 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-02-27 20:32
Here's one I've never completely gotten "my arms around."
Clearly, we can have opinions and disagreements on which ligatures are best, or even whether they matter as much to play as some of us think they do. And I totally respect that.
But an area which confuses me is the number and design of a ligature's contact points with the reed, and the degree to which the ligature is tightened around a mouthpiece.
Conventional wisdom and physics would tell me, like in the swimming pool diving board analogy, that the tighter I clamp down the "non-business" end of the diving board..in other words the part first walked upon when you climb a ladder on to it, (or its "base,") the more the business end of the diving board will NOT be able to transfer energy to it, resulting in the diving board tip's maximum vibration.
(I am assuming diving board tip vibration to be "a good thing," much that I recognize that in competitive diving, board length can be adjusted so that divers can customize the board's spring to their dive and vertical distance to the water.)
Of course the analogy to reeds is far from perfect. Reeds thin out as their tip and sides are approach, and are composed of entirely different materials (at least cane ones) than diving boards. As yet another example of many, how force is applied to the business end of the diving board, and its slower vibrational pattern only further speak to how "mini diving boards" would make bad reeds, and how some "genetically engineered supersize cane" would make a bad diving board (not the least of which reasons being its materials being compromised by water.)
But this said, engineers then use their craft, including knowledge of materials science and measures of an item's elasticity and failure pressures, etc., to bolt down the diving board enough, and with enough tightness, so that the addition of any more bolts is shown to have not only the least of marginal improvement in the rigid part of the board's stability, but perhaps even run the risk of the base of the board having so many contact points with its base vis a vis such bolts, that the amount of diving board material removed in order to provide space for bolts is so vast, that the structural integrity of [what's left of] the diving board itself becomes a likely reason it could fail.
So it would seem to me that if maximum vibration of the tip of the reed is our goal (and perhaps it is not, maybe there is an optimal point for play that is short of maximim vibration), stabilizing that base with a clamping device that covers nearly all of its "stock" or "bark," that is backed off from being so tight that any more force would risk breaking the mouthpiece, would be what would get the business end of the reed, all other things equal, to vibrate most. In fact, not that I'm suggesting this, but physics would again suggest that applying as much mass as possible to securing that reed, with the least ability to absorb shock, would not allow the tip to transfer as much of its energy as a light weight ligature that holds the reed, say, at two tiny points, with only the lightest amount of pressure applied to it, to keep the reed pressed against the mouthpiece table.
Even I, totally not "ligature specific," can note (or I think I can note) changes in the reed's play that is dependent upon the degree to which it is tightened against the mouthpiece. I tend to make my ligature (note my deliberate absense of scientific jardon) tightness "mouthpiece tenon cork, and the cork grease applied to it, specific." That's a ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif) highly scientific measure of tightness that is a "smigen "(another "highly specific" amount ) tighter than "that needed to safely switch the mouthpiece between Bb and A clarinets in orchestral playing, so as to keep the reed, ligature, and mouthpiece intact when I move it from one clarinet to the other."
I admit to high probablity of "cause and effect" bias when I test a reed against a mouthpiece whose ligature I tightened, such that I know its degree of tightness. But I feel that I get suboptimal results when the "ligs too tight," and know, rather than feel--as any of us would--that "a loose lig ruins a gig."
This would suggest that I got the physics wrong, or my analogies don't apply [that well] here, or maximum reed tip vibration doesn't equate with maximum playabilty.
So what gives here? What are your thoughts on lig tightening and why?
And when I say "why," I am suggesting more than anecdotal evidence of what you have found to yield maximum playability, but maybe some science to back such feelings up.
Thanks.
Post Edited (2015-02-27 20:38)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2015-02-27 21:40
Diving boards are always clamped down firmly at the back end. The adjustment mechanism makes the flexing area shorter or longer. This has nothing to do with how a clarinet ligature works. Sorry 'bout that.
