 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Art Fitz
Date: 2001-11-18 17:55
Does anybody out there happen to know the opening and face length measurements for a Buffet mouthpiece marked 'F3A 125', which came with my R13 Vintage?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald nicholls
Date: 2001-11-18 20:19
sorry, no idea. and from my experience on this notice board you are unlikely to get any helpful information.... lots of advice but no actual numbers. Why do you want to know this? if it is the standard Buffet (plastic) mouthpiece that comes with the clarinet it's pretty much junk (use it as a door stop). if you really want to know i could find one and measure it sometime in the next day or two (or course, all the gauges give different measurements blah blah blah).
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-11-19 14:13
Hi Art - I may have a bit of help here. I have been doing some patent searching to assist a good friend [a physicist in Italy] re: refacing mouthpieces, and found some reference to measuring devices. The Lorenzini patent, US 4,219,937 is for such and clarinet use is mentioned, also the references cited therein may be of interest. The Hall/Zinner pat, US 5,105,701 speaks of the ?conventional? use of the "Erick Brand" measuring device for cl mp's. These pats may be viewed at www.uspto.gov or www.delphion.com [the IBM site]. Its quite possible that some of our Sneezies, like Dave Spiegelthal, may have these devices and also may be able to interpret the various mfgr's numberings. Luck, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2001-11-19 16:52
Don,
I don't do measurements as all -- I reface by eye and play-testing. The traditional measurements, using a series of feeler gauges, are worthless IMHO ---- they are too coarse, too inaccurate, and too widely spaced. They ignore the most critical part of the facing, the almost imperceptible transition ('breakpoint' or 'pivot point') between the flat portion of the facing and the curved segment. One could make any number of mouthpieces having exactly the same 'measurements' (as traditionally done) and they would all play differently. Eventually, someone will start using expensive optical (laser) measurement tools, as used in many other industries, to more accurately measure (and hopefully to actually face) mouthpieces. Until then, the facing measurements are a rough guide at best.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-11-19 17:04
Thanx, Dave, you make me feel somewhat relieved when I view a "student-mistreated" mouthpiece and take it on myself to do a MINOR reface on a flat surface with very fine emery paper, flattening out the table and gently removing scars from rails and tip. Figure there is little to lose in most cases. Quite often works very well !!! HANDLE WITH CARE, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald nicholls
Date: 2001-11-19 18:36
Of course there are problems with measuring gauges- they are however (relatively speaking) cheap and do give the person using them some idea of the facing. I'm on the other side of the world from you guys and many of the people reading this may as well be (small town USA can feel VERY isolated). Thus the "manual feeler gauges" are the most practical way to discuss mouthpiece facings as long as it is accepted that they are not the "be all and end all" (do you americans use that expression?).
Yes- if i make 4 mouthpieces with the same measurements, taking great care to be accurate, then they will still play differently. But they will also be quite similar. I will, for instance, be able to play on all of them with the same reed and get a sound and response that might not be perfect but was at least not embarrassing.
And another point- i know a certain teacher who insists that he can work on mouthpieces by eye etc, and he manages to destroy about 50% of the stuff he works on. Most refacers i know admit that they have wrecked a 'piece every so often, but this statistic is pretty bad. It's because he really has no idea what he's doing- if he'd started off learning about the curve and facing by being able to discuss it (the numbers enable you do describe the curve) then maybe he'd have a better idea what was going on.
i don't mean to suggest that "by feel" is no good, but just that "by numbers" is a way for us lesser ones to learn about what's going on.
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2001-11-19 20:15
Certainly, for about 10 years, I destroyed about 90% of the mouthpieces I worked on. But now I destroy about zero %, and improve about 100% of the mouthpieces I start with, without using gauges. Ask any professional refacer about the accuracy of gauge sets compared to each other, by the way --- I'm told there's quite a bit of variation there alone. I still maintain that gauges are worthless as a measure of the end product, but if they help a particular refacer get to the final goal by providing a reasonable starting point, then power to them. All I meant to say is, they don't work for me. I realize I'm in the minority there.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald nicholls
Date: 2001-11-19 20:41
if you realise that you are in the minority, then surely your integrity would have you make that point in the first place without having to be challenged by some idiot like me from the clarinet desert we call NZ? this thing is suposed to be about about information- and everybodies opinion or preferance has value, but also context that should be made clear. That's integrity, meanwhile, no one has really helped out Art who posted the message up top, who want's to know what type of mouthpiece will be most similar to his buffet thing, presumably to make it easier to find one that can replace it with as little adjustment as possible....
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2001-11-19 21:24
Take it easy, fellas, no flames, please. You are correct, D N, in that we haven't answered Art's question, because at least I don't know who may make Buffet's mp's and ? does the 125 mean 0.125" tip opening?? [3.175 mm] which would be quite wide as Hall/Zimmer describes. [Also how about F3A? ]. As to where it might fit in the Bb MP chart, I have Weiner's in front of me now, I dont know, but assume the column #'s go from "short/close" to "open/long" , by finding a few that I have, including a recently refaced glass to a VD 5RVLyre which to me is a fairly close/ medium long lay, which I am very pleased with. I also like the G8's which several makers provide [initially by Woodwind?]. VanDoren seems to do the best job of description with a wide variety of lays, IMHO. It is a jungle out there!! Since we all are chasing the "MP Grail", if anyone can shed light on this, PLEASE DO. As said above, what refacing I attempt is also by the play-test method. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
