 Keepers
|
Author: Gregory Smith ★2017
Date: 2006-01-03 17:49
Shorthand asked:
"I'd have to agree, there are aspects of finish and surface roughness that you'll never be able to automate. (And God alone knows if you're compensating for different grades of rubber, etc. as you go.) I was more wondering if it would be better if you could. It would definitely shift the economics into a more winner-take-all market, though, which I think would actually be a bad thing and stifle innovation (see Microsoft)."
=========================================
The basic answer it seems to me is probably not.
I don't agree with the premise that developing any particular type of finish or surface roughness would itself result in a new standard for making a "best" mouthpiece. Efficiency and flow dynamics do not, of and by themselves, a "best" mouthpiece make. Surface texture and finish may be part of the equation but not in a make or break way.
Some of the best mouthpieces I've played have had entirely different finishes and surface roughness. What to do with the surface roughness or finish (while taking into account many other factors simultaneously) by actually playing the mouthpiece is what matters - both to the maker/player and their client.
The basic problem is that age old conundrum that not everyone is looking for the same thing. If "best" or "most efficient" flow dynamic is the end game, then I have a difficult time understanding how the science of that is the path to any "best" playing design...no matter how well it is controlled or how sophisticated it's development.
|
|
|
Brenda Siewert |
2005-12-29 15:16 |
|
Ken Shaw |
2005-12-29 15:31 |
|
Brenda Siewert |
2005-12-29 15:35 |
|
L. Omar Henderson |
2005-12-29 17:33 |
|
Brenda Siewert |
2005-12-29 18:05 |
|
L. Omar Henderson |
2005-12-29 18:38 |
|
frank |
2005-12-29 20:09 |
|
L. Omar Henderson |
2005-12-29 22:55 |
|
L. Omar Henderson |
2005-12-29 23:40 |
|
Mark Charette |
2005-12-29 23:52 |
|
archer1960 |
2005-12-30 14:08 |
|
Bill |
2005-12-30 15:02 |
|
frank |
2005-12-30 18:23 |
|
Chetclarinet |
2005-12-30 18:51 |
|
Brenda Siewert |
2005-12-30 19:34 |
|
DAVE |
2006-01-01 19:46 |
|
Gregory Smith |
2006-01-01 22:17 |
|
Llewsrac |
2006-01-01 22:45 |
|
L. Omar Henderson |
2006-01-02 03:03 |
|
Gregory Smith |
2006-01-02 18:51 |
|
Brenda Siewert |
2006-01-02 21:37 |
|
Shorthand |
2006-01-02 23:57 |
|
Gregory Smith |
2006-01-03 00:55 |
|
Shorthand |
2006-01-03 04:39 |
|
Shorthand |
2006-01-03 04:40 |
|
Alseg |
2006-01-03 01:16 |
|
Alseg |
2006-01-03 14:20 |
|
Brenda Siewert |
2006-01-03 14:45 |
|
William |
2006-01-03 17:08 |
   |
Re: Vintage, or Vintage Clone? new |
|
Gregory Smith |
2006-01-03 17:49 |
|
L. Omar Henderson |
2006-01-03 18:31 |
|
Scotti |
2006-01-03 19:45 |
|
Sylvain |
2006-01-03 20:05 |
|
Brenda Siewert |
2006-01-03 20:37 |
|
mnorswor |
2006-01-03 22:10 |
|
Gregory Smith |
2006-01-03 22:40 |
|
Brenda Siewert |
2006-01-03 22:47 |
|
Gregory Smith |
2006-01-04 01:48 |
|
GBK |
2006-01-04 02:43 |
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
