 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-08-18 22:50
I remember reading on this BB that the mouthpiece is responsible for around 90% of the total tone quality produced. I did a search and couldn't find anything.
I believe the clarinet body is responsible for around 5% with the remaining 5% being attributed to the reed, ligature and physical dimensions of the player's mouth.
I would like to know what you think the percentages are.
Thanks in advance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: as9934
Date: 2014-08-19 01:21
I think its more like this:
Mouthpiece: 40%
Clarinet: 40%
Reed:10%
Other: 10%
This may change in some circumstances with the addition of after market barrels/bells.
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Wind Ensemble
Buffet E11 clarinet , Vandoren Masters CL6 13 series mouthpiece w/ Pewter M/O Ligature, Vandoren V12 3.5
Yamaha 200ad clarinet, Vandoren B45 mouthpiece, Rovner ligature
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2014-08-19 01:39
People's ideas of percentages are going to vary, but in general, I believe the higher "up" the clarinet, the more important for tone.
So mouthpiece most important, barrel very important, and the upper/lower joints and bell factor in, but if you're ever trying out new clarinets, take your mouthpiece, try every barrel on one clarinet, and when you find the best sound, try that mouthpiece/barrel combination on every other clarinet to find the "optimum" blend of whatever you have in front of you.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-19 07:02
It is (and here I AM shouting) 90% AIR, and you can decide how to divide up the remainder amongst the component parts.
Honestly anyone, and I DO MEAN ANYONE, can have a really big, beautiful, resonant tone.
Musicianship is another story, but anyone can learn to use air properly.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: pewd
Date: 2014-08-19 07:11
I always felt it was 90% based on that which resides within the cranium.
Of the remaining 10%, 90% of that is the reed.
- Paul Dods
Dallas, Texas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mnhnhyouh
Date: 2014-08-19 10:57
A beginners perspective:
40% mouth/air
40% reed
15% mouthpiece
5% the rest of the clarinet.
I speculate that as a player becomes more experienced they need to spend less time thinking about the mouth/air part, and then assign higher values the rest of the train.
But maybe I have it completely upside down, and as a player gets more experienced they think more about their air/mouth, and start sounding really good.
h
A mind so open my brain sometimes falls out.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-08-19 14:23
I have this thing on my front door. It has two parts, a key and a lock.
I've been told that the key is 73% important, the lock 27% important.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2014-08-19 15:23
Well someone should remove the mouthpiece to test just the clarinet and reed alone. The result would be the ultimate answer to this annoying question.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2014-08-19 18:58
I always loved it when someone came up to me and told me how my clarinet sounded great. I usually answered thank you but asked, how about the player? The mouthpiece is only as good as the player blowing into it. Percentage? Who knows and who cares? You look for the best combination for you. The equipment is only as good as the technician.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-08-19 20:04
Thanks everyone for your comments.
I actually found my answer after posting when I read the above article which I listed.
In it, it states:
"If the mouthpiece creates the tone, then all the delicately crafted rest of the clarinet is needed "only" to produce notes of different hight. And it is the mouthpiece that matters most for the sound. However, this is true for most - if not all - wind instruments."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2014-08-19 20:30
Dan Shusta wrote:
> Tony: I would appreciate it if you would elaborate.
Did you read his supplied links at all?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-08-19 22:45
In my posting, I failed to mention things that, to me, were just plain obvious.
And those obvious things were:
1) Proper embouchure
2) Proper air support
3) A clarinet body is optimal condition (i.e., no leaks)
4) A mouthpiece, reed, and ligature combination that is set up to produce optimal tone production
Again, I really didn't think I had to even mention these things. I see now that I erred.
Actually, from the link that I provided above, I found a second confirmation on the greater percentage importance of the mouthpiece. From my provided link is the statement:
"Playing with the same excellent mouthpiece on two different clarinets, one that is simple, made of plastic, and one that is extremely expensive, you will most often find the difference in the sound is in general less significant than using the same instrument with two significantly different mouthpieces. Many players will doubt this - especially when you have payed lots for your instrument."
So, again, I believe I have my answer.
Actually, I was really looking for the the percentage that the clarinet body had upon the tone. So, IMO, I posted my question incorrectly.
However, from the article quote written above, I believe that I do indeed have my answer.
As to Tony's linked articles, I found them way too technical for me. And, from what I did understand, I could not find anything that related to my original posting.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2014-08-19 22:58
Dan Shusta wrote:
> As to Tony's linked articles, I found them way too technical
> for me. And, from what I did understand, I could not find
> anything that related to my original posting.
