 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: paulyb
Date: 2026-02-08 00:10
Attachment: IMG_20260207_154235153_HDR.jpg (394k)
Attachment: IMG_20260207_154155321_HDR.jpg (352k)
I have a few different Vandoren B40 Lyre mouthpieces of different vintages - one from when they were recently released (maybe 2003? Stamped with B40 and a picture of a lyre next to the table), one from about 10-15 years ago, one from about a year ago, and finally the new HD model (on trial). The last three are stamped B40 L next to the table.
The first two appear to have both been manufactured in the same way using a traditional blank, machine facing and hand baffle work. The latter two have what looks to me like CNC machining marks in the baffle (miling lines parallel to the long axis of the mouthpiece).
What is interesting to me is that while the older two mouthpieces both have a fair amount of material in the baffle immediately behind the tip rail (what saxophonists would call a short roll-over baffle), the more recent pair have pretty much a straight baffle up to the tip rail (I'll attempt to attach some photos - we'll see if that works).
The result of this is that the more recent mouthpieces are significantly less bright than the older ones which have a focus and ping that I generally prefer (with the same reed etc). Has anyone else noticed / experienced this? Do we think this is a deliberate change in design (given the trend towards a less bright sound) or inadvertent? At least in the days of hand finished baffles you could find examples with more or less baffle material according to taste - the uniformity of the new mouthpieces makes this impossible.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paulyb
Date: 2026-02-08 00:16
Disclaimer: photos of baffles can be hard to take! Those photos are the oldest and newest and there's a pretty obvious difference (the dark section on the older one near the tip is where the gradient of the baffle "rolls over" towards the tip). The difference is more obvious in real life. The other two mouthpieces are very similar to these two.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2026-02-08 14:11
The difference in baffle must be purposeful. I think you're right, VD are trying to keep their classic/popular mouthpieces more relevant to current trends. But at least that modern baffle could be adjusted to be more like the roll-over.
Btw, do you know whether any modification been undertaken on the earlier baffle?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paulyb
Date: 2026-02-08 16:08
> The difference in baffle must be purposeful
Why do you say this? It might be a byproduct of the new manufacturing technique (though I'd hope that they would at least have noticed the change even if it wasn't intentional)
> VD are trying to keep their classic/popular mouthpieces more relevant to current trends
I wish they wouldn't - there's plenty of choice in the darker direction (e.g. the BD line)!
> at least that modern baffle could be adjusted to be more like the roll-over.
That's not totally trivial. Because there's less material in the baffle than you want you have to rework the facing curve as well. It's much easier to remove additional material than adjust the whole mouthpiece to generate that extra baffle material. Unless you mean by building up a baffle by adding more material?
> Btw, do you know whether any modification been undertaken on the earlier baffle?
I've had all of these from new and none of them has been adjusted at all.
An interesting point is that as you open up a mouthpiece blank you naturally generate more and more of a rollover unless you consciously remove the material. This helps to balance the darkness of the wider tip opening.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2026-02-08 19:08
I say it is purposeful because a CNC could easily cut the old baffle shape if it was programmed to do so. I doubt it was mistake they did't copy the baffle shape.
With the old method of hand finishing, there must have been some variation in the end results. In fact, I've heard that the finishers each mark the end of the tenon with their own symbol. Some people have identified which symbols tend to be the better mouthpieces, and look for the particular mark when selecting a new one. Those days are gone. It can't be long before no VD mouthpieces are hand finished. There's too much money to be saved. Unless VD turn the hand finishing into an additional feature and charge extra for it, as they do for the HD ebonite.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2026-02-08 21:35
I would guess that like many mouthpieces these days, the goal is to remove any ping or upper partials. I often miss that classic ringing tone as I hear lots of sounds that are kind of dull and lacking character. But that is just my opinion.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2026-02-09 15:28
I wonder if this apparent trend toward reducing upper partials is directly related to the current emphasis on "projection", a term used by manufacturers and players alike. Assuming that "projection" is not just a codeword for "volume" and is referring to some acoustic quality that imparts a characteristic tone found in a more open mouthpiece with a more direct air stream, that could explain the deliberate reduction of the baffle.
