 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-12-28 15:10
Maybe it's a silly question, and everybody knows it except me. But I couldn't find any information about the theme.
I suspect Vandoren has changed blanks at some time, because vintage Vandorens has a very different feeling. Especially the engraved ones. I don't mean 'Vandoren Perfecta' just regular ones. I have tried old 5rv, 2rv and B45. Something has been changed surely, but it can be the design to. BTW I doubt that Vandoren changed the design let's say the B45's during the time. It must be another factor.
Although it's not the topic, Im just lazy to start a new one...what blanks were used with old Noblet mouthpieces?
Any ideas?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2010-12-28 18:52
I'm pretty sure than Vandoren makes their own blanks. It's probably a reasonable assumption that they have changed the material their blanks are made from over the years depending upon materials cost, availability, etc.
As for the old Noblet mouthpieces I think it depends on when they were made. I have heard that some were made from Chedeville blanks and that many were made from Riffault blanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-12-28 19:25
From working on many brands of mouthpiece, I've observed that Vandorens are made of a somewhat softer and 'more rubbery' material than other makes of hard rubber mouthpiece, which makes me think they do indeed make their own blanks. Personally I don't like their material, but who cares.......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-12-28 20:12
David Spiegelthal wrote:
> Personally I don't like their material, but who cares.......
Why is that? Acoustical reasons or mechanical difficulties in working with them?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2010-12-28 20:45
http://www.nyh.de/english/ebonitwerkstoff.php
Vandoren gets their raw blanks from the above source (as do other mouthpiece makers), and then they machine them into finished mouthpieces.
Noblet mouthpieces were Riffault blanks.
Vandoren has changed their source blank several times. They currently have two designs as defined by a flatter baffle and the deeper, troughed baffle of the 13 series. From there, they make many different facings. Some of their more open mouthpieces have wider rails.
Previously they had fewer facings and only one blank. The old Diamond Perfectas were made with the same stuff that gives moth balls their distinct smell, as I always pick up that odor when I work on that specific vintage, the more recent engraved script Vandoren models used more traditional ebonite formula but far better material than is currently used in Vandoren's lineup (in my opinion).
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2010-12-28 22:02
Karl, I'm of the outspoken opinion (no flames, please!) that there are no discernible acoustical differences that can be attributed to the material alone (all else being equal, which it never is). My objections to the Vandoren material with which I'm familiar has to do with its 'workability' from my perspective as a refacer --- I find the material to be a bit too soft and 'spongy' for my tastes, in working on it with sandpapers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-12-28 23:50
Thanks for the information. I saw 'somewhere' an old Noblet Paris 2V mouthpiece in very good condition. Is it worth to buy it as a blank for refacing?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2010-12-29 05:19
Buy it, have it adjusted. It was never a favorite mouthpiece for me to play on. It's surely a decent MP to play around with and have the facing redone.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2010-12-29 06:38
Brad Behn wrote:
> the more recent engraved
> script Vandoren models used more traditional ebonite formula
> but far better material than is currently used in Vandoren's
> lineup (in my opinion).
>
Brad, I'm curious about this statement. (Same question I asked David earlier) Why was the older formula better? Acoustical or mechanical (workability, tendency to wear more quickly) reasons?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-12-29 08:01
I'm almost sure he meant the acoustical quality. This would overlap with my opinion as well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-12-30 05:42
What is this "engraved" Vandoren?
Are they being made differently?
All the recent ones I have seen have the "sticker" logo that is just painted on and comes off very quickly. The older ones were lightly stamped.
PS- about the "softness" of VD blanks. I find them to be rather rigid- what maker do you think uses harder material?
Post Edited (2010-12-30 05:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-12-30 09:23
I can separate at lest 3 types regarding the logo. First is the very recent type with painted logo only. Older ones have different typography of the type (5RV, B45 etc) and stamped. Older than old ones seems to have a narrower 'Vandoren' logo and engraved deeper. I have seen golden ligature lines too. I like the last type the most.
This is just my observation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2010-12-30 15:36
Vandoren mouthpieces in their earlier renditions (the kind Cahuzac played) had the Diamond Perfecta (engraved) logo. Those smell like moth balls when refaced. They have a very warm, colorful resonance with an inviting, well defined pointed sparkle to the center of the sound.
