 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2002-03-30 17:46
No . . . this isn't a thread about a couple you can't get away from at a party.
There are occasional references to the need to match the bore of the mouthpiece with the clarinet, and that this is particularly true on older instruments. We talk an awful lot about nominal bores on clarinets, usually measured at the bottom of the upper (LH) joint. But little is said about measuring bores for mouthpiece selection and what mouthpieces generally match up with certain clarinets.
Would anyone care to share their knowledge and experience on this?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob T
Date: 2002-03-30 19:52
Until recently I was of the opinion that if you did not match the bore of mouthpiece to barrel, you'd produce a "step" in the bore which in turn would create eddy currents, hence a distortion in sound being produced at this point. I play on Peter Eaton Elites which are wide bore. On measurement I find diameter of prepared m/p's for "French" bore instruments differ from my "wide" barrel bore (if at all) only by 0.1 or 0.2mm max. I wonder if this is significant ? Nevertheless, any French bore mouthpieces I try out can't produce the stable intonation that I have on my Eaton mouthpiece. I have no doubt that the accurate matching of bores at the m/p-barrel interface makes a contribution but I suspect the internal configuration of the mouthpiece (I read of "straight wall", "angled wall" etc) makes a greater effect on intonation, esp in the upper reaches of the instrument.
Walter Grabner or Peter Eaton - if you're out there, jump in here !
We need your help.
As soon as I post this I'll look at the BB archive - I suspect this will have a string attached - if not it might be quite interesting to open this one. ?Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2002-03-30 20:30
Bob, as I was thinking about this issue, the B&H 926's and 1010's were the best examples I could think of for needing to match the mp with clarinet - and certainly a Peter Eaton product would fall into that same class.
I've also read other posts about older Selmers - perhaps older clarinets in general - needing something a bit different than what a new Buffet/Selmer/Leblanc/Yamaha might prefer. I'd just like to know what the issue actually is - and how do we measure our success against the match. It would be a shame to downrate a potentially great horn for intonation reasons if it was my fault that I didn't have the appropriate mp for it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jez
Date: 2002-03-31 04:29
A B&H 1010 or a Peter Eaton Elite definitely need a mouthpiece to suit them. (I think they are the same bore) Otherwise intonation is difficult. I've played 926's with a french bore m.p. without noticing a problem.
I've used Selmer, Buffet and Yamaha instruments with a variety of standard m.p.s without any trouble.
If you want to use the 1010 bore but are not happy with the choice available, you could have any m.p. bored out to the right size by a competent technician.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob T
Date: 2002-03-31 22:49
I appreciate that if I was requiring a new m/p I could easily have a standard bore m/p reamed out. What I was getting at, was that I'm sure this will not help on its own.
Is there a general but simple rule that governs the internal chamber shape with regard to tuning of different bore instruments?
Straight Wall/Angled Wall - ? does this affect sound character only or tuning too?
General size of chamber in relation to intonation ? Is it just too complicated or is the solution just a bit fuzzy around the edges for a direct answer ?
I'm not looking for acoustic physics here, just a good reliable general outline for us "wide" bore players. Then we can discount m/p's that we'll know can't possibly work for us and use our time more effectively in the future quest for the holy (wide)grail.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2002-03-31 23:51
I'm looking for more details also, Bob. For example, it is my understanding that vintage saxes definitely play better in tune with vintage mouthpieces. So I'm wondering about clarinets of the 20's, 30's, 40's . . .? Is a Selmer Balanced Tone as compatible with a Greg Smith mouthpiece as a Signature? Or a 30's Buffet compared to an R13?
Perhaps the fundamental question that I'm asking (not even sure if this is right) is whether the bore design of the clarinet should be matched to certain mouthpiece dimensions for optimum results. And if so, are there any guidelines to go by?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob T
Date: 2002-04-01 06:09
Yes Fred, we're talking the same language. I suspect that unless we include an experienced m/p maker/modifiier we won't get much further. Have you looked at the huge string of discussion on The Klarinet Archive. You get to it by going to home page from here, click Klarinet Archive then search for any of Mouthpiece, bore(s) intonation, tuning etc (separately or in combination). Garret and Grabner have long discussions. There's an added complication it seems - some of the correspondents suggest that the tuning unit is really the reed + everything about a mouthpiece + barrel taper style. Minefield - you're right all you need is a simple guideline - if only to tell you what patently won't work. Until you have that you don't know what the correct direction is in choosing mouthpieces for certain instruments.
BobT
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2002-04-01 15:44
As Jez says; I have always been given to understand that 15.2 mm nominal bore clarinets require the straight sided 1010 type mouthpiece and that they will play out of tune with a French design mouthpiece. But aparently something narrower than that, say a 14.8 - 15.0 can play in tune on an un-doctored French mouthpieec. I do not understand why there should be that difference, but that is the lore on the subject.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2002-04-02 16:05
Like y'all above, I have long believed that, whether "badly needed" or just desireable, bore matching, mp-to-barrel and barrel-to-UJ, makes very good engineering-fluid-dynamics sense, so I practice it. Recently, trying to help an early clist get up into tune has further convinced me of it. Yes, an acoustics analysis would be VERY difficult, certainly beyond me, perhaps Benade's investigations need to be re-read! Others, please help. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2002-04-03 00:41
Don, as I was considering this question, your posts from the past were on my mind. I was hoping you had the answers.
My main clarinet is an R13 from 1966. Because they are so widespread, I don't find difficulty getting barrels and mps to match up well. I've also got a couple of very fine - but off the wall - clarinets that are pickier about intonation. I have serious questions as to whether I'm giving them an honest evaluation because of mp matching. Maybe I'll never know . . .
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
