-10-18 00:14
I just bought an X5 for one of my newer students who came to me playing on a pretty beat-up 5RV-Lyre. We've been working on embouchure and tonguing basics for the last month to get him a more focused and clean sound, and we switched him over to the new mouthpiece and everything just fell into place. It's exactly the "middle of the road" I was looking for...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2012-10-18 06:01
Played a few more, because people seem to really like them. I played about 11 this time. My impression remains the same. Not consistant, sort of like finding a reed that plays. This is based on an open mind/judgement eventhough I have issue's with Rico.
They did something very interesting, very unconventional. With respect to Rico I'll keep my mouth shut and let Rico tell everyone through ad's whatever, if they wish to release any information. I appaud Rico and probably their Research and Development team. If Rico reads this I hope they don't devulge any info.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-10-18 06:26
Any divulged info. would be a welcome ingredient to the mouthpiece mixture that most partake from. If you have the info., let it be heard.
Why are current measured numbers under protection when any Ched/Kaspar can be presented in totality?
I hope Rico divulges all; but I have no financial interest in the game.
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-10-18 17:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2012-10-23 16:20
Mine arrived and I played it. It responds the same as my VD 5RVs......I like it
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2012-10-23 18:03
I heard through the grapevine that Rico blended their mouthpiece material with Secret Ingredient X-37, and that's why the mouthpieces seem to play well. Can anyone corroborate this rumor?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2012-10-23 18:06
No, they spray that on their Reserve Classic reeds.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RefacerMan
Date: 2012-10-23 18:54
David,
I heard from confidential sources that secret ingredient X-37 is really Brown 25 (from the Groove Tube)!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Malcolm Martland
Date: 2013-02-18 15:51
After reading this thread I bought the X10 when Amazon UK had a special offer for £80. It plays very nicely with a very smooth tone and as Bob Draznic commented very similar to a Vandoren 5RV using regular Vandoren strength 3 reeds. If anything I think the Rico is more responsive. But, in comparison to the 5RV, it plays quite flat from room temperature and takes some time to come up to pitch - just reaching A=440 after about 5 minutes playing! The 5RV is almost spot on in tune from cold but needs the barrel pulling out a fraction after about 5 minutes - which I consider to be normal. I could get a shorter barrel but has anyone else noticed this or is it just me or my setup?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2013-02-18 16:19
Malcolm Martland wrote:
> But, in comparison to the
> 5RV, it plays quite flat from room temperature and takes some
> time to come up to pitch - just reaching A=440 after about 5
> minutes playing! The 5RV is almost spot on in tune from cold
Are you comparing to a Traditional 5RV or a Series 13? The traditional Vandorens are tuned higher. I think the Rico Reserve series is tuned more like the Series 13, lower than the traditional VDs, aimed mostly at an American market where it's claimed that orchestras play at A=440.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: michael13162
Date: 2013-02-19 04:53
Credibility: my current teacher (Lee Livengood) is one of the main guys who designed this mouthpiece.
You could think I'm biased but I assure you, I'm not. I won't give special treatment because my teacher was involved with its production. I used to play on a M13 before I tried the Reserve. It was the X0 model. The tone and articulation was in general much better than the M13. I felt a noticeable improvement as soon as I started playing.
As of right now however, I'm playing on one of Lee's pieces, but I think the reserve is by far the best bang for your buck. At around 100$, it's not too much to swallow and for what you get, it's a very very good buy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Malcolm Martland
Date: 2013-02-19 10:08
Thanks for the response Karl (kdk). I'm playing a traditional 5RV so your explanation would account for the difference. We also play at A=440 in the UK, we try to in our band anyway! I'll just have to allow a few minutes more warm up before we launch, which is not a bad idea anyway.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