We must have read different links ...
Are you looking for a quantity vs. quality discussion? In that case, not having a mouthpiece or reed does indeed have a more devastating effect in the mere production of notes than a single leaking pad ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-08-19 23:11
Both. I'm looking for the quantity of the quality of the produced tone by the items mentioned.
And, FWIW, IMO, you're a much smarter man than I am. So, what may seem simple to understand to you may not be so simple to others. (like me).
I do not come to this BB to feel "put down".
I think I have just listed my last posting.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-08-19 23:26
But then not having a living, breathing player above the mouthpiece won't make much sound, either.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2014-08-19 23:37
Dan Shusta wrote:
> And, FWIW, IMO, you're a much smarter man than I am. So, what
> may seem simple to understand to you may not be so simple to
> others. (like me).
>
> I do not come to this BB to feel "put down".
>
> I think I have just listed my last posting.
Dan, you might get more useful responses that leave you feeling less "put down" if you give some more context to your question. What is it that you're trying to decide or accomplish by asking about this?
On its face your question is unanswerable in any definitive or authoritative way - pretty much anyone who even suggests an explicit set of ratios like the ones you suggested at the outset knows he's oversimplifying a set of relationships that have no constant, absolute values. And you can't just dismiss out of hand the influence of the player and what he does to make the equipment sound the way it does. If you genuinely feel you've gotten "your answer," then I suppose you've accomplished your purpose, but you may not have gotten the *best* answer, if one exists, or one that has any practical use.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2014-08-19 23:42
Dan Shusta wrote:
> Both. I'm looking for the quantity of the quality of the
> produced tone by the items mentioned.
>
But the system matters. As exemplified by "Immer Kleiner", taking away major pieces of the clarinet can still produce music, all the way to just using a mouthpiece. And the good clarinetists is still trying to produce a good tone sans an awful lot of equipment.
> And, FWIW, IMO, you're a much smarter man than I am. So, what
> may seem simple to understand to you may not be so simple to
> others. (like me).
I don't know that I'm any smarter, but if you subtract any and all technical terms from those postings you're still left with the essential "the clarinet is a system that depends on its whole". Taking ANY one piece away affects the system. How much it affects the system depends. On what you're playing. On what you're doing. Or what you have to do. A leak in a lower pad may go unnoticed in one particular piece. Or make the piece you're attempting to play impossible - and it's a long way from the mouthpiece. So I say, in reality, your quest is more tied to quantity than quality, and your reference agrees with your notion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-20 00:23
I get "put down" all the time. It's the internet.
My "knee jerk" negative reaction to the question is based on my assumption that one may go off and buy a highly touted mouthpiece, and feel that they have all that one needs to be a great player.
There are indeed even blatant mismatches of mouthpiece "A" with clarinet "B." I was trying to resolve a recent issue with German mouthpieces on French clarinets and opened up a worm hole to a massive physics quandary that I didn't even see coming (with 40 years experience under my belt.....oy).
I have been able to observe great players switch out equipment left and right (different mouthpieces, different clarinets, different reeds, everything) and still sound like themselves. Yes, there are some pieces of equipment that imbue the general sound with a 'characteristic' here or there, but it IS the player that makes the sound.
Mouthpieces are a personal choice, based on HOW your blow, how you form your embouchure, how you tongue. A certain mouthpiece may allow one person to articulate more cleanly than another mouthpiece, but a good clarinetist can get just about any mouthpiece to sound great if he/she is willing to live with the compromises that would normally dictate otherwise (whatever those might be). By extension you can say the same for the rest of the equipment in the system. And Tony probably gave the best answer about this. Put in another way you can say that the component parts of the clarinet are like a chain. It will only be as strong as its weakest link (but that doesn't make all the other links 'better' with regard to the ultimate fate of the chain).
.............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2014-08-20 01:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-08-20 01:38
The difficulty, Dan, is that your question is one of those that seems to have an answer; but in fact doesn't. That's because the clarinet, when it's being played, is not the sort of object that the question would require it to be in order for there to BE an answer.
I'm sorry if the detailed explanation is too technical for you. But that can happen, surely, without anyone wanting to put you down?
And, skipping anything technical, isn't Joe Wakeling's explanation (the third of the first series of links) plus my description of my attempt to get an old clarinet to go (the second of the second series of links) enough to give you a flavour of what I was saying?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-08-20 08:52
Thank you Mark and kdk for your informative replies.
Allow me to try and rephrase the question.