I don't know what that acoustic quality of "projection" is, however. I also miss the ringing tone was once considered an essential aspect of refined top level performers. I know that open mouthpieces, softer reeds, and a "dark" tone have become more popular. It seems that the loss of the "bright" sound is being compensated for with the ability to push more air directly through the mouthpiece. Which I always connected with simply playing louder.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2026-02-10 19:48
kilo wrote:
> I wonder if this apparent trend toward reducing upper partials
> is directly related to the current emphasis on "projection",
> I don't know what that acoustic quality of "projection" is,
> however. I also miss the ringing tone was once considered an
> essential aspect of refined top level performers. I know that
> open mouthpieces, softer reeds, and a "dark" tone have become
> more popular. It seems that the loss of the "bright" sound is
> being compensated for with the ability to push more air
> directly through the mouthpiece.
The trend, as I understand it, has for many years been toward more open facings and *harder* reeds. The goal seems to be a "rounder" sound with less "edge", which I have always tended to equate to "duller" with less "ring." It also in my experience means a dynamic range that is more limited at the louder end of the spectrum, while it can make softer dynamics easier because the resistance level results in less efficiency.
I was taught by a lot of Philadelphia players, finally including Anthony Gigliotti back in the 1960s, when "ring" was highly valued and considered the basis of "projection." Maybe younger players have come up in an age when amplification of almost any playing environment, from theater and opera pits to recordings and even in rare cases live concerts on a stage and have gotten used to not really having to project. I'm not sure. So many players have made their reputations through recordings with balance easily and constantly adjusted using the mixers in the recording booth. But those players who taught me had grown up in an age when recording technology, advanced as it had become by the 1950s and 1960s, had only been superimposed on acoustic performances over the previous 30 years. My teachers' careers from training through professional security had spanned that transition. Even the youngest of them were students in the 1950s of teachers who themselves had developed their playing styles mostly before the rise of the recording industry and of electronic amplification and enhancement. Today's major players and those who have studied with them have no experience in a non-electronic, non-recorded, unamplified world.
Players who still value "ring" and tight focus tend to be older dinosaurs like me whose study years were influenced by players who *needed* those characteristics to succeed in the orchestral world. It didn't matter so much how a player sounded to someone else sitting near them on a stage. What mattered was what of their playing could be heard clearly by the audience in the large halls where their orchestras played.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2026-02-10 22:24
Quote:
The trend, as I understand it, has for many years been toward more open facings and *harder* reeds.
Thank you; I'm happy to stand corrected. In my limited experience, I've noted a loss of nuance at the hard and open end of the spectrum, and prefer the more Jurassic approach to tone.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2026-02-11 00:14
kilo wrote:
> Quote:
The trend, as I understand it, has for many years been
> toward more open facings and *harder* reeds.
>
> Thank you; I'm happy to stand corrected. In my limited
> experience, I've noted a loss of nuance at the hard and open
> end of the spectrum, and prefer the more Jurassic approach to
> tone.
Yes, loss of nuance - of dynamic range and range of staccato style. My biggest problem when I play even slightly harder reeds than usual on my (quite close) M13 Lyre is loss of breath span. I can almost double my phrase length by moving from a 3.5+ V.12 or 55 Rue lepic down to a 3.5. Even though my 3.5+ feel quite responsive and sound perfectly ping-y, I just can't play as long on a breath. Maybe it has something to do with my age (78) or a developing lung problem, but I just have to blow a little too hard to make the stiffer reeds move.
Anyway, if Vandoren is deliberately "darkening" their mouthpieces by deepening their baffles, I'm sorry to hear it.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2026-02-11 03:57
Having refaced hundreds of Bb, bass and contra mouthpieces over the decades, I've come to the conclusion that, in order to produce a decent classical sound (not talking jazz here), it is imperative to remove ANY rollover of the tip baffle. Completely flat or slightly concave is what I look for.
I've probably refaced an equivalent number of sax mouthpieces, mostly for jazz, rock and R&B type playing, and that is an entirely different story. Rollover baffles on sax mouthpieces do seem to add some tonal color, particularly 'warmth' which is actually midrange prominence.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
