 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-01-16 18:39
Before I dive in, let’s assume that “levels of freedom” exist.
My point being that if 2 or more things are truly free, the argument could be made that one isn’t “freer” than the other. I get that.
But for the sake of this thread, let’s say nothing in reed vibration is truly free. Quite a few things exist, from the base of the reed and the nature if its unique fibers, to the player’s embouchure, to the ligature, mouthpiece and clarinet, to the air pressure/temperature/humidity (blown against the reed and ambient) that affect a reed’s ability to vibrate.
That said, please correct me if I am wrong. But there have been ligature manufactures that have devised mechanisms to keep the reed secured to the mouthpiece table, that contact the reed in as few places, and with as small contact points as possible (without damaging its stock/bark/base—call it what you wil)….
…all in the name of creating an environment in which the reed is the least encumbered to vibrate.
Now maybe that’s me incorrectly paraphrasing the glossy product marketing sheets. Maybe the “talk” is that ”ligature ‘X’ best allows the reed to ‘express’ itself,” rather than vibrate per se: which may be a situation in which the reed is NOT as free to vibrate as it does when ligatures that strap down the reed like a wild horse are employed.
I point this out because the idea that less points of contact with the reed allow more reed vibration, at least at the end that [I think] matters: its tip, seems to run counterintuitive to physics. Somewhat like the diving board example used by many of us in the past, it would seem we want the base of the reed to be strapped down tightly with as many contact points as possible (witness the string ligature) to prevent the tip from transferring energy to the reed base and mouthpiece (places that don't absorb vibration any where near as well as the reed tip), and rather have that energy remain with the tip, for its maximum vibration.
Or maybe getting the mouthpiece to take in some of the reeds energy, as transferred to it by our air pressure upon it, is beneficial, even if the reed vibrates a tad less.
Or yet maybe these minute (MY NOOT) differences don’t amount to much in player and audience sentiment.
So, any thoughts on this “size of the area that the ligature contacts the reed and its tightness” and “reed vibration” connection, and what’s optimal (reference to Vandoren’s ligature of similar name not intentional, but duly noted)?????
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2015-01-16 19:05
For a given amount of total pressure on the reed, fewer ligature contact points just means a corresponding higher (more concentrated) pressure at those points. Simple physics. As for effects on reed/mouthpiece performance, remember that there are so many different vibrational modes of the reed, affected by many variables, that there is no simple answer as to what configuration of pressure points (or distributed contact areas) will provide the "best" response.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2015-01-16 19:13
This is my take of whcih ligature is best for the player regardless of it being more or less free. First it's important that the reed sit flat on the table of the MP so you don't get water or air between the reed and the mouthpiece table. That will cause all types of problems, delayed attacks and squeaks. Then a player has to look for what the ligature does for them, only for them. Some ligatures play freer, some dampen the high frequencies, my preference, some dampen the lows. Some will make certian registers, altissimo for example, project more or less, sound mellower, brighter, darker or lighter more or less uniform through out the range of the clarinet. So I don't think it matters if there are two points of contact, two rails of contact, two cross bars of contact, soft material or string covering the entire bark of the reed etc. What matters most is that it allows the player to find the type of sound, feeling, vibration and comfort they are looking for once they have found the proper mouthpiece and reed combination.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-01-16 19:51
Agreed David. "Best response"....I don't have a clue what level of torque or surface area contact with the reed gives us that subjective measure we're all entitled to takes sides with.
..perhaps exactly why you put the word "best" in quotes.
And yes, the types of vibrations, as well as their cause and effect: they could be exponential in number, not even to mention the way they all impact each other. I gather that calculating this stuff might be like trying to pinpoint the exact weather a week from now: too many (unknown) variables with too many (unknown) affects on other (unknown) variables.
But assuming, like in the diving board example, maximum tip vibration is best (and I grant you, in the real world, maximum reed vibration may or may not be best or optimal) wouldn't you want that diving board's base to be as tightly held down, and capable of transferring what ever energy the "business end" of the diving board transfers to it (being integrally connected to that tip) to the diving board base, and the ground/floor it is connected to? Wouldn't, in the case of a reed, more contact with the reed allow the strength of its being held down to not mar the reed's base?
Granted, diving boards aren't reeds, maximum reed vibration hasn't been claimed to be optimal, and even what is slightly suboptimal may not transfer to player and audience perception. Diving boards are bolted, not strapped down like reeds, where increasing the boltage first achieves a smaller degree of additional sturdiness with each additional bolt, whereafter it compromises the board's integrity with too much bolt to bolted material (i.e. the base of the diving board).
Ed: I agree completely. And yet physics tells me that manufacturers that claim their "2 micro point contacts" allow maximum reed vibration (not to be confused with performance) are "full of it."
I think, as I write this out here, that the premise of my thesis is that the number of connection points, or near entire connection to the base of a reed, as in string and fabric ligatures, or the ability/designed limits of being able to torque that ligature, should not be marketed as directly correlated with reed vibration, (worse effectiveness) but rather, subject, like you say, to purely personal taste.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-01-16 21:56
I would intuit that the response and tone quality allowed by a given reed *might* - I can't say *do* - depend in part on modes of vibration that involve the entire length from the tip to the end of the heel. If the vibration of the vamp, or rather the sound the vibration produces, depends on some small amount of motion of the fibers down the length of the table to support/permit the longer modes, then it's possible that firmly immobilizing the reed against the table area may inhibit those longer modes.
