 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jonok
Date: 2014-01-19 02:13
Attachment: facing.png (4k)
Hi all,
I had assumed that the facing curve should be continuous from table to tip (like top curve in attached pic) ... until i discovered it wasn't on my mouthpiece (the bottom curve? in pic - it's not as severe as that of course). With a magnifying glass, when I press a reed "closed", I can see air between the reed and the rail.
The mouthpiece does play - I've been using it for about 18 months.
So it has and *extremely* narrow tip rail. What would you say the effect of this would be on the setup, compared to if the curve was continuous (and had a normal tip rail width)?
Jon
-------------------
aspiring fanatic
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-01-19 02:54
There are different points (four major ones?) along the curve of the lay where dimensions can be altered somewhat independent of one another. I have come to believe that a "steepness" (please forgive me, masters of mouthpiece refinishing for making up this term) at the very last part before (or at) the tip rail can be quite beneficial for allowing the altissimo to speak better (since it is only that last portion of the reed that is vibrating in the upper reaches).
One check I do (more for reed compatibility) is a suction test on the mouthpiece with the reed on. Hold mouthpiece with reed on against flat of palm and suck the reed closed against the mouthpiece. If the reed holds to the mouthpiece until you let it go, than the "system" is fine.
The REAL test to see if all is well with the mouthpiece is if the mouthpiece plays great and feels great. If it does, it shouldn't matter WHAT it looks like or what the measurements are.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jonok
Date: 2014-01-19 03:17
Thanks Paul. I wasn't so much inquiring about a measurement issue, but trying to confirm my suspicions that the mp is flawed. For example, if the tip opening is a critical measurement of a mouthpiece, what is the tip opening of my mouthpiece, if the reed never touches the tip rail?
I did do the suck test, and it does "stick" but not for long, and significantly less than on another mouthpiece where the reed touches ALL the tip rail (with the same reed).
I want to get some confirmation of my suspicions before I go back to the maker .. it was a very expensive mouthpiece.
Jon
-------------------
aspiring fanatic
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-01-19 03:32
jonok wrote:
> For example, if the tip opening is a critical
> measurement of a mouthpiece, what is the tip opening of my
> mouthpiece, if the reed never touches the tip rail?
>
The tip opening measurement is the distance between the reed and the mouthpiece tip when the reed is at rest. What happens when the reed is in its closest position to the tip rail is not what's measured.
You haven't said what the mouthpiece is. If it's a commonly available commercial mouthpiece, someone might know whether the curve you're describing is correct. If it's a custom mouthpiece and you want to protect the name of the maker, you should contact him and ask about your concerns.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bruno
Date: 2014-01-19 07:28
The table is usually dead flat. Sometimes there's a little hollow in it by the maker.
The lay or facing is that part of the entire flat portion of the MP that curves away and doesn't touch the reed (at rest). How far back the curved section extends determines the length of the facing. I've never seen a MP in which the facing starts at the back end of the table.
bruno.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jonok
Date: 2014-01-19 13:45
Attachment: facing1.png (12k)
Not talking about table, talking about the tip rail. I've added some bits to the pic to clarify. I would expect a mouthpiece to be like the top image, so the reed lays flush with ALL the rails when it is fully "closed".
The pic is a side view of the mp.
The bottom image is an exageration of what I see on my mouthpiece ... I'm just looking for confirmation that a mouthpiece like that could only be considered faulty.
Jon
-------------------
aspiring fanatic
Post Edited (2014-01-19 13:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-01-19 20:00
jonok wrote:
> ... I'm just looking for confirmation that a
> mouthpiece like that could only be considered faulty.
>
> Jon
>
If the facing is indeed shaped the way you've drawn it, it isn't like any of the mouthpieces I've ever played on. But it looks (again, from your drawing) as though the straight-line shape of the upper part is deliberate (or it probably wouldn't be perfectly straight) and therefore part of the deign, not a manufacturing defect. So, while players I know don't play mouthpieces that look like your second drawing, it's hard to say it's "faulty" if it's intentionally made that way.
