Author: Brad Behn
Date: 2018-02-26 06:45
Karl,
Yes a Zinner mouthpiece (Model A) has a deeper baffle shape than I prefer, however I suggest that it isn’t as deep as some suggest when taking note of the geometry of the mouthpiece. Zinner tables are set back at a more slack angle as compared to true-vintage old ideals. Thank you Dan Shusta for your drawings which show what I am talking about.
Please note that for commonly available mouthpieces, table planes are set differently, for example:
Zinner 6 degrees
Vandoren 5 degrees
Vintage mouthpieces from the golden era 4-4.5 degrees.
Note that as a mouthpiece receives numerous facing adjustments over time it becomes slacker. So a mouthpiece which has been around the block a few times may well suffer from a larger facing angle than in its original optimum state.
Anyway, when you factor in the relationship of the mouthpiece table and how the reed vibrates and reflects against the baffle, the entrance angle of the baffle is crucial – especially in relation to the table’s angle.
And when viewing a baffle it is uncommon for folks to relate the baffle’s depth to the table. It simply isn’t in conventional wisdom’s vernacular. However I know from having designed and manufactured mouthpieces that there are many HIGHLY important factors involved in the dark versus bright spectrum which have nothing to do with how deep a baffle appears. In fact the depth of a baffle – while using a special tool (many exist) designed to measure baffle depth isn’t the only thing defining dullness.
Dullness can come from many other things:
1. Material resonance characteristics
2. Rails which are too wide
3. Facings which are too flat
4. Facings which are not balanced properly
5. Tables with concavities which are too deep
6. Facings which are too short
7. End-bores which are squared off (see Zinner)
8. Throats which are too wide
9. Baffles which are too deep
10. ETC.
11. Reeds which are made from poor quality cane
12. Reeds which are too hard
13. Airstream which isn’t properly supported
14. Embouchure which isn’t properly formed
I should note that indeed Zinner does offer different baffle contours for their blanks. And yes the Zinner A blank has a baffle which is rather deep. However the E blank isn’t especially deep. And both options play rather dark, and coupled with their squared off back-bore, and their material resonance characteristics, and their typically very wide rails, and their VERY deep table concavities, any Zinner blank is a rather dark sounding mouthpiece. They are very popular for that reason. I am not especially into such darkness as it simply leaves me seeking more in my orchestral environment. However when working on a Zinner I offer treatments to put some good “zing” in their personality, to compensate for areas in their design which in my opinion are misguided.
Yes tonal “ring” is extraordinarily important. And to achieve beautiful brilliance, sound with personality, effervescence, richness, depth, and substance requires a fundamental truth. It requires FULL reed vibration.
There is something I am very conscientious about in how I personally sculpt my sound. In a word: RESONANCE. And that comes from a good reed, which is fully vibrating. There is nothing worse than the “sound of effort”. That is to say, I can’t accept fuzz, or the sound of air going to waste – simply traveling through the clarinet. When you hear that airy tone, you are hearing wasted energy. The wind of the player is simply passing through the setup and down through the clarinet, NOT being converted into sound. My goal is to convert 100% of my wind into tone. I don’t accept airiness or fuzz in the mix. And to have a highly efficient setup as such comes from the proper balance of reed vibrancy with the mouthpiece’s facing and design characteristics. Furthermore the mouthpiece must be made with balanced, efficient facing architecture meant to fully empower the reed’s vibrant energy/potential into a sound which is full with life and beautiful energy. That efficiency is more easily achieved when using lighter reeds than conventional wisdom seeks out, and it is achieved while producing a tone that is complete with overtones (a good thing, and yes a sound which isn’t dull – to say the least).
And by the way, the more efficient your setup is, the longer you can play on one breath. The more expressive you will become, and the more beautiful your tone will become as well. It is a win-win. You‘ll sound better, AND you’ll achieve an easier experience. Of course a good mouthpiece helps convert a light reed’s sound into a proper tone, which is clean AND rich, warm, deep, and ringing with life.
So back to your questions. YES in fact a deep baffle can dull the experience somewhat. However I submit that Zinner mouthpieces don’t have as deep baffles as conventional wisdom thinks - when factoring in the geometry of the mouthpiece. Furthermore, there are many issues at hand when evaluating dullness. And there are many factors at hand in achieving optimum efficiency. It isn’t just about baffle depth. It is about the sum of all of the parts, to include:
1. Player’s concept
2. Reed
3. Mouthpiece material
4. Mouthpiece design
5. Mouthpiece quality of implementation (craftsmanship)
And to your questions: “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)”
Please know that the table on a properly made mouthpiece extends well up and onto the window of the mouthpiece. With some poorly made Austrian mouthpieces being the exception, a mouthpiece’s facing length isn’t typically so long as to extend to the bottom of the window. If you are using a straightedge and you rotate the edge so it would hop onto each rail (concave tables) or at least show no light through on a flat table, then you are good. But as you rotate the edge, as it associates with each rail, if light shines through at the bottom of the window, then you have a convex table which simply isn’t acceptable, however all to common. Furthermore, many tables by Babbitt and Zinner are made with extraordinarily deep concavities, which in my view darken the sound, and make for a less solid interface between reed and mouthpiece. While some concavity (properly implemented) is a lovely thing, too much is not.
Additionally most machine-faced mouthpieces (typically Vandoren, Zinner, Selmer) offer a concavity which can be seen from both orientations – longitudinally and horizontally. This isn’t necessarily meant to be a feature, as I haven’t heard anyone from those firms advertise as such, however it is certainly the result of their manufacturing process (as I mentioned in my previous post). And if the horizontal concavity is too deep, it will for sure dull the response. But far more influential in response is when the facing cutting process creates a horizontal dip which extends into the tip region of the mouthpiece. This tip-dip can be very dulling. It isn’t widely known or discussed, but most refacers have experienced how the rubber dust left behind on the sandpaper can leave peculiar marks when refacing a machine faced mouthpiece. Furthermore, when reviewing the mouthpiece in hand, following a facing pass on sandpaper, one can witness where material has been removed and where material has been untouched. These signature characteristics of each factory's facing tendencies speak volumes of how and why things happen. Tip-dips can be part of any mouthpiece geometry, whether it has a 5 or 6 degree table slackness is immaterial here. However the all too common tip-dip is indeed a problem, it is something never discussed, however surely impacts the mouthpiece’s performance. And so I felt it necessary to bring it up within the context of response, darkness/dullness, and balance. And since it is my objective to offer information which would hopefully be of service – any time I write in, I felt it a worthy addition to the conversation to introduce tip-dip.
Brad Behn
http://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com
|
|
The Clarinet BBoard
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
