 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2007-12-24 22:04
This morning I decided to do some experimenting. Hopefully the following information may be useful or at least interesting to some of you.
The purpose of this experiment was to guestimate the air leakage at three main points along the mpc facing using various types of cane and plastic reeds.
The mouthpiece I used was an H-Couf 2 star, which I personally flattened the table and set the facing at 17mm (34). The tip opening is questionable but it plays with the ease of a Hite premier, so I suspect the tip opening to be around 0.041".
To make sure no air was leaking from the clarinet end, I put a piece of wide plastic tape over the entire surface and made sure it adhered evenly all around. During the tests the mpc was also pressed against the palm of my left hand.
The ligature I used was a Rovner Dark with the top edge at the beginning of the full rounded butt end.
The three main test points I used to check for air leakage was: A) with my embouchure lightly pressed directly against the ligature; B) with my embouchure lightly pressed at the fulcrum point and C) with the mpc inserted in what felt like my "normal" position with my "usual" embouchure pressure against the bottom of the reed. ("C", of course, is very subjective.)
The "air pressure system" used was to fill my cheeks with air and gently press them inward.
"A" was to check for curvature of the reed at the bottom of the window.
"B" was to check for leakage at the side rails leading up to the facing edge.
"C" can have many different meanings to many different people.
The leakage numeralogy I used was based on a X/10 % point "estimate" which I fully realize is very subjective and very unscientific. (With 10/10 meaning completely air tight and 1/10 meaning very leaky.)
All cane reeds were tested being completely dry.
What follows is 9 untreated different reeds with results listed as A, B and C.
1. Bari Star (soft) A=10/10, B=10/10, C=10/10 (no leakage detected)
2. Fibercell #2 A=10/10, B=10/10, C=8/10 (some leakage)
3. Fibercell med/soft 2 1/2 A=10/10, B= 9/10, C=5/10
4. Rico Royal #2 A=5/10, B=3/10, C=1/10 (lots of leakage)
5. Vandoren #2 A=8/10, B=2/10, C=1/10
6. La Voz MS A=10/10, B=9/10, C=3/10
7. Legere #2 (Reg) A=10/10, B=10/10, C=4/10
8. Legere #2 (Reg) A=10/10, B=7/10, C=1/10
9. Mitchell Lurie #2 (reg) A=8/10, B=5/10, C=1/10
Conclusions:
1) With the exception of the La Voz, I believe no cane reed can be used without sanding the backside to "flatten" it. All untreated cane reeds had various levels of air leakage esecially at point"B".
2) After "flattening" your cane reed, if "A" is still bad, most likely your mpc table is not flat.
3) I'm more interested in what meaning the above has for you (if any!).
My next little project is to go to the hardware store and pick up some extremely fine sandpaper and see how greatly "A" and "B" change on the cane reeds.
Thank you in advance for your comments.
Post Edited (2007-12-24 22:59)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2007-12-25 00:04
Dan Shusta,
Interesting, and thank you for sharing your work; however.... since no one plays a dry reed, (I even wet the back of my Legeres to improve the seal), it might be more meaningful if the tests were done with reeds wet as they are actually used in practice. Or am I missing something?
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2007-12-25 00:15
Hans, interesting point. I've never heard of wetting the back of Legere reeds to improve the seal.
Perhaps the point of all of this is if your mpc seems more resistant than normal, and an embouchure test at point "A" reveals leakage, something is definitely wrong. Either the wet reed is warped or the table of the mpc is warped.
However, every one of my plastic reeds sealed perfectly with the table. So if you feel the need to wet the back of your Legere, could it be that your mpc table is warped??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2007-12-25 00:23
Another test that can be done to check for mpc air leakage is to remove the mpcs from the instrument, use 2 or 3 of your fingers to bend the wet reed over the facing and then blow into the barrel end. If there is any air leakage at all, the facing might have a "dip" or a slight "hump" thus preventing a complete airtight sealing.
Hans, on second thought, the above test from the barrel end of the mpc may give you a "false" air tight test. Just below the window, the reed or the table may be warped an yet the air may be trapped by the edges yielding a "false" air tight sealing.
I suggest doing both the barrel end test and the embouchure test at point "A".
Another test that I have heard of is the "suction" test. I've never been able to perfom this test satisfactorily and I'm not sure this test is an all encompassing, thoroughly reliable test.
The only thing I really feel sure about is when you take your reed off the mpc, if you see saliva anywhere on the table or railing...there is a problem.
All of the above are strictly my opinions.
Post Edited (2007-12-25 00:43)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2007-12-25 01:09
Hans, I took the worst of the bunch, the Rico Royal and soaked it in water for 15 minutes. I quickly wiped off the excess water, put it on the mpc and did the test again.
The results were exactly the same.
P.S. The Rico Royal also failed the barrel end of mpc test with my fingers holding the reed tightly down upon the facing.
Post Edited (2007-12-25 01:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2007-12-25 08:29
Thank you for your tests. I am very interested in them and believe that it is important to continue to search for technicql information on clarinet reed situations. Many oboe players wrap the low end of their reeds with "fish skin" or put wax on the sides to seal them as a leak in an oboe reed makes the low notes difficult to play. My style of oboe reed making is such that I almost never have leaks in them, however.
While I recognize that there are various schools and opinions on mouthpiece facing, I believe that the reed is more free to vibrate if the facing is concave and not totally flat. This I learned from the late Glen Johnston in many late night sessions with him so long ago. Since many commercial mouthpieces are so made, it would be interesting if you could include concave table mouthpieces in future tests, in addition. The depth of a concave facing is never specified, however.