Keep in mind, though, that the parameters of a typical mouthpiece curve involve very small measurements that can't necessarily be "eyeballed" meaningfully or accurately. That the top of the facing *looks* straight, as you've drawn it, doesn't mean it necessarily is. Get a piece of perfectly flat glass. Moisten the rails and hold it against the glass so you can see through the other side where the mouthpiece contacts the glass surface (indicated by the dark spot). Slowly roll the mouthpiece against the glass toward the tip. If the curve is continuous, however slightly, you will see only a small area of contact moving toward the tip as you roll the mouthpiece. If it actually straightens for some portion, you should see the entire length of the straight section darken at once. Although it isn't impossible that your facing is actually straight, it certainly isn't typical. But I'm still not sure you can jump from there to describing it as "faulty" without knowing what the intended shape is. You haven't identified the mouthpiece, so no one else with possible experience with it would be tell you whether theirs are made the same way.
Why do you want to establish that it's "faulty?" You say that it plays, and after 18 months no dealer is likely to accept a return. What is it you want to confirm? If you don't like the way it plays, the best solution would be to look for a different mouthpiece and consign this one to the drawer we all have in which we store all the equipment with which we've fallen out of love.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-01-19 21:48
This is at least the THIRD attempt on my part to write this response..........so bear with me.
I think I would say that there IS a flaw in the overall design. Perhaps a final adjustment didn't go so well and there was a "fudging" of the last bit to make this one work (unless of course other mouthpieces in this person's opus look similar).
I would say that IDEALLY, if the designer were going for a very thin tip rail, it would be all at the very tip. HOWEVER, that does leave you with a very thin, very brittle, very breakable beak, that chances are would have a problem with an unintended glancing blow with a tooth (or any other unintended event of any minor force). As a comparison, look at some modern Vandorens with thinner tip rails. They leave more material (for all the practical reasons) and achieve a thinner tip rail by angling BACK from the top surface (upon which your upper teeth rest) to wherever they want the surface of the tip rail to stop.
I would go back to: How does it play? What is the response in the altissimo? Is the tonguing good? How is the low register? Does it speak quickly or is it thuddy or sluggish?
If YOU get all the requirements out of it you want, NOTHING else should matter.
...................Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2014-01-19 21:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jonok
Date: 2014-01-19 18:59
Thanks Paul and Karl,
that diagram is obviously a very exaggerated picture of course. I need a 20X magnifier to see the gap between the end of the reed and tip rail when the reed is in the "closed" position. When I do the exactly the same test with another mouthpiece, the reed is obviously flush with the tip rail.
Yes, it plays, and I've been playing it for 18 months, but not being very experienced I didn't know it wasn't what it was supposed to be - I have a wide bore instrument and I just presumed this was what it was like. My teacher played it for the first time recently and said it was way too resistant. Her actual words were "ugh, this is killing me". My teacher gave me one of her spare mouthpieces (she plays a small bore clarinet) to try and despite the tuning issues, it was not just less resistant, it was MUCH easier to play: it even seemed to free up my fingering.
I didn't immediately assume the mp was faulty ... i was trying to compare the features of the two mouthpieces to give a hint at what parameters of mp would give the resistance similar to this other mouthpiece. In doing that I saw something that didn't look right ... so I looked closer and tried to make sure i was seeing what i thought. I've been back and rechecked three times to make sure I not losing my mind.
I have contacted the maker, awaiting reply.
On a positive note, it will have done good things to my air support. lol
Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-01-20 00:54
Ok, more things to worry about.
When you say "wide bore" instrument, are you referring to a Boosey 1010 style instrument (or some such English or Viennese bore of .600 inches)?
For the exaggerated wide bore instruments, there are specific (more cylindrical bore) mouthpieces made for the tuning issues of the wide clarinet bore. The mouthpieces of those particular type clarinets are NOT interchangeable with the standard French bore instruments (you really cannot use a French bore clarinet mouthpiece on one of those successfully OR the other way around either). This has nothing to do with whether you can fit the mouthpiece into the barrel........that measurement is more standard (and makes for some confusion).
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jonok
Date: 2014-01-20 04:06
Yes, it's a 1010 type wide bore. I know you can't interchange the mouthpieces and sound good as the pitch goes all over the place - and strange notes become quite sensitive to squeaking. Unfortunately I'm on the other side of the globe to any wide bore mouthpiece makers, so it's going to be tedious to find a new mouthpiece. That will teach me for wanting to be different! Even so, I do love my clarinet - in my better moments it produces such a georgeous tone. I wouldn't go back: Yeah, I'm a bit crazy ...