A person produces a long C4 note. This note has a certain quality to it. This quality is influenced primarily (IMO) by the player, the mouthpiece, the reed, the ligature, the clarinet body and the environment surrounding the player. I included the surrounding environment because some environments enhance certain harmonics while others cancel them out.
What I'm looking for is quantitative percentage guesses of how much each of the 6 items listed affect the quality of the tone produced. I'm primarily interested in the mouthpiece and the clarinet body. However, concentrating on 2 out of the 6 might very well be impossible because of the influence of the other 4.
Again, I'm just looking for guesstimates of the following that affect or influence tone.
1) Player
2) Mouthpiece
3) Reed
4) Ligature
5) Clarinet body
6) Surrounding environment
Hopefully, what I have stated is more informative and clearer now.
I think it's going to be interesting to watch how the percentage numbers change for each respondent.
Thanks for your participation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2014-08-20 11:49
Dan,
It was meant to be a joke. Too much was read into that. And of course everybody has the right to ignore me.
Mark
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-08-20 13:54
Dan, I'm afraid that your modified post and question still have the same problem.
Success in an air battle for a fighter plane depends on the pilot, the engine, the wings and the guns.
What percentage importance does each have?
LATER EDIT: WHAT I WROTE HERE IS SILLY, AND WRONG.
As someone else pointed out later, this airplane example is one in which regression analysis might well give answers. (You could decide preferentially to increase the level of engineering of one of the mechanical components, for example.)
However, Dan's modified question throws overboard most of what MAKES one clarinet better than another.
You could replace the good clarinet with a punctured cardboard tube of the appropriate length, plus bell, and still get good results ON ONE NOTE from a well-set-up mouthpiece and reed.
Does that prove that the clarinet is 'less important' than the mouthpiece?
Tony
Post Edited (2014-08-22 21:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2014-08-20 14:38
If I focus on two variables: Changing mouthpiece/reed combination has bigger impact on tone quality than changing clarinet.
The clarinet affects the tone, but not as much. The differences are very subtle.
Mouthpiece and reed cannot be treated separately. They are a unit. A reed will never be better than the mouthpiece allows and vice versa. A good mouthpiece/reed unit will be good on every clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2014-08-20 16:01
As Seinfeld would say: "It's half player, half mouthpiece and half reed"
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-08-20 16:16
You will have seen that people HAVE given percentage answers. But, unfortunately, our willingness to give such answers is akin to our willingness to believe our first instincts when we hear – for example – that someone has claimed evidence linking the MMR vaccine and autism.
That seemed superficially plausible, especially when there was a sudden rush of reports from parents whose children were autistic, and had been given the MMR vaccine in early childhood.
It took a long time to turn the situation around, even though the hard scientific evidence was in the opposite direction.
Someone has called our instinct to react in this way 'the hypercredulity instinct' – and it's an instinct we all share as human beings. How we make – how we often NEED to make – these sort of 'quick and dirty' judgements is very well documented in 'Thinking Fast and Slow' by Nobel prize-winner Daniel Kahneman.
So now – thinking fast:-) – if I wanted to pluck some numbers out of the air in the case in question: I recall the mouthpiece that suddenly seemed to solve all my problems. Then I remember my friend's clarinet that was so much better than mine. If only _I_ had had that clarinet!
And how about that reed, when I was a student, that seemed to play ANYTHING?
In this way, I might juggle things in my mind and come up with some rough answers.
But if I think more carefully (and slowly), I realise that 'my problems' actually came back later, despite that mouthpiece. And I never lived with my friend's clarinet, and so its deficiencies never had a chance to make themselves apparent. And perhaps, though that reed SEEMED wonderful at the time, perhaps I just wasn't a very good player at the time.
If we then try to 'think slow', and ask ourselves what the question MEANS – whether the isolated incidents we may bring to mind really show anything useful about the clarinet – we may be more willing to struggle with the technical things that the scientists tell us.
Science, after all, is what you get when you 'think slow'.
'Thinking slow' is what NASA failed to do when they launched Challenger.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-20 16:38
Challenger was a purely political problem and I don't think we are still willing to admit it.....yet.
...........Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-08-20 19:25
I think the solution lies in treating each of the parameters as independent variables and then changing the variables to see what affect it has on the tone quality.
This is what Johan Nilsson did in his response above. He stated that changing the mouthpiece/reed combination had more of an affect on tone quality than changing the clarinet. His statement comes extremely close in meaning to my linked article at the top of this thread. This is what I was looking for but I failed to see that numerical parameters could not actually be assigned to the variables as to their influence on tone quality.