Later, Vandoren eliminated the Perfecta logo and went with their more familiar logo, the one they use today, but the logo was of a higher quality as it was engraved, rather than hot-stamped like the are today. Those engraved models were of a different material than modern versions, and had more access to the higher overtones, but still had full body and color options, they were well made and in my opinion, although I prefer Diamond Perfecta, the engraved Vandorens had a more authentic resonance than is typical with modern stamped models. The design of the Perfecta and Engraved models is very similar in Baffle shape, and they both received much hand finish work, as compared to the mass produced machine made modern mouthpieces by Vandoren.
The hard rubber of all three Vandoren variants measures with similar hardness but they all work differently. Perfecta rubber has a defined odor, works with the most spring and memory, and produces the best sound of the three (in my opinion). Engraved Vandorens are made with rubber which is more traditional in the post war era but not modern when compared to Zinner or recent Vandoren mouthpieces. They tended to create a more rich variety of colors to the sound, clarity of sound, more point to the center of sound, and they work with still more spring and memory than modern versions. Modern Vandoren and Zinner rubber for that matter, in my opinion works with a more chalky-like texture, with the least spring, and memory, and simply doesn't bring the depth of resonance, full spectrum of resonance, and wonderful effervescent resonance to the center of the sound.
So, one may consider the importance of the spring and memory to the material which is used for mouthpieces as an important element to the playing experience. Indeed as the mouthpiece beak sympathetically resonates with the reed, the visco-elastic characteristic of the material, how it stores and releases energy will GREATLY influence the reed's response, resonance, efficiency of vibration, sound, and feel. Of course mouthpiece design is of GREAT importance and I believe so much in the design influence of the playing experience that I have gone to great lengths to implement my ideas (to in my opinion improve the playing experience), so having said that, I believe design is of greater influence to the playing experience than material, but material matters, enough so that I have actually created my own proprietary rod rubber from which my mouthpieces are made.
Regarding the Riffault, they are not great in their unfaced condition but for a few dollars on ebay, and the investment of a refacing, they can be decent mouthpieces. But I much prefer old Selmers and Chedevilles from the 60's and earlier (thirties being my ideal).
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2010-12-30 16:33
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and opinions, I very much appreciate it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-12-31 01:37
Ok, I see. I guess I misread it.
Brad- "the more recent engraved script Vandoren models "
So I thought that the engraved models are something new.
I do agree that working with them does produce a very "chalky" cut- it kind of crumbles away when you cut it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2010-12-31 16:59
Brad Behn wrote:
>>"Noblet mouthpieces were Riffault blanks".<<
Many older Noblet mouthpieces have been made by Riffault. Some of them can be identified by Egyptian style scrolling and "France" (slant font) on the left side.
Some older Noblet Paris mouthpieces were made by Chedeville company. These usually have facings 2V, 3V and "FRANCE" engraved (small font) on the left side. Blanks are wonderful but the original facings are not.
Vytas Krass
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Professional clarinet technician
Former professional clarinet player
Post Edited (2010-12-31 17:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2010-12-31 20:57
Indeed not all Noblet mouthpieces were made by Riffault. Thank you for the clarification. However I think it worthwhile to note that not all Chedevilles are wonderful blanks either. In my opinion, noblets made by Chedeville and Riffault are not wonderful, they are on a scale of 1-10, somewhere south of the middle...I would give them a 3-5. The majority of Cicero Kaspars, I would rank 6-7, Selmer blanks with the oval Stamp, 7-8 (properly faced), Chedevilles of the thirties 9-10, Many Riffaults like the ones stamped "Ideal" 2-3, Buffet-Chedes of the thirties 5-8, Sixties 3-6, Bundy France-Chedes of the 60's 5-6, Evette Schaffer 60's 5-6 etcetera.
I would like to caution buyers that Chedeville was around for many decades and their designs, material, and quality of manufacture varied GREATLY over time. 60s era Noblet mouthpieces, sourced from Riffault or Chedeville are not similar to 30's era Chedevilles. In fact, thirties era Chedevilles varied a lot as well, but their material was generally superior to post war era mouthpieces of any kind (in my opnion).
So, when you see a mouthpiece that is stated to be a Noblet-Chedeville, or a Buffet-Chedeville for example, please understand that this can be a service to us, as it helps define the era when it was manufactured, but it can also be confusing, because for people who don't know better, they may think that all Chede's are the same.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2010-12-31 22:41
Attachment: Noblet,Riffault.JPG (117k)
Attachment: Noblet,Chedeville.JPG (314k)
Sure! Not all Chedevilles and Riffaults are the same. Mouthpieces supplied by these two names to the other companies were always somewhat lesser quality. For instance, I like Noblet/Riffault blanks that can be identified by Egyptian style scrolling and "France" (slant font) on the left side. (see picture).