Jon
PS ... Is loving your instrument a Clarinetty thing? I hear clarinetists say that all the time ... but, for example, I've never heard of a tumpeter saying he/she loved their horn ... ? Could be I don't hang around so much with musicians ... but still.
-------------------
aspiring fanatic
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-01-19 23:56
Some repairers have the proper reamer to enlarge the bore of any standard French bore mouthpiece to the 1010 dimensions.
With this it is possible to choose from a wide range of mouthpieces e.g. Vandoren, Selmer, etc etc. and have it modified to tune with the 1010.
Since B&H instruments including 1010 were (are?) widely used in Australia I would have thought that at least one of your country repairers would posses such a reamer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-01-20 01:24
I have heard great things about the Pillinger mouthpieces (or is this "the guy?") and would heartily recommend trying asking them what lay sizes they have that are close to the best mouthpiece you've ever tried, but in a 1010 bore.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2014-01-20 07:37
One idea I have heard regarding the tip is this...... There is a gradual lifting of the back end of the mouthpiece with the hand/arm when dragging the mouthpiece backwards on the abrasive. It might be Ralph Morgan who suggested that when you get to the tip the lifting stops....it is rather straight back at this point. The tip rail will be flat with this approach.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Grabnerwg
Date: 2014-01-20 03:27
Re: the preceding post. That is a very good description of what many mouthpiece craftsmen do when applying the facing and the tip rail finishing to the mouthpiece.
Not all of us have the same techniques. The important thing is that the mouthpiece speak well, especially without fuzziness in the throat tones.
Walter Grabner
www.clarinetxpress.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derek_b
Date: 2014-01-20 09:32
Grabnerwg: thank you for your comments! Allow me to use this opportunity to say that I do appreciate your work (though I handled your mouthpiece only very briefly).
I linked to Santy Runyon paper mainly because what he calls "the Type 2 mouthpiece" in his work appears to be what jonok originally inquired about in his opening post (see sixth post down and the "facing1.png" attachment).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-01-21 01:05
I have a slight issue with the data in the Santy Runyon part 11 article.
The curve he describes as ideal for the clarinet as a continuous arc of a circle is in my understanding a curve that works well for the saxophone. However every good clarinet mouthpiece I have measured (and most of the not so good ones also) has had a curve that is in fact a compound curve not an arc.
Some sources suggest an elipse of certain dimensions is what is appropriate and what I have seen generally is much closer to an elipse than an arc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jonok
Date: 2014-01-23 15:03
Just to resolve the issue (though my issues are just starting now - needing to find a new mouthpiece).
My understanding was wrong. I thought the reed always made contact (and sealed) with the tip rail when the clarinet is producing a tone. Apparently not. It *can*, when playing loud, but that is not what produces the pressure waves.
The design of the mouthpiece is as intended. The fault is mine entirely mine: I'd been creeping up reed strength after a particular tone. It's a problem: my ears writing cheques my technique can't cash!
For the curious, I am the proud owner of a Peter Eaton Elite, and the mouthpiece in question is also a Peter Eaton.
PS. You think you've got an extreme mouthpiece? How about 1.24 and 21.5mm!
-------------------
aspiring fanatic
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-01-23 17:59
Boy, sounds exactly like me!!!
I still have a pair of 1010s in my closet from that era of my life!
The search for a big sound, or a FULL sound can drive us in the wrong directions. I would only say that as long as your reed strength remains moderate, you sound be ok with were you are now.
As for the big sound..............it is air, AIR, AIR !!!!
Engaging your core is the first step (diaphragm only gets the air in). You need to PUSH the air OUT with your abdominal muscles.
The next step is to NOT block the air. John Yeh used to say "open throat, is closed throat." By that he meant that if you use the "AHHHHH" sound position of your tongue (typical posture for the "open throaters") you are actually (and you really need to be analytical and honest about this) blocking the flow of air with the back of your tongue at the top of your throat.
Finally there is the focus of air. You can do this best by not really doing anything special with your tongue (or thinking the "EEEEE" sound placement of your tongue). But the kicker, that I myself have only embraced in the last month (God help me) is tonguing with the tip of your tongue to the tip of the reed (literally feeling the very edge of your reed with the tip of your tongue). This also focuses the air column at the very POINT where it is needed most...........at the tip of the reed/mouthpiece system where your TONE is produced.
Of course these are tips to sound "mid-western" (mid-western US that is) such as Clark Brody, Larry Combs, Bil Jackson. If you are after a different sound than this, then the methodology becomes different.