Yes, Johan, the mouthpiece and reed should have been treated as a single variable. However, I have read that an outstanding mouthpiece coupled with a terrible reed will still sound better than a terrible mouthpiece coupled with an outstanding reed. The two need to be optimized for the best quality sound.
So, my conclusion is to say that changing the mouthpiece and then mating it with an optimal reed will have more change on the tone quality than changing any other parameter.
This concludes my little quest for a knowledge verification that I needed.
My thanks to all of you for edifying me and for your patience in my slowness to understand the complexity of what I was originally seeking.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2014-08-20 19:33
Dan Shusta wrote:
> So, my conclusion is to say that changing the mouthpiece and
> then mating it with an optimal reed will have more change on
> the tone quality than changing any other parameter.
>
> This concludes my little quest for a knowledge verification
> that I needed.
Too bad. Try this mental experiment, and possibly duplicate it in reality:
Counter example:
Optimize your mouthpiece/reed combo for the best possible sound you have imagined using your own clarinet.
Now, put that mouthpiece/reed combo on another (random) clarinet and play.
And tell me the result.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-08-20 19:45
The Challenger disaster was a result of wishful, careless thinking about reality, as opposed to rational, scientific thinking about reality:
Rogers Commission Report, Appendix F:
"NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support to be frank, honest, and informative, so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman, 1986
Paul wrote:
>> I get "put down" all the time. It's the internet. >>
Don't kid yourself. It's not the internet – it's what you write.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2014-08-20 19:54
Tony Pay wrote:
> "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over
> public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman,
> 1986
Or, as I found out in my worst 2-wheeled accident, the laws of physics don't care whether you're riding a moped or a Harley when you do something stupid at 30 mph. Even though you _think_ you won't get hurt on a moped 'cause it looks like a toy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-08-20 20:23
Mark said:
"Optimize your mouthpiece/reed combo for the best possible sound you have imagined using your own clarinet.
Now, put that mouthpiece/reed combo on another (random) clarinet and play.
And tell me the result."
Mark, this has been done and written about in my linked article above and was also verified by Johan Nilsson's response.
I think two corresponding results are sufficient for my purposes. Since I don't play due to embouchure dystonia, I don't have an instrument. However, I believe that if other players would take their mouthpiece, reed, and ligature combination off of their expensive wooden clarinet and put it on a cheap, plastic clarinet, the sound would change albeit only to a small degree.
I would love to hear from those who experience a drastic change in tone quality.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-20 21:40
There was a scheduled live television event between President Reagan and the first teacher to be in space the day after the launch of Challenger. I don't believe anyone at NASA thought the frigid temperatures at launch time were within an acceptable parameter.
Hey, I actually took my ideal mouthpiece and reed and placed it on a student's horn just the other day. The pads looked like hell, there was a slight leak in the top joint (a poor seal was indicated) and the student kept apologizing for it being plastic (it is a student line Yamaha).
When I played it, I was nearly floored at what a great sound it got and how in-tune it played. If I were the least bit "in the game just for myself," I'd have made an offer for that clarinet on the spot!!!!!
So I guess it's 99% the mouthpiece.
:-)
................Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2014-08-20 22:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2014-08-21 00:03
Is it possible that Brad might be persuaded by "closed system" arguments here and will in the future make the entire clarinet including the "player". I think the 3D printer might work good with humans.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-08-21 00:03
As you all probably know, I've been less than enthusiastic about many of Paul Aviles's posts here.
(How do you pronounce his second name, by the way: is it three-syllable A-VI-LES or A-VILES, like SMILES?)
But now, I've used the SEARCH function to go back through time. And what I've found is that – though LOCALLY they don't seem to hang together – if you take a more global view your posts have an integrity that I simply hadn't realised.
I'd previously been regarding some of them from a point of view that I'd derived from the monograph by Harry Frankfurt, 'On Bullshit'. (If you don't know this monograph, I suggest you buy or download it.)
In it, Frankfurt, a famous American philosopher, identifies the category 'bullshit' in a particularly perspicacious way.
Bullshit ISN'T the contrary of the truth. (Indeed, you can tell the truth and still be bullshitting.) It's rather, the expression of something – anything – with complete disregard of whether or not it's true.
So, up till now, I'd been looking at just a selection of Paul's posts as possible exemplars of Frankfurt's category.
But I realise that actually, ALL of them are exemplars of Frankfurt's category – especially his last, above.
