 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2002-07-31 16:46
HI uys I am not involved in this project at all so don't take this as a commercial post please.
Have a look at
http://www.chadashclarinet.com/news.htm
This is very exciting news I wonder how expensive it will turn out to be...
-Sylvain
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2002-07-31 17:41
Sylvain -
I'm afraid the description is full of advertising hype, constantly contradicting itself.
First, they say, "Due to shrinkage and final shaping, [a fine mouthpiece] is always hand finished." Then they say, "a lot of mouthpieces on the market today suffer from the characteristics of hand finishing, which tends to lack the precision repeatability." I agree that hand finishing is what transforms a mouthpiece from a decent machine-made product to something suitable for professional work. Why do they say this once and then take it back?
They say "All the vital characteristic of the Chedeville, of the 1930's, have been very meticulously copied." Then they say "the baffle and bore were vastly improved due to today's precision technology." So which is it?
The Chadash-Hill mouthpieces may be very good (though not, I think, without hand finishing). However, the proof is in how they play, and not their puffing.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2002-07-31 18:12
Both Bernard Portnoy and Larry Combs have said (and I agree) that no matter whose mouthpiece you play, it may make a difference for a couple of weeks, but you will eventually return to sounding like yourself. The sound "in your head" always prevails. If the mpc that you are playing on articulates well, has a focused sound allowing expressive flexability and plays in tune, then you've got the best there is and should stick to it until it becomes worn and warped with age. Then, there is always "refacing." Just some words of advice from the owner of too many old mouthpieces (that all basically play the same).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2002-07-31 18:23
Hi Ken,
The posting is definitely a commercial one.
I think they are aiming at making a consistent blank. I just find it interesting that they went all the way in reproducing the actual material of the old chedeville.
But yes so far I only heard about it not tried, but I'll get a chance to play one of the prototypes tomorrow so I'll keep you posted.
However, I am far from being a good player so everything I report should be taken with a grain of salt ;->
Anyways, I always find it exciting news when people are trying to make new and improved equipment for our instrument, if I had money I would just get all of it!
Those guys are really reputable professionals so they could really be onto something good...
Alright, I'm starting to sound like their salesman so I'll stop now.
-S
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2002-07-31 22:55
If Chris Hill is involved, then the fit and finish will be first
quality. I would be interested in trying this out in Delrin or Nylon...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2002-08-01 19:31
So I just tried the mouthpiece.
My current mouthpiece is a vandoren M15-13 which I find very good. I always felt it sounded just as good and in tune as anything man-made for at least 1/2 the price. Of course you have to be careful and try a few before buying anything.
So I was very anxious to try this new mouthpiece and I just did! It sounds nice a bit less bright than my current mouthpiece. I did not have enough time to check for intonation and all but I didn't hear anything really out of tune. The facing was not optimal for my reeds, but again had no time to really fiddle with reeds.
The material of the blank looks and feels really great. I really believe it is of much superior quality than the rubber Vandoren uses. With a bit of fine tuning and a good facing job, we'll have another very good mouthpiece on the market.
I don't know how much it will cost, but I suspect much more than the $60 you pay for a standard machine made mouthpiece. Is it going to be cheap enough and sound good enough for me to drop my Vandoren?
I won't know until they tell us how much it cost...
-S
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2002-08-01 19:53
I'm guessing here...... 200 bucks!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris Hill
Date: 2002-08-03 06:13
I appreciate the feedback. What Guy and I are trying to do with the write-up is to explain how and why we are making these blanks.
One advantage that we believe these blanks will have is in the accuracy of the process. I've worked on a few dozen old Chedevilles, and have discovered that less than half have the "classic Chedeville baffle," due to the inaccuracy of the old-style pentograph machines that were used to make them. As a result, Chedeville had to alter the bore and/or sidewalls to make up for this on many of their mouthpieces. Not all Chedevilles were good. (Keep this in mind when bidding on them without playing them first.) However, the best ones are truly wonderful to play on.
The hand finishing described on the website is what is being done to moulded blanks. The hand finishing that tends to cause problems is when non-musicians without training try to turn out as many mouthpieces as possible without playtesting them. This happens to moulded blanks, and ruins many of them. If you have your preferred mouthpiece finisher hand work these blanks, they will have an accurate blank to start from.
I hope that my comments clarified the questions that have arisen. As always, I have studiously tried to be non-commercial.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Dow
Date: 2002-08-06 11:42
I feel that no matter what pro facing you choose eventually your playing will settle into your concept of sound. The time spent looking for facings could sometimes be better spent working through the Baermann scale book or working on Jettl studies. Good Luck <<DD>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
