 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2014-12-16 08:37
At this page:
http://www.vandoren-en.com/MASTERS-Bb-Clarinet-Mouthpieces_a152.html
the link to the product datasheet that the above linked page makes available appears to have been updated to include specifications on these 3 mouthpieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2014-12-16 09:52
When the CL4 is refaced with a medium long facing and tip opening in the 1.0 to 1.03 mm. range instead of the long and open 1.10 mm. facing it comes with, and the resistance is decreased a tad, it is very easy to voice and control and tends to produce a well-focused, centered tone that carries well. The CL4 13 series also tunes well and plays slightly darker.
The CL4 has a narrower chamber than the other Vandoren series pieces (M13, M30, B40, B45 etc.) and can be helpful to students who have trouble producing a clear, characteristic clarinet sound. I've seen some students who distort the clarinet tone to sound more like a sax or flute or oboe or some unidentifiable muffled thing suddenly sound like a clarinet when they use a CL4 with a closer facing.
It also helps to clean up sluggish or uneven articulation. Not too fussy about reeds, either. And if you go through several CL4s you may find a few with real "pro" potential. Both Vandoren traditional and Reserve reeds make a good match--#3 or 3.5 on the narrower facing I like. Certainly worth a try.
Post Edited (2014-12-16 09:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-12-16 12:43
I don't mean to parse words with Vandoren, but "L" is NOT a technical spec. I would still like to to see what length the lay is in mm or inches according to Vandoren (of course they've NEVER provided that for ANY mouthpiece).
My next points are NOT intended to be argumentative at all but rather to keep a wider level of understanding amongst everyone reading this thread.
I would also like to take some issue with the contention that 1.10 is "REALLY open." This is just about in line with the 5RV Lyre which is still a reasonably standard tip opening. It is also important to keep in mind that balancing out all the other factors; such as rail thickness (thicker=more resistant), baffle contour (deep= more resistant), and tone chamber size (larger=more resistant); is vital to the end result of a mouthpiece's 'feel' and response. Tip opening is only ONE element that works in combination with the others.
And also there is HOW you get from the tip opening to the point where the mouthpiece meets the reed. This SERIES of dimensions (or facing contour), yes SERIES OF DIMENSIONS, plays a significant role in how a mouthpiece ultimately responds (none of you would care for the results if this were a straight line). Who refaces a mouthpiece and how they do it is QUITE variable and cannot be boiled down to simply making a tip opening smaller (which is quite a bit trickier than making the tip opening bigger).
Finally I still bristle at the contention that one needs to "hunt" for a good Vandoren. On the contrary, you would have to try at least six CL4s to find one that MIGHT not play as well as the other five.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tylerleecutts
Date: 2014-12-16 19:35
I wasn't necessarily saying that 1.10 itself is really open. However, I was saying that the CL4 felt open for what was supposed to be their most closed mouthpiece.
Indeed- if Vandoren released a preliminary number just to let us know what each facing is, it would help tremendously in choosing reeds.
Post Edited (2016-03-15 01:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2014-12-16 20:31
Quote:
if Vandoren released a preliminary number just to let us know what each facing is, it would help tremendously in choosing reeds.
I am not sure I understand this point. For a given mouthpiece, such as the CL4, the Vandoren chart indicates suggested reed strength for each cut, such as V12- 3.5-4. While each mouthpiece, player, taste, style, instrument, etc, varies, I would think this is a perfect starting point.
The tip and length are also a good starting point, but again, merely a place to begin. I have played mouthpieces that have a certain resistance because of the rail width or interior dimensions, while others with the same numbers have played very differently. Personal taste and playing style can also play a large part. I have known of players who will use a particular strength and sound great, yet I need to use a completely different strength to get similar result that are comfortable for me. This is also why Vandoren often gives a range.
There is no substitute for playing it and deciding for oneself, but I have always found the Vandoren charts to be in the ballpark.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cxgreen48
Date: 2014-12-16 20:50
Ed,
I do not think the Masters mouthpiece facing specs were released until recently, so it was more of a guessing game or relying on others' experiences with what reeds might work well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tylerleecutts
Date: 2014-12-16 21:25
Of course! Thank you, cxgreen.
These numbers help me out a little bit, since some of my students may come into a lesson with these mouthpieces. I need at least some preliminary information on how to fit these mouthpieces.
I agree that Vandoren does a pretty good job on indicating the reed size needed. However, the length of the facing can be very helpful in matching the cut of the reed. The length of the vamp usually is the most dependent factor in what reeds to use. The thickness of the blank however is usually a more personal decision and can really go both ways.
