 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Reformed
Date: 2022-11-01 01:58
I've seen some good mouthpieces that are left quite rough and many that are highly polished, some good and some bad in either case and combination.
As examples:
- Most recent Vandoren baffles that I have seen are distinctly rough with clear filing marks. Does this have any impact on playing quality, or it is it simply to emphasise that the baffle is hand finished? I don't remember that Vandoren mouthpieces back in the 70s and 80s were quite as rough in this aspect. These modern Vandorens play well for me.
- Nearly all acrylic based mouthpieces are a mirror finish, and some play quite wonderfully, particularly German and Austrian (e.g. Würlitzer, Leitner & Krauss and Maxton).
Any thoughts?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2022-11-01 02:43
I remember Brad Behn wrote somewhere that a 'rough' baffle (longitudinal sandpaper marks, nothing wild) can actually work like sharks' skin. Shark skin is rough, and when they swim, the roughness actually helps by creating a thin film from water which essentially creates less resistance and makes sharks faster. So following this analogy, sandpaper marks would create a faster airflow in the mouthpiece.
This seems logical. I, however, like to polish the upper baffle, especially below the tip rail. I have no scientific evidence, but I feel the response is faster with a polished upper baffle.
Anyway, modifying the baffle texture just one tool in the refacer's toolbox and every mouthpiece is a package deal. Some designs may benefit from a polished baffle, some may not. I personally think that if you need faster airflow for whatever reason, there are many ways to achieve it, and making the baffle surface rough may be one of them.
I think acrylic mouthpieces have mirror finish because they are sold in the condition as they come from the mold and the usually don't receive any hand-finishing.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2022-11-01 02:45
there you go, 2nd paragraph
https://www.clarinetmouthpiece.com/zinner-clarinet-mouthpieces
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2022-11-01 04:34
My feeling regarding the "rough" surfaces and or transitions on the interior of the mouthpiece was that they were the result of the practical mouthpiece adjustments. Various changes are imparted as the maker goes in with tools to address pitch and response issues. Once the playing characteristics are what is desired, they stop. Maybe the thought is that ANY further change may lose what was just achieved. I recall looking in to a mouthpiece that I loved and saw the most irregular transition from the bore to the tone chamber (it appeared as if a chunk was missing on one side). I've avoided looking too closely at these things ever since. Though it would be good to know if asymmetrical tooling could actually help some aspect of the acoustics via airflow.
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Max S-D
Date: 2022-11-01 21:11
A lot of mouthpiece craftspeople do as Paul says: they get the basic design applied, then adjust, play, adjust, play until it plays the way they want. Then they stop. Clarinet mouthpieces I've got from Fobes, Borbeck and Behn all show evidence of hand work, especially in the baffle area. I have a tenor sax mouthpiece from Fred Lamberson where the chamber looks like it was gouged out with a chisel! It plays like I can scarcely believe, so I'm glad he stopped exactly when he did. The facing and exterior finish work are immaculate.
Other manufacturers seem to be able to deliver good results with stunningly beautiful finish work inside and out. Johannes Gerber's sax mouthpieces are an example of this.
I don't much care as long as it plays well. If anything, I like the reminder that an expert put work into making it right.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2022-11-02 13:05
Some of 3D-printed mouthpieces are covered with horizontal scratches, inside and out. I've got a Grabner "hi-tech" bass piece that looks terrible but sounds nice and plays easily. Ultimately that's all I care about.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mojo
Date: 2022-11-02 17:56
Many mouthpiece design ideas are inspired by aerodynamics. Acoustic science is related, but different. Airflow is only important at the very tip where pulses of air set up and maintains a standing wave that vibrates the air column inside the instrument.
Also, when you smooth out a rough surface does the mouthpiece play different because of the smoothness or that the surface is now a little lower? Probably some of each.
MojoMP.com
Mojo Mouthpiece Work LLC
MojoMouthpieceWork@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2022-11-02 18:14
But...........
