 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2007-02-23 08:31
Am I just hooked on Zinner based mouthpieces or what!!!! I just went through my old mouthpieces because I wanted to know if I could use some of them since my Grabner AW-personal is worn out. I used to play 4 years ago on Pillinger F1 125mm opening with 22mm long lay because it was so easy to use softer reeds on it. Ok I tried it with FOF #3.25 and V12 #3 and 3.5. It was so responsive that I had very hard time not to begin biting. Then it was like playing in mono rather than stereo. Dynamics very also very hard to control. Staccato was ok but not great. Then I tried Morgan Mo 15 that I played 2 years ago because I found it to be so embouchure free and again very responsiv. Now I found it to be like playing in mono also and it lacked all the control specially playing loud and upper register. Maybe I've canged but I find Bay(Babitt blank?) and Zinner to be best sounding materials although Zinner is bit better.
Can anyone tell me how Genussa Excellente compare to Zinner,Bay,Pillinger and Morgan in sound?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt Locker
Date: 2007-02-23 14:30
IC:
I tried the Gennusa prior to purchasing my AW. I did not like it - feel or sound. If you like your AW, I expect you wouldn't like the Excellente. I could be wrong of course..................
MOO,
Matt
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger Aldridge
Date: 2007-02-23 16:47
Greetings Iceland!
I suspect your experiences with these mouthpieces have more to do with differences in mouthpiece design and facings rather than mouthpiece material.
The hard rubber formula used by Ralph Morgan is of exceptionally high quality. Ralph has told me that he thinks it is purer than the formula used by Zinner. I've been able to play on Morgan mouthpieces that have similar facings but one used Ralph's high quality hard rubber and the other was 30% hard rubber. The mouthpiece with the 30% formula did not have the same vibrant tonal qualities and level of projection as the mouthpiece made with Ralph's top-of-the-line hard rubber. I am convinced that mouthpiece materials have an impact on tone, projection, and response.
Having said that, it's also been my experience that mouthpiece design and facings have a MUCH LARGER role in performance differences between mouthpieces. A Morgan RM15 is a different mouthpiece all together from a Grabner AW....or other Grabner models.
It's not that one is necessarily "better" than the other. It simply comes down to one's personal preference as an individual player as well as matching to the mouthpiece to your particular clarinet and barrel. Many variables involved!
If it was possible, I would LOVE to play a Walter Grabner Kaspar-style mouthpiece that was made from Morgan hard rubber. I would need Walter to make the mouthpiece with a design and facing that are exactly the same as my Grabner mouthpiece. If this was possible, I would then be able to see how the Morgan hard rubber compares with Zinner. But, what are my chances of this being realistic?
Roger
Post Edited (2007-02-23 16:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-02-24 05:08
The only objective experiment I've seen so far comparing identical mouthpieces of different materials showed the material made no difference. This was done (if I remember correct) by a physics/acoustics professor who also plays saxophone, and with saxophone mouthpieces.
Roger wrote: "The hard rubber formula used by Ralph Morgan is of exceptionally high quality. Ralph has told me that he thinks it is purer than the formula used by Zinner....."
Why does a "purer" formula necessarily give a better sound? If material makes a difference, then maybe a less pure formula (Zinner) is better? It is not like jewelery where this is exactly the detirming factor of what "good" is. Of course it makes sense that different materials will feel/sound different to the player since you get the sound through your teeth.
By the way, notice I didn't write any of my own opinions about material & sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger Aldridge
Date: 2007-02-24 13:42
Hi Clarnibass,
Just to clarify, I don't get the sound through my teeth. I use an embouchure on clarinet and saxophone that does not have my teeth on the mouthpiece beak. Thus, I'm getting the sound through my ears.
Anyway, the question about whether mouthpiece materials make a discernable difference in sound is one that has been kicked around a lot on this forum and the SOTW forum. There are players on both sides.