Riffault "STEELITE EBONITE" blanks are the best.
The older (30's-40's) Noblet/Chedevilles that were marked 2V, 3V and "FRANCE" engraved (small font) on the left side are wonderful (properly faced). 2nd pic.
Vytas Krass
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Professional clarinet technician
Former professional clarinet player
Vytas Krass
Post Edited (2010-12-31 22:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2011-01-01 16:26
"Mouthpieces supplied by these two names to the other companies were always somewhat lesser quality."
I disagree. I have found many Charles Chedeville mouthpieces to have been opened up in the chamber more than I think is ideal. This extra hand finish treatment that separates Chedeville mouthpieces of the thirties from their stencil offerings is one thing that is supposed to illuminate Chedeville branded mouthpieces from the rest of the field, but for me in many cases it actually reduces the potential of the blank.
I have found many of the Chedeville sourced bettoney or some Melliphone, or LeRoy, or Robert mouthpieces for example to have received less treatment by the finishers at Chedeville or their after-factory, therefore their interiors were smaller, and in my opinion, in many cases offered more potential to refacing. With gentle and proper refacing techniques, they frequently come out better than many Chedevilles that have the Chedeville logo!
Henri Chedeville mouthpieces for example were made from the same blank as many Charles Chedeville mouthpieces but Henri's work in the chamber and bore voicing was somewhat unique to him, giving his special mark on the history of great mouthpieces. Several things I have found fairly consistent when comparing Henri to Charles Chedeville mouthpieces, made from blanks that were produced at the Chedeville factory during the same time period are: Henri mouthpieces had smaller interior volumes (especially in the chamber), Henri mouthpieces had higher baffles, yet still beautifully contoured with the double concavity and rollover at the tip, they were however not routed out as deep. Henri mouthpieces had highly voiced bores, which were made to match the player's ideal resonance perspective with the mouthpiece chamber's volume, and rubber's resonance characteristics. In my opinion, even though Charles and Henri Chedeville mouthpieces were sourced from the same place, Henri's were generally superior due to their typically smaller inside volume (chamber), and due to his superior craftsmanship (perspective). Also it is worth mentioning that Henri custom finished his mouthpieces for his customers and he had some wonderful clients who perhaps helped shape his ideal...
I think it is important to note that many of the mouthpieces made by the French Chedeville factory during the thirties that were sourced to other instrument and mouthpiece makers like Robert and Bettoney, didn't receive much or any hand finish work by Chedeville, making them not as good players as the Chedeville branded versions. But since they received less work, and therefore they have more material to work on, they have great potential to refacing. So to sum it up, Charles and Henri Chedevilles of the thirties played well in their finished state and can be refaced, but they don't have as much potential for modification as many thirties Chedes that were made for Bettoney or Robert, or other stencil brands for instance.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2011-01-01 18:15
When I say "lesser quality" I'm talking about the stencils from Chedeville and Riffault.
Buffet/Chedevilles and some Noblet/Chedevilles and Noblet/Riffaults were stencils. These stencils were NOT THE SAME premium blanks sold by these companies under their own name.
For instance some Buffet clarinets that had Bettoney or Carl Fishers name on them were not stencils but rather a real thing. The same story is with some Bettoney/Chedeville or Henri Chedeville mouthpieces. They were a real thing, not stencils.
The "Ideal, HS" mouthpieces were Riffault stencils. This blank has no resemblance to the Riffault mouthpiece line sold under the same name. Different design, material etc.. Riffault/Ideal, (HS) mouthpieces have been made for the Ideal Musical Merchandise Company (NYC) in 1960's
The "Ideal, Steelite Ebonite" is entirely different story. These were premium Riffault blanks and were marked as "Ideal Super" (see pic.)
Vytas Krass
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Professional clarinet technician
Former professional clarinet player
Post Edited (2011-01-01 21:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2016-04-15 15:38
I dig out this older topic because I have something interesting to add.
I have contacted with the Vandoren Company via their website's contact form but got no answer. Then I found an email address of Laurent Sultan from the firm and wrote directly to him. He gave his permission to share the content of his reply. I asked him about the old Vandoren Perfecta design, especially the material. Other parts of my email are not relevant, anyway here is the statement about the Vandoren material:
'Our mouthpieces are still made with Ebonite as you know.
Ebonite did not change, but with age, it becomes harder and harder.'
so just to clarify:
1. Vandoren material is, and has been the same from the beginning.
2. Hard rubber hardens with age.
Am I the only one who has problems with believing this?