There is a LOT more to the clarinet mouthpiece than just a vibrating reed.
example no.1 : The German mouthpiece has a smaller over all internal volume than a Boehm mouthpiece, however, the over all length is longer. The German mouthpiece placed on a Boehm clarinet (making some accommodations) will play a little lower on the higher altissimo notes, not higher as one might expect.
example no.2 : The Boosey and Hawkes 1010 clarinet had a pronounced, large diameter bore that was almost a perfect cylinder (not much variance in diameter at different points along the interior). The mouthpiece had to be made with the same idea. Instead of a conical bore that narrows toward the top as it enters the tone chamber, the 1010 mouthpiece bore was........a cylindrical shape. No conical bore mouthpiece would allow the 1010 clarinet to play in tune. The 1010 mouthpiece cannot be played in tune on top of any other clarinet.
Shape and size (and finish, and or asymmetry?) have a direct impact on pitch....and perhaps response as well.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2022-11-03 00:35
Paul Aviles wrote:
> example no.2 : The Boosey and Hawkes 1010 clarinet had a
> pronounced, large diameter bore that was almost a perfect
> cylinder (not much variance in diameter at different points
> along the interior). The mouthpiece had to be made with the
> same idea. Instead of a conical bore that narrows toward the
> top as it enters the tone chamber, the 1010 mouthpiece bore
> was........a cylindrical shape. No conical bore mouthpiece
> would allow the 1010 clarinet to play in tune. The 1010
> mouthpiece cannot be played in tune on top of any other
> clarinet.
>
Didn't the pre R-13 French clarinets have cylindrical bores? I've always understood that the polycylindrical (not strictly conical) clarinet bore was an innovation in the R-13. But the classic French mouthpieces of the time (and since) had the same general bore shape they do now. Modern ones are largely modelled on those classic mouthpieces.
The bore diameters probably had to be bigger for the 1010 mouthpieces, but why would the bore shape have had to be a straight cylinder to be compatible? (And, in fact, were they? I've never actually seen one.)
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2022-11-03 01:48
I’m pretty sure all other mouthpiece bores taper upwards. I’ve had some mouthpieces from the 40’s that were even smaller conical bored examples.
As for the 1010. I only know for sure that the mouthpiece needs to be cylindrical, I can’t say for sure why. I once took my 1010 mouthpieces to Frank Wells. He put this solid metal cone in one to take a measurement. It just fell in and rolled around. Frank just laughed.
…………Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2022-11-03 02:30
Paul Aviles wrote:
> I’m pretty sure all other mouthpiece bores taper upwards.
> I’ve had some mouthpieces from the 40’s that were even
> smaller conical bored examples.
>
That wasn't what I was questioning. The French-type mouthpieces of the mid-20th century (including Cheds) were conical-bored and their descendants still are. My question was about any necessary connection between the cylindrical bore of the 1010 (which it had in common with pre-10G Selmer, pre-R13 Buffet and Leblanc of the time) and the cylindrical bore of the mouthpieces made for it.
Are there not any French-style mouthpieces that can be played in tune on a 1010?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2022-11-03 03:20
I can say for sure that any standard Boehm mouthpiece will not work on the 1010. You CAN rebore a standard mouthpiece to make it a 1010. Another aspect to the 1010 clarinet is that they are about a half inch shorter than other clarinets. I think it is a compensation for the total volume. So, unlike the German mouthpiece playing flatter due to length, the Boosey needed to be shorter to play in-tune at 0.600 inches in diameter.
………Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2022-11-03 17:33
I'm not sure about this, but my understanding of the reason for the 1010 mouthpiece being cylindrical is mostly a matter of gaining sufficient volume within the mouthpiece to enable correct tuning. I have reamed out a Vandoren B45 to a cylindrical bore using a 15.3mm reamer, and it tunes quite well on my 1010. Not as well as my Pillinger-modified Selmer mouthpiece, but it's quite useable. The reason I used a B45 for the experiment is only because I had one in my junk drawer.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2022-11-03 18:51
In an article on his website Peter Eaton refers to how the former principal clarinet of the London Symphony Orchestra, Roy Jowitt, at one time played on a mixed pair of clarinets. One was a 1010 Bb and the A an Imperial 926. He used a 1010 mouthpiece on both. Peter says "This works satisfactorily, although the twelfths at the top end of the tube, for example E/B and F/C would be wider than ideal but a gifted player like Roy would have had no problems in coping with that." TonyF seems to describe a similar circumstances but using a 926-style mouthpiece, with tapered bore. It would seem tuning is the reason for the parallel bore on the 1010 mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