I was told 50 years ago that tightening the ligature all the way snug and then backing the screws(s) off 1/4 turn gives the best results. That's worked for me ever since.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2015-02-27 21:51
To tighten ligatures one should have a torque wrench to match the ligatures recommended torque for their product.
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-02-27 22:04
Ken Shaw wrote:
> Diving boards are always clamped down firmly at the back end.
> The adjustment mechanism makes the flexing area shorter or
> longer. This has nothing to do with how a clarinet ligature
> works. Sorry 'bout that.
>
You know not of what you speak sir. There may be many differences beyond those I cited as to why diving boards and reeds don't make the best of analogies, but citing that diving boards are always clamped down firmly at the back end is a justification for why they are analogous to reeds, not why they aren't.
The adjustment mechanism: let's assume we're working with a diving board that has none, as many don't. I only brought that up to be fair and acknowledge that a single reed can't elongate.
Of course you're free to have your opinions, but you'd be disagreeing with Tom Ridenour too, who uses similar analogy in the explanation of his ATG system of adjusting reeds. To be fair, Tom may use the term "spring form," if memory serves me correctly, as opposed to a diving board : a type of spring board or form..."Toe mato" "toe mahto" if you ask me.
> I was told 50 years ago that tightening the ligature all the way snug and
> then backing the screws(s) off 1/4 turn gives the best results. That's worked
> for me ever since.
Me too, only it was 40 years ago. The question though was whether you've gleaned anything [in your additional decade of learning] that helps you to explain why that's the case.
Seriously, the problem may in part be mine. I've got to start getting those questions up near the top of the posts, not the bottom.
"And when I say "why," I am suggesting more than anecdotal evidence of what you have found to yield maximum playability, but maybe some science to back such feelings up."
Post Edited (2015-02-27 22:09)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-02-27 22:19
WhitePlainsDave wrote:
> I admit to high probablity of "cause and effect" bias when I
> test a reed against a mouthpiece whose ligature I tightened,
> such that I know its degree of tightness. But I feel that I
> get suboptimal results when the "ligs too tight," and know,
> rather than feel--as any of us would--that "a loose lig ruins a
> gig."
>
> This would suggest that I got the physics wrong, or my
> analogies don't apply [that well] here, or maximum reed tip
> vibration doesn't equate with maximum playabilty.
>
My experience is very similar to yours. I'm not sure where the diving board analogy breaks down, but it may have to do with the fact that the free end of the diving board is *free* - it isn't limited by a restraining surface under it. Also, its vibrations are not nearly as complex as those of a reed. The board's dimensions are not tapered (AFAIK) from front to back nor from side to side. So the vibration should be uniform (with or without harmonics) over the board's entire length. A reed's vibration is complex laterally as well as longitudinally, which could be more affected by where across the width of the butt section the force of the ligature is applied. I'm interested, as you are, in a more detailed explanation from an engineering point of view. But the bottom line is that the structures of a diving board and a reed are different enough that the effect of firmly anchoring one end could easily produce different results.
FWIW, I often wish I could play clarinet with only one hand and hold the reed with the thumb of the other. Reeds seem to be most playable when testing them that way, which makes me suspect that pressure exerted at the center of the butt end is less restrictive than when the pressure is focused in other places. But that's a purely anecdotal observation that probably doesn't contribute anything to the discussion you've tried to start here.
Karl
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-02-27 22:28
"it may have to do with the fact that the free end of the diving board is *free* - it isn't limited by a restraining surface under it. Also, its vibrations are not nearly as complex as those of a reed."
Now THAT's an informed reply. The diving board DOESN'T deal with a window under its business end, with rail tips, lengths and curvatures: excellent point.
Thanks as always Karl for being a voice of reason.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-02-27 22:51
Would anyone really want to go out on a diving board that is not clamped down securely? I'm not sure that the analogy of a diving board being secured the same as a reed is valid. We do not use ligatures at the very end of the reed, and I never, ever jump up and down on my reeds. I just use my ears to determine what sounds best and experiment. If there were a single best solution we would all play the same reeds, mouthpiece, and ligature in exactly the same place.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2015-02-28 00:18
What we need is a formula to figure how tight the ligature should be.