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2016-04-15 18:49
Sonicbang,
Ask mouthpiece techs who have worked on the old Cahuzac era Diamond Perfecta Vandorens and they will tell you that when you sand or rub them hard, they emit a peculiar and destinctive odor of "mothballs." I don't know what chemical in their rubber is responsible for this but it is definitely an objective characteristic of these mouthpieces' makeup. I have owned and occassionaly played 4 of these. Thir logos were a bit different (some had the diamond engraving and some only the name engraved) but they all had that distinctive odor. Just about everyone who has refaced or otherwise altered the Perfecta has noticed this. Don't take my word for it; ask them. Other old mouthpieces (for example the Vandoren 3UDs, Wells mouthpieces, old Cheds and Alelandais) no matter how much you rub or sand them do not emit this mothball odor. Instead, they are likely to smell like sulphur.
Another perception about the older rubber is that it holds facings for a longer period of time. Now that belief may be more or less mythical. I'm not sure. But about the old Diamond Perfecta mothball odor, I'm quite sure.
To test this, you might want to find someone who owns a Diamond Perfecta and see if they'll let you give it a hard rub for a few seconds with a polishing cloth. See if the mothball odor doesn't waft out.
Just as a quick reality check, you might ask the person at Vandoren who said the rubber was always the same if he has ever played and worked on an actual Diamond Perfecta. How old is this guy? That was a long time ago (60 years or more).
Finally, though, I think the overall design and dimensions and the probably random variations in the makeup of a particular mouthpiece have more to do with personal mouthpiece selection than the vintage and chemical composition of the rubber. For instance, after trying and playing Vandoren (among other brands) for more than 50 years, I am a bit surprised to see that my two favorites are the old Vandoren 3UD (I found a really good one) and the much more recent M13 models. So I like both the old sulpurous smelling 3UD and the new less aromatic M13 much better than the old mothball-smelling Perfectas. Why? Not because of the rubber or the age. They just play better for me!
Post Edited (2016-04-15 19:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2016-04-15 19:13
seabreeze,
I owned a few Perfectas and currently playing on one which was refaced by Brad Behn. I just sent him another one to work on, because I enjoy it very much. So I know this type of mouthpiece quite well, but I'm not sure if most of the Vandoren guys at the company ever played on one of these.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2016-04-15 19:21
So, do you detect the mothball odor or not? Are we all hallucinating? I do think the Perfectas have a nice substance or thickness in the sound and a subtantial amount of depth. Cahuzac told his student Guy Dangain that he (Cahuzac) had to always work hard on the Perfecta to make the sound resonant. That's the clue! My M13 and 3UD voice instantly and require less air to shape the sound. That's probably why I like them so much; I don't want to work so hard. Small idiosyncratic personal differences like that finally decide which mouthpieces a player chooses.
Post Edited (2016-04-16 00:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2016-04-15 23:56
I do smell the mothball odor and I always feel it very strong when I reveive a Perfecta freshly refaced. But maybe yes, we are all hallucinating and the Vandoren material is constant ad eternally the same like the Pi number.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tommo84
Date: 2016-04-16 00:10
just to add my experience, I recently bought a Vandoren BD5. Wonderful mouthpiece, but for sure it is made of a different materials respect to the standard Vandoren series, since when I left it in the case of my silver plated clarinet, the next day all keys and silver ligature were stained....and this NEVER happend to me with other Vandoren mouthpieces, like B40, 5RV Lyre, even of recent production.
so I think they use different materials accordingly to the product...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2016-04-16 01:40
Tommo,
Your experience is interesting. This speed of silver tarnishing would mean an unusual amount of sulphur offgassing from the mouthpiece's hard rubber. According to the answer from Vandoren, this difference should be impossible. But again, it's obvious this is not the case and your common sense is good with this observation.
By the way I asked Laurent to forward my messages to the headquarters but after an answer like this I strongly doubt he will do and even if he does the headquarters will read them and answer accordingly. My original question was if there was a chance to reintroduce the Perfecta at some point. I expected something more from that company.
Mark
Post Edited (2016-04-16 01:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClaV
Date: 2016-04-16 05:46
Newer manufactured mouthpieces produce much more volatile sulfur compounds than aged mouthpieces where most of the volatile sulfur compounds are already gone.
Surely, light exposure and acids in body residues are among several factors to leach more sulfur compounds.
My question thatI really like to ask to those manufacturing "old-fashioned" rubber mouthpieces - what about lead compounds? Most pre-WWII hard rubber contained lead stabilizers, which made material both harder and more resonant but is hardly user-friendly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