Please feel encouraged to continue your work on this fascinating subject.
Good Wishes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-12-25 09:21
Because of you first conclusion, I'm wondering how come I (and others) don't have any problems with not flattening the back of the reeds?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2007-12-25 15:53
Two , simple to execute, tests of cane reed flatness are as follows. First, wet the reed as normal. Then place it against a similar wet or dry reed , flat to flat. Now look directly into the tip end of the two. Do the tips touch all the way across? If not , and your test reed tips curl , your reed is defective. Second test. Place a bead of water on a piece of plate glass. Place the reed on it pressing slightly to force some of the bead across the area of the reed. Turn the plate over with the reed clinging to it and observe the pattern, which will clearly show any deviations from flatness in the reed. I find most cane reeds are not flat after they have been played a while, and most tips of used reeds do curl away from the mpc tip. Same tests can be used for plastic. I use 600 grade emory on plate glass for sanding, but actually, the tips problem is the more serious one in that I solve it by discarding the reed.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2007-12-25 16:10
clarnibass, thank you for your interesting question. Th answers to your question are purely speculation on my part.
I believe some cane reeds may simply be manufactured better or are made from a better quality of cane (denser) which may keep them stay flatter much longer after making them.
I also believe that some players don't mind or even like the extra resistance in their mpc/reed set up.
It may also depend upon the style of playing done. To me, any leakage will cause not only a slight delay in tone production, but will also cause more problems perhaps in the higher altissimo than in the clarion range.
To me, the number of possibilities as to why you are not experiencing problems could be very numerous. Your embouchure, the style/cut of the reed, your mpc, etc. If it is very difficult for you to produce a ppp note in the upper clarion or in the altissimo, I believe one of many possible causes could be due to improper conditioning of the reed which includes flattening the back.
I would love to hear from some professional mpc makers/refacers on this topic because I am basically an experimenter/hobbyist who unfortunately has embouchure dystonia. (I'm still looking for that mpc/reed combination which produces a medium level output while I exhale into the mpc!)
Allow me to direct this question to the BB: If we know that even the smallest of pad leakage can cause playing problems, shoudn't mpc air leakage problems cause problems also?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2007-12-25 16:49
rtmyth, thank you for sharing your techniques with us.
The problem I have with your water test is that I believe the pressure would have to be very firm equally over the entire reed which may be difficult to execute. Also, putting too much pressure on the reed may actually distort or change the true physical shape of the reed in the process.
I have found that smearing an ultra light coating of cork grease onto a known flat plate glass and viewing the back side of the reed from the other side of the glass allows one to use very light pressure to easily see the unevenness of the flat back portion of the reed as well as the remainder of the reed as it is lightly pressed against the glass.
I sense that there are quite a few different techniques being used by many players.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2007-12-25 18:07
Wes, thank you for your remarks.
As long as the concavity of the table does not extend all the way to the bottom of the window, which it shouldn't, whether the tabel is completely flat or whether it has a rather deep concavity, IMHO, as long as the area "around the window" and the rails of the mpc are sealing well, there will be no air leakage.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2007-12-25 19:50
FWIW--I put some cork grease around the window and tried the test again with the Rico Royal. With embouchure at edge of ligature, air leakage decreased from 5/10 to around 7/10. I added more cork grease around bottom of window and leakage decreased from 7/10 to an almost perfect 10/10 (no leakage).
How will this affect performance? To be dertermined later...I have a luncheon to go to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2007-12-27 01:35
I had some time available today, so I decided to do some testing to find out if air leakage between an unflattened reed and the mpc table had any noticeable difference in tone production. I used the same Rico Royal #2 that I used in the previous test which produced a fairly large air leakage due to the back of the reed being untreated or not flattened.
At first, I was quite surprised because I couldn't experience any really noticeable difference. I concentrated on the upper clarion and the lower altissimo. With either a leaky 5/10 or an airtight 10/10, I was able to do a fairly fast staccato in the upper clarion all the way up to E6 with no noticeable difference. To say the least, I was quite puzzled. I expected worse playing ability in these two ranges.
Then I did some more testing and was able to find, what I considered, a really huge difference between a leaky 5/10 and an airtight 10/10. I found a huge difference in response in the pianissimo range. I concentrated on producing a G5 pianissimo tone by using what I considered a proper embouchure and gently increasing air pressure until a very quiet pianissimo tone was produced. No use of my tongue was involved.
With a leaky 5/10 setup, low level pianissimo tone production was extremely difficult boardering on impossible. The tone seemed to break in at a higher level than desired and was difficult to maintain at a constant level. The air leakage seemed to have a dampening affect upon low level tones.
With an airtight 10/10 setup, I found low level pianissimo tone production by using only increasing air pressure to be rather easy. The tone level was quieter and maintaining a constant level tone seemed to be far easier.
Then I thought about my initial testing involving fairly fast staccato in the upper clarion and lower altissimo range which produced no noticeable difference to me. Two things immediately came to my mind: 1) my tongue started the tone and 2) I was playing above pianissimo in audio level.
So the only conclusion that I can come up with is-- if a player needs to produce a ppp note by a tonguing start or by increasing air pressure only, an airtight reed/mpc setup is absolutely necessary for him or her to do so. Flattening the reed back, IMHO, certainly aids in achieving an airtight reed/mpc setup.
All of the above are simply my very subjective findings as an experimenter/hobbyist.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