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-02-28 00:32
derf5585 wrote:
> What we need is a formula to figure how tight the ligature
> should be.
>
Not sure if this is a serious suggestion or sniping. But what *could* be useful would be statistical analysis that would predict the effect of specific characteristics of ligature action on specific sound parameters - e.g. the effect of the amount of pressure exerted by a ligature on specific points on the reed emanating from either one or two sources (the screws) on potential volume of sound, latency of response and presence of specific harmonic components. I'm sure there are other variables that experimenters would think of, especially as the basic questions began to yield answers.
That wouldn't answer questions revolving about "how tight is good/best," because in the end we want the sound we want, and we can get at that far more easily by trial and error. But still, I think it would be interesting to know what's going on.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-02-28 00:34
derf5585 wrote:
> What we need is a formula to figure how tight the ligature
> should be.
>
You're on the right track I think. I'm more interested in the formula that compares tightness of ligature and attachment points to vibration of the tip, given all else, especially air pressure against the reed, constant.
Figuring out how tight the ligature should be is a function of how we each respond to the tip's vibration, which I suspect variies, and I'm not sure a formula could as easily calcuculate because of this.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomS
Date: 2015-02-28 00:39
I don't know if we can state that a diving board's vibration is any less complicated than a reed. I'll bet that people that are really cognizant of diving board science are into tweaks, materials and adjustments as well ...
My suspicion is that MPs with flat reed tables might need the reed clamped firmly and uniformly. Therefore use string, Rovner, Bonade, etc.
MPs with a concavity (French dip) might benefit, with a ligature that allows flexing in the middle of the base of the reed, therefore, maybe contact points low and high, for example. This would allow the larger amplitudes of reed vibration ... Therefore you should use Luyben, Hite, Rico (not the Harrison), some Vandorens, etc.
I like the idea of flat tables, but I'll bet my Vandorens are dipped.
Maybe some diving boards have a high and low attachment, and the concrete mounting base has a dip ...
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-02-28 00:53
"Would anyone really want to go out on a diving board that is not clamped down securely? "
Physics does not, for lack of a better word Larry, care. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it's formula for calculating the effects of force on a object have no coefficient for fear/risk/stupidity.
"I'm not sure that the analogy of a diving board being secured the same as a reed is valid. We do not use ligatures at the very end of the reed, and I never, ever jump up and down on my reeds."
I'll take you a step futher. I'm the first to admit the analogy has its flaws, but your arguments about attachment of the base are not where such flaws lie.
Both the diving board and reed are held down at its base; the fomer by bolts, and the latter by the proximity of the ligature and its 2 or more attachment points with positive pressure against the reed. Like the ligature on a reed, the diving board is not only held down at its base, but by a series of bolts that run the length of the base, and like the reed, secure it close to the point of vibration.
Your comparison of ways that force is applied to the reed and diving board is somewhat better, the former by somewhat constant air pressure that tests elasticity, and the latter by shock that more tests, as the engineer's would say, its strength "in sheer"/point of failure. Nevertheless, both again are affected in part by the design and strength of the attachment point. The "loose lig ruins the gig," and the looser diving board is less apt to break from someone bouncing on it, all else equal, as part of that shock energy can be transferred to its wiggly base.
"I just use my ears to determine what sounds best and experiment. If there were a single best solution we would all play the same reeds, mouthpiece, and ligature in exactly the same place."
Ok..so your methods are more anecdotal than science. Me too. Hence the desire to explain this with science.
Nobody is suggesting that there is one best solution. I'll go so far as to say that there isn't. What's of interest is the affect attachment points and their strength (and perhaps ligature materials) have on reed vibration, all else equal. How we respond to that vibration, and whether maximum vibration is best, I suspect will always remain within the opinion of the player.
