 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: grok
Date: 2014-01-26 01:23
Take two simplified mouthpiece tables: one narrower than the reed and one wider than the reed.
I've been playing around with this in my free time, and given my limited equipment, I want to direct it to you. Does the width of the table influence what reed and ligature, therefore combination of the three, that you use? I only throw in "reed" because my experience shows synthetic reeds match better with "more coverage" ligatures (Rovner, leather, etc) than with metal ligatures. I do encounter exceptions, as no rule is steadfast.
Examples of combinations regardless of outcome:
1. Narrow table + cane reed + metal ligature
2. Narrow table + cane reed + cloth ligature
3. Narrow table + plastic reed + metal ligature
4. Narrow table + plastic reed + cloth ligature
5. Wide table + cane reed + metal ligature
6. Wide table + cane reed + cloth ligature
7. Wide table + plastic reed + metal ligature
8. Wide table + plastic reed + cloth ligature
Some things I need to keep in mind (excuse my use of this post as a personal notepad, as these might not translate clearly from my head to yours):
a. Variations in internal dimensions of the mouthpieces tested
b. Consistency across reeds re: materials
c. Reed strengths matching mpc/ligature combo
d. Materials of both types of ligatures
e. Hollows in mpc tables
f. Room acoustics
I prefer 1, 5, 6, and 8 from the list of combinations above. Perhaps the wider tables allow greater flexibility, and suit plastic reeds better than narrow tables suit plastic reeds. Maybe the narrow table with a cloth ligature exerts unnecessary and detrimental tension on the edges of the reed hanging extending over the sides of the table, especially because I find the need to tighten cloth ligatures more than metal ones.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-01-27 03:02
I wanted to respond to this since I was initially curious about width given that some mouthpieces seem to have a lot of room from side to side of the table for the reed and other seem to have a table that the reed almost seems to beyond the sides of the table.
As far as the working parts of this system (sound production that is) the only widths that are relevant are how thick the rail is UNDER the reed and up to the opening. In other words a thick rail will make the response slower (dull the sound) but this is more a function of a narrower "window." What is not under the reed doesn't really matter.
Of course, how would you be able to situate your reed properly (and I mean consistently) if you had no clear reference for where the window was under the reed (a result of an extra wide table)?
I DO admire your analytical approach to determine different personal results. We all do this (maybe not so meticulously) to help arrive at the sound we are looking for.
I'd also add to your list - Tightened down ligature vs. very loosely applied ligature.
...................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-01-27 18:13
Paul Aviles wrote:
> As far as the working parts of this system (sound production
> that is) the only widths that are relevant are how thick the
> rail is UNDER the reed and up to the opening. In other words
> a thick rail will make the response slower (dull the sound) but
> this is more a function of a narrower "window." What is not
> under the reed doesn't really matter.
>
Paul, I've never really thought about this and have never tested it, but do you think that where the rail contacts the reed might be relevant as well? It seems to me intuitively (with no proof) that moving the contact area closer toward the center of the reed would affect the reed's vibration. It certainly matters where the tip area contacts the tip rail.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