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2014-01-23 14:29
(Disclaimer I sell Chedeville brand mouthhpieces and barrels CNC machined from rod rubber)
The reference by Derek_B about mouthpiece materials is good. Of significant importance in hard rubber mouthpieces is that the formulations of starting materials and vulcanization conditions are diifferent in making rod rubber stock and the materials used to make molded mouthpieces yielding rubber of different properties. The tempering conditions and cooling thickness differences can also distort areas in molded rubber mouthpieces. All mouthpieces today, except a very few, are molded hard rubber.
It is worthwhile to note that the latex rubber starting material used to make vulcanized rubber today is different than used in the classic 1920's and 30's mouthpieces because a lot of impurities have been removed because of the demand for latex to make rubber gloves. The sources, geographical locations (leading to a different terroir), and tree types are also different. The impurities in latex alter the eventual crosslinking patterns in the final material and its physical properties as well as acoustical properties.
It should also be noted that rubber manufacturing quality contol in the modern era also consists instrumentation that can "fingerprint" of the cross linking patterns in vulcanized rubber (this is useful for tire manufacturers) and acoustical properties are analyzed by full spectrum frequency analysis using FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) as well as other proprietary methods. These methods can be used to evaluate the properties of each batch of custom rubber.
L. Omar Henderson
www.ChedevilleMP.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-01-23 20:02
A 1.24 opening is pretty standard for a Peter Eaton mouthpiece, I don't think he makes many with a closer lay than this.
The "old school" English sound typically use lays of this opening or even wider and in UK the tendency of most players (but not all) is to use more open tips than in the USA even on Buffet and similar bore clarinets.
I still keep returning to my VD crystal A1 which is about 1.05mm
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jonok
Date: 2014-01-24 02:16
Paul Aviles wrote:
> Boy, sounds exactly like me!!!
Just to clarify, in regard to playing the clarinet, I sound like Paul Aviles. <grin>
You'd get on with my teacher, all that is where she's taking me (except maybe the tonguing bit , particularly the "open/closed" throat thing. That is the particular problem we're addressing, as she claims the "English" style mouthpieces encourage a more open throat and making throat/tongue/embouchure adjustments, which is verboten.
Norman Smale wrote:
> A 1.24 opening is pretty standard for a Peter Eaton mouthpiece,
> I don't think he makes many with a closer lay than this.
Peter has mentioned, in a comment about the variability of other brands of mouthpiece, his range of tip openings goes down to roughly 1.18 mm.
> The "old school" English sound typically use lays of this opening ...
I may be unique, as I didn't chose to go with a Peter Eaton clarinet to sound "English" - my primary requirement was a solid reputation for being naturally in tune. Then it came down to something made in a factory, or something hand made by the man who designed the clarinet. Seemed like a no brainer at the time. In practical terms, probably not the most sensible decision, but I'm rarely practical. Apparently.
Seems to be impossible to get a "French" style tip/facing parametered wide bore mouthpiece. Apart from getting one and having it bored out, though it would sort of be a slap in the face to the person I would naturally choose to do that for me. Dilemmas.
-------------------
aspiring fanatic
Post Edited (2014-01-24 03:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-01-24 03:38
I would disagree with the idea that a mouthpiece makes you say "AHHHH." But that had been (still is?) the notion behind the "English sound. I heard the group from Buckingham Palace perform in Kansas last year and though the clarinetists all had technique out the wazoo and were very, VERY musical, they all also had rather diffuse sounds.
Also I don't think the facings on English (style) mouthpieces are inherently one way or the other either. I have number of original Boosey 1010 mouthpieces circa 1980 that have smaller tip openings (I just don't think the facings were that good, compared to other craftsmen out there both then and now).
I still recommend contacting Pillinger.............nothing to loose there but a few hundred pounds :-)
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jonok
Date: 2014-01-24 04:05
Paul Aviles wrote:
> I would disagree with the idea that a mouthpiece makes you say
> "AHHHH."
I didn't mean it as extreme as that... just that it promotes the tendency to open up. I'm just going on what my teacher tells me ... and I'd been working things out on my own before she got her hands on me, which probably doesn't help. I start out and she says "Yes yes, good" then in 3 seconds it's suddenly, "no no you've slacked off" and I'd *swear* I hadn't changed anything. It's one of those things.
-------------------
aspiring fanatic
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
