The Clarinet BBoard

The Clarinet BBoard The C4 standard

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

Previous Message | Next Message

Re: The balance of mouthpieces

Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2018-02-25 01:01

Brad Behn wrote:

> Furthermore the angle of the table's plane in relationship to
> the entrance angle of the baffle is of crucial importance. It
> may be of interest to some that in fact - due to a Zinner's
> upper baffle rollover, and extreme slackness of the table plane
> (6 degrees) that the entrance angle of the baffle isn't as deep
> as many would suggest. And no a Zinner's baffle - although
> appearing deep, isn't as deep as conventional wisdom would to
> dictate.
>

Brad, Can you break this down a little more? I'm confused at this point and am not sure I can frame my questions coherently, but I'll try.

I have certainly read and been told about Zinners' baffles being deeper than other blanks. I have found for myself that the sound of the Zinner-based mouthpieces I've played, while seeming warm and rich-sounding at first in my practice studio, have turned out when I take them into an orchestra setting to feel muffled and covered, a characteristic I've always understood to be caused by a deep baffle. They seem to lack the ring, clarity and projection of mouthpieces I've played like (most recently) Bob Bernardo's Vintage 1940 Cicero, Chris Hill's HC model and the old Gigliotti P facing when I've used them in a large ensemble setting. (I'm sorry, I haven't tried your mouthpieces, so I can't comment on their level of ring, but from what you've written, I assume it's something you pursue.)

I've read over and over again that the baffle depth of the Zinners was much of the reason for the difference. You seem to be suggesting that the apparent depth of the Zinner baffles is offset by "slackness" in the table plane. I think I'm not clear about what you actually mean by this 6 degree slackness.

One of the things I've often checked with a new mouthpiece is that a straight edge laid across the table where it begins just beyond the end of the window should not show any light between the edge and the table. I think you're describing a concave shape longitudinally from the bottom of the table to the tip (so light would be visible near the center) and a tip that's actually concave along the tip rail (so the sides of the reed would be closer tot the rail than the center). I had never before heard of that as a deliberate design feature. How does that correspond to what you call "slackness" of the table plane? And what does that do to the entry angle of the baffle? And what does the entry angle of the baffle do to affect the general depth of the baffle beyond the area just under the tip rail (or the effective chamber volume)?

I don't know if in my confusion about this I've made enough sense for you to know what to clarify. I hope so.

Karl

Avail. Forums | Flat View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Topics

Author

Date

The balance of mouthpieces new

xiao yu

2018-02-13 11:15