This is in my experience only, and of course may work differently for others. But generally, some general categories of mouthpieces take to certain reeds better than others.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2014-12-16 21:56
Vandoren’s non-inclusion of basic mouthpiece specifications when first releasing these 2, then 3 mouthpieces (the CL6 came out slightly later, right?) of the Masters series raises interesting questions for me—for all the limitations that such specs as tip opening alone (in absence of rail width, chamber, and lay contour specifics, for example), and a non-specific lay length of “large” present—as duly noted by prior posters.
Were other Vandoren mouthpieces first released this spec-less way? Maybe some more familiar with Vandoren’s marketing history can comment.
Do you think that maybe Vandoren wanted people to try all three of these mouthpieces with as few preconceived biases as possible, and not be swayed by these 2 attributes and all their limitations in alone, determining a mouthpiece’s performance characteristics, or even whether a player should bother testing a mouthpiece in the first place?
Do you think that Vandoren released these specs at customer request, or, for example, because not as many people were trying them as Vandoren would have hoped, maybe because of the absence of such specs as a starting point?
Maybe Vandoren was waiting for enough people to comment on them, having tried them first, where all the mouthpiece’s specs come to bear, before releasing these 2 starting point specs. Maybe it’s something else, including, although I doubt it, the “oops, we really did forget to put this info on the product sheet” factor.
I suspect there will always be aspects of a mouthpiece’s design a manufacturer will not provide, much that we as consumers wish it weren’t the case, but otherwise justified by its maker as a means of protecting the costs of bringing it to market, and not having it as easily copied in many ways by other (legitimate) mouthpiece makers. As it is, Vandoren, and I suspect other (legitimate) mouthpiece makers as well, face competition from manufacturers who make fakes of their intellectual property. Vandoren's lost sales, not to mention the legal costs it takes to fight such practices, end up in higher prices for us.
FWIW, I found more difference between the CL6 and CL5, than the CL5 and CL4, despite the CL5 and CL6 having the same tip opening and lay length. I did indeed find the CL6 easier to play, as advertised, and I wonder if my own biases (and we all have them) would have had me arriving at a different decision if these specs were available to me before trying all 3.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2014-12-17 00:13
I believe you are right that the tip opening was only listed recently, although I recall that they did list reed choices some time ago.
Disclaimer---If that is not true, then they must have come to me in a dream! ;-)
I agree that it would be nice to see real facing length numbers, only because the terms M or L only clue us in to how it fits into the mouthpiece line, rather than real world specs. I have seen those terms (close, open, short, med, long) mean a variety of thing to different people within a range.
To make that point- years ago Charles Bay mouthpieces that were MO (med open) would after fall in a range around 106-108, I believe today his MO is over 1.25.
http://www.charlesbaywoodwinds.com/H1H2Clar.html
Something like http://www.clarkwfobes.com/PDF/mp-chart.pdf gives a good overview and comparison of the mouthpieces from Clark.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-12-17 05:03
Dear "WhitePlainsDave,"
I agree with ALL your points.
And on some level I think we'd all be better off if it remained vague. We have the rest of Vandoren's line to 'fine tune' facings for ourselves.
I have to go back to my short but REALY informative meeting with Brad Behn at the Oklahoma Clarinet Symposium. Brad didn't ask me what dimensions I prefer, he asked me to play for him. Then he picked out a few mouthpieces for me to try based on what he heard. In the end I fell in love with a mouthpiece that I NEVER would have thought interesting based on a description or the raw specs.......he was absolutely right !!!!
So, if you have the ability (and funds) to spend time with a mouthpiece making genius like Brad Behn, then THAT is the way to find a good mouthpiece. Ideally it is this confluence of your artistry combining with the artistry of a great mouthpiece manufacturer that allows for magic to happen.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2014-12-17 22:21
Paul,
Would you care to say which of Behn's mouthpieces most appealed to you? Ever since he put out his Artist II, I've been especially impressed with it both for its middle range selling price (mid-range for his offerings, that is), and its dynamic playing characteristics. It produces a large yet still focused and compact sound, with a very wide dynamic range and holds the tone at both ends--the very soft and very loud.
This model tends to really blossom out sonically from a distance and sounds fuller and richer to the listener than to the player. I didn't appreciate its qualities till I had other players try it out and heard the difference it makes and the tonal presence it has.
But Behn is also much concerned with an individual player's preferred facing. He readily gave me the 0.98 mm tip opening I asked for, and it works very well on the Artist II. In fact, I'm wondering how an even closer facing 0.95 or 0.96 might work on it.
Post Edited (2014-12-17 23:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-12-18 06:46
The Behn mouthpiece was a 0 degree Signature Robert, .98 mm tip opening.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