Personally, I find it interesting that clarinetists like Larry Combs, Gregory Smith, and Lawrie Bloom use mouthpieces made from very high quality hard rubber. (Of course, their mouthpieces are also made by master mouthpiece crafters.) It's possible that they could still sound good on cheap plastic mouthpieces. However, only the high quality mouthpieces are used in their performances with the Symphony. In a similar way, it's my understanding that while Larry Combs holds Legere reeds in high regard he only uses cane reeds in the Symphony. This, I think, says a lot.
Roger
Post Edited (2007-02-24 13:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-02-24 14:54
Teeth, skin, etc. Not the same but still sounds and feels different to the player than audience. Actually, some months ago (or was it even years) I tried to do an experiment where I recorded the same player with several different mouthpieces (about ten mouthpeices) made of three different materials (crystal, rubber, wood). I asked on this forum if anyone would be interested in this, and after about five people were interested, I made this recording and sent it to them. They all said they received the file, but I've never heard back from any of them after that..... If you are interested I'll be happy to send you the file so you can try your luck at guessing the materials, I still have the file.
I've heard two of the players you mentioned (Lawrie Bloom and Larry Combs) and yes they sound great, but not better or worse than many other players. You say it is intersting that these players use mouthpieces made of high quality rubber. So, I tried to find what mouthpieces my favorite players use (just out of curiousity) and almost all of them use Vandoren, so they the best, no.....?
About the material, it doesn't mean anything that the players you mentioned play on what they play, and it doesn't matter how they sound on cheap plastic mouthpieces. I'm wondering how they (or others) will sound on excellent mouthpieces made of "less pure" formula.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: saintmoritz
Date: 2007-03-11 03:48
Years ago I studied Musical Acoustics at MIT. While we didn't do any specific experiments on clarinet mouthpieces I think there are a few general observations that might be relevant to this thread. The density and hardness of a material effect the way it reflects, absorbs, transmits and radiates sound. Thus I would expect different materials to have different sound signatures, all else being equal. For a clarinet I would expect that hardness and density would be important qualities since you want the energy to be projected down the instrument rather than to dissipate by vibrating the mouthpiece. However, there is no question that the geometry of the mouthpiece is the most important factor. Not only the facing, which controls the vibratory modes of the reed, but the interior geometry (the "baffle" "bore" etc) is critical in determining the wave formation, overtone production and thus the overall sound of the instrument. Hope that helps.
Mike
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2007-03-11 04:12
To Iceland;
What do you mean your mp is worn out?
Why don't you send it back so that he can resuface it?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clockwiser
Date: 2007-03-11 16:09
"The only objective experiment I've seen so far comparing identical mouthpieces of different materials showed the material made no difference."
What about the Vandoren's B45 and AT45, the AT45 was said to be brighter in sound, and more suitable for the begining or developing players rather than professionals?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-03-11 16:57
Clockwiser - just as i said, the only objective experiment I've seen. What is the AT45? Is it a mouthpiece with exact same dimention as B45 but different material? I never heard of it. I also haven't heard about the objective test done comparing them. Something like "was said to be brighter in sound" already sounds exactly like a subjectively unreliable comparison, like those of the manufacturers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clockwiser
Date: 2007-03-18 13:27
Sorry for the late repl y. On the vandoren website they stated
"Using advanced technology and innovative composite materials, Vandoren have produced a new generation mouthpiece that uses the same great B45 facing with a slightly brighter sound."
They are slightly cheaper than the normal B45. I don't know this mouthpiece well so I can't comment on it, but if suppose if materal don't make a difference, the AT45 wouldn't have a "slightly brighter sound"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Iceland clarinet
Date: 2007-03-19 02:26
Koo Young Chung my mouthpieces is worn out when I could see on that pratigular mouthpieces that the tip to the left side was getting rounded and finding good staccato reeds was getting really difficult. Also it didn't sound as it sounded jus 2 or 3 month ago. I have to say that I got it in February last year and it sounded great and was very reed friendly but I think it sounded even better when I been playing it for 6 months. But I have to agree as stated on the Board that new mouthpiece can make something easier and change your sound for about 2 weeks or so but eventually you will just sound as you always do.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-03-19 09:03
Clockwiser, you are confusing objective tests with advertising. Your example is simply something the manufacturer states about their own product.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