Of course, that begs the question even if those (hypothetical) longer modes are present, does the player want to encourage or suppress them?
You would think an engineer designing a ligature would investigate this kind of thing carefully. But I suspect most of the ligature design is still done by trial and error with principles and resulting decisions based on more empirical than theoretical grounds.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2015-01-17 00:31
Karl, I'm an engineer by trade, so perhaps I can offer a few suggestions why perhaps "an engineer designing a ligature" might not "investigate this kind of thing carefully":
1) There's little or no money in it. Good engineers are not particularly cheap and without a profit motive, there's little incentive to 'work the problem'. So in the end, most (and I would guess nearly all) musical products are designed by musician-tinkerers, not academically-schooled/industry-trained engineers.
2) Because mouthpiece facings and interiors designs vary widely and semi-randomly, and most reeds are still made from organic materials and so their fiber characteristics vary randomly, it would be very difficult to design a ligature that would be 'optimized' for any sort of sound or response characteristics, even if....
3) ....clarinetists could agree on what 'optimum' sound and response were, which they can't (your "dark" is my "bright", etc. etc.).
4) By the way, what's so bad about trial-and-error? That's how most of the world's great technical achievements came about, and that's how all musical instruments (except perhaps electronic ones, which IMO don't count) were developed. You can't design something on "theoretical" grounds when the theory and mathematics have not been sufficiently developed (sorry, Benade's excellent work didn't even scratch the surface, design-wise). Again here, there's no financial or philanthropic motive to perform the mathematical and physical research to create complete and usable theoretical models of the wind instruments and all their accessories.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2015-01-17 00:41
David, Phil Rovner is an engineer as well as a clarinet-sax man and he did invest a good deal in his designs and equipment to manufacture his ligatures and metal sax mouthpieces. He was very innovative when he began manufacturing them.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2015-01-17 01:28
I'm sure you're right, Ed, and I'm a big fan of Phil Rovner and his products. But were his ligatures designed from any theoretical basis or mathematical modeling? I seriously doubt it. For sure a manufacturing engineer was involved in the design and production aspects, but probably the basic design was empirically derived. Maybe you could persuade Phil himself to chime in on this discussion? That would be interesting.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BflatNH
Date: 2015-01-17 05:51
I may have missed it, but I don't think I saw any reference to the curvature (or lack of) of the mouthpiece table which the stock (between the heel and vamp) confronts. I didn't say 'mounted' as I am not sure what the exact relationship of the reed stock is to the mpc table.
I am willing to bet that some reed stock motion relative to the table is desired as opposed to imobilizing the stock to the table. Perhaps any mpc makers or resurfacers can advise how they surface their tables, and why. ALong with opening of the tip, I would like mpc specifications to include table contour (curvature & depth) information.
As mentioned above, there are various [resonance] modes of the reed, but I have not seen a study on the entire reed, *including the stock*, showing such modes - if a study exists, please post the link. If the note we desire has a particular mode on the reed stock, how the modes on the stock coincides with the highpoints (or contour) of the table and the ligature pressure points, I think, would be useful in choosing the mpc, ligature and reed, and where the ligature is placed [on the reed].
I like the Optimum as it gives me 3 different plates with 3 entirely different reed stock engagement plates (2 horz ridges, 2 vert ridges, 4 points) to let me tune my setup for the music (e.g. 2 horz ridges slightly high on a GD reed on a slightly concave table gives me reliable high altissimo, and if I lower the lig 1/16, my throat tones are cleaner). On the other hand, on BCl, I tried those hard wooden ring ligatures, and couldn't find a mounting position that didn't hurt my sound above G6.
What I would like to see is a further development of the Optimum with adjustable spacing of the ridges or points so that I could spread them apart or bring them closer and see what that might do, independent of pressure. Rovner has something like that (BCl) but the closeness is a result of how tightly the ligature is applied.
I'm not trying to nail this down with mathematical certainty, but perhaps I can figure out what parameters I like to have or to adjust, and avoid equipment that doesn't do that for me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-01-17 17:50
BflatNH
I don't doubt the Vandoren Optimum a solid contender in the world of
ligatures. I like that it comes with 3 different pressure plates so that users can make adjustments that are setup and/or reed specific, as no setups or players or reeds are alike, and all these variables change for the same player/setup over time.
Still more, I here you on how it would be nice if one of the pressure plates had, to paraphrase you, a grid where you could put pins into, to experiment with contact points to the reed. We could argue on the benefits this might have to play, but also know that we're each entitled to our opinion.
And yet is was this ligature http://www.vandoren-en.com/file/147151/ and its 4 point attachment plate, with Vandoren making the claim that it allows the reed to vibrate in total freedom that was one of the motivations for me to write this thread, and get clarifications on things like whether the base of the reed or the mouthpiece vibrating defined or thwarted "the business end" of the reed to vibrate in total freedom.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