So, apologies, Paul; I've been misreading you. You DO have integrity.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-21 00:15
Well I would like to make an analogy to one of NASAs less successful ventures to Mars. One of their ill-fated probes was hurtled full speed into the planet's surface. What happened upon analysis was that one team that put together landing trajectories, speeds and distances was using English system numbers while the rest of the teams were using metric numbers (or the other way around).
A classic case of miscommunication.
We ostensibly speak the same language as our cousins across the Pond but I do think much of what we say gets 'Lost in Translation.'
But thank you any way.
and that's : ah-vee-LESS
..........Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2014-08-21 01:05
Having quickly read "On bullshit" I really had the impression that it was a philosopher's perspective on bullshit. George Carlin dealt with it years back. I believe it is a closed system which must take into account the writings of humourists, doctors and accountants as well as philosophers. These perspectives are all just as significant. Perhaps some are closer to "bullshit" than others. Frankfurt does distinguish between intentional and unintentional BS.
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2014-08-21 04:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2014-08-21 04:24
David Blumberg wrote: "Some Clarinets have more or less resistance.
So not all reed/mouthpiece set ups will be good on them."
Quite possible, haven't experienced.
Dan Shusta wrote:
"However, I have read that an outstanding mouthpiece coupled with a terrible reed will still sound better than a terrible mouthpiece coupled with an outstanding reed."
Could be, but the "terrible reed" is like the cracked clarinet body or any other damaged part. If the reed is up to the manufacturer's intended standard it can only be good/bad in the context of a mouthpiece (and a clarinet, others might fill in, but it is not my experience)
I agree that having a damaged part causing bad sound quality does not show that all parts are equally important. It only shows they can all destroy the sound.
Tony Pay wrote: "Success in an air battle for a fighter plane depends on the pilot, the engine, the wings and the guns.
What percentage importance does each have?"
Given a simulation environment, start replacing the different components, measure the result and you will find out if some components are more important than others. In fact, numerical methods like regression analysis or genetic algorithms will give you a percentage answer.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-08-22 03:08
Johan wrote:
>> Tony Pay wrote:Quote:
Success in an air battle for a fighter plane depends on the pilot, the engine, the wings and the guns.
What percentage importance does each have? >> Given a simulation environment, start replacing the different components, measure the result and you will find out if some components are more important than others. In fact, numerical methods like regression analysis or genetic algorithms will give you a percentage answer.>>
Yes, you are right; and I was wrong to choose this example.
The point being that here the components are (relatively) independent.
I should have remembered what Ken Bowen said:Quote:
...technically, the clarinet is not a "lumped system" in control engineering terms. Regression analysis is of the most use when variables, though they may be many, each have a distinct influence and the cross-coupling terms are weak. [The] cholesterol example is a good one.
The analysis may, of course, show up cross-couplings, eg "high cholesterol is not so harmful if your diet is rich in Armenian blue parsnips", but if these exist, then one absolutely cannot have a description that is appropriate to a lumped system (decreasing in importance as you go down etc).
[In the clarinet,] the cross couplings are huge, as simple experiments show: leaks, cracks, resonance fingerings, fork fingerings, sloppy fingerings, bits of lead stuck on the outside(see Benade) etc etc. Thus the sound column does not already exist at the top of the instrument, but is the product of everything. The whole vibrating air column depends on a lot of things and they are closely coupled. I think this is good science, not sophistry. And this is not to deny that _sometimes_ the assertion works, for example a leak on the bottom pad will only affect the lowest notes in each register. What I should have done was to have switched arguments when Dan reduced the question to the playing of JUST ONE NOTE.
I should have pointed out that then, of course, much of what makes a clarinet 'good' or 'bad' recedes into the background.
See, the quality – even the 'tone' – of an instrument isn't derived just from how it plays one note; it's to do with how even the scale is, how fluently you can go from 'good' notes to 'bad' notes, how well in tune it is....and so on.
I've written that I was wrong to choose the 'aircraft' example as an addendum to the previous post.
Tony
Post Edited (2014-08-22 03:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2014-08-28 14:19
Thanks, Tony. Reducing the discussion to a single tone simplifies things.
Ken Bowen is right about cross-couplings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cyclopathic
Date: 2014-08-28 22:30
Is it an african or european mouthpiece?
irreguardless here are some answers with relation to different MPCs by brand:
Vandies
B45 - 45%
M30 - 30%
B40 - 40%
5RV - 50%
Selmer
C85 - 85%
CP100 - 100% (it practically plays by itself!)
Rico Reserve
x5 - 5%
x10 - 10%
x0 - 0% (practically useless)
Post Edited (2014-08-29 00:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