Karl gets it. He suggests testing things that can be measured as a function of ligature attachment points and their strength rather than the grey areas of user perception.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-02-28 01:10
The same can be said of "high end audio." You WANT the speaker to be as solidly planted (in many cases there are spikes one uses to drive the speaker into the floor) so that the produced vibrations representing music are the only ones one has to contend with.
That said my favorite "anti-analogy" is that of a saxophone playing friend who was doing a solo. At one point he extracted the mouthpiece from his mouth rather quickly, bumping the reed as it exited. The reed nearly spun 90 degrees from the playing position. Afterward I asked him about this, and he explained that he leaves the ligature almost "non existent" on his mouthpiece (in terms of tightening), it is there just to keep the reed from falling to the floor. My colleague has the biggest, most beautiful sound I've heard on a saxophone so who am I to argue.
All I can figure from the above example (and y'all can try this at home going from really tight to really really loose) is that the entire reed can aid the system resonance better when allowed to vibrate as much as possible.
................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-02-28 01:13
But it's hard to play Mahler on three different clarinets that way.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClaV
Date: 2015-02-28 04:14
The "diving board analogy" seems limited, if not counterproductive IMHO.
There are significant differences in function & operation of diving boards and reeds. Diving boards should serve as very good springs to store and release the energy upon jumping, they effectively operate at low frequencies (consequently, their firm attachment is the most important point). Reeds vibrate at much higher frequencies (kHz) and then the main function of the reed-ligature-mouthpiece-barrel system is to enable generation of the wide spectrum of frequencies, with the dominant frequency actually different from the natural resonant frequency of the reed itself (mounted to a mouthpiece).
Using Vandoren's analogy of reed being a clarinet "engine", the mouthpiece-ligature-barrel would be equivalent to a transmission system.
The complexity of the "transmission system" includes appreciably elastic mouthpiece material for hard rubber mouthpieces, transmission of vibrations to the mouthpiece-barrel, deformation of the reeds upon clamping and many others.
>So it would seem to me that if maximum vibration of the tip
>of the reed is our goal (and perhaps it is not...
The mouthpiece opening and facing length largely control the amplitude of the tip vibration of the reed and the reed vibrating length, respectively.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-02-28 04:48
I realize I am wading into dangerous territory here, but sometimes I think musicians tend to over nerdify simple things. The darn ligature just needs to hold the reed in place and allow it to vibrate freely to produce sound. That is it. Your ear will tell you what sounds best. You have one or two screws to adjust the tension, and the ability to slide it to the best place on the mouthpiece and move your reed slightly...that's about it. Pretty easy, and your ear is the thing to determine what is best. In ye olde daze they just wound a piece of string around it and that was it and life was good. Perhaps it is the age we live in. Remember the KISS principle but leave off the last S.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-02-28 05:33
I want to apologize to Larry for any hard feelings my wording below may have inadvertantly implied.
I was referring to the stupidity of anyone stepping on an unsafe diving board, as Larry brought up as an example, not his opinions.
..just want to make that clear, not that I've been asked to.
============
"Would anyone really want to go out on a diving board that is not clamped down securely? "
Physics does not, for lack of a better word Larry, care. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it's formula for calculating the effects of force on a object have no coefficient for fear/risk/stupidity.
==========
That said, like you Larry, I am fine to feel my way around ligature tightness, while still wishing to understand cause and effect. I say this particularly because science would suggest that the tighter the ligature and size of its clamp, breaking the mouthpiece notwithstanding, the more in theory the reed should vibrate, which is likely, although not guaranteed, to be correlated with sound production.
By understanding the science, we can break myths about how people approach play, seperating out fiction from productive practices that allow us to be better teachers and players.
Post Edited (2015-02-28 05:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-02-28 08:01
Well put Dave. When I am on a diving board I want that sucker clamped down solid, but ligatures and sound are closer to my heart. In this age it would be possible to make a scientific analysis of everything, write a software program to test it, and given enough time and money come up with a scientific answer. But I have to ask myself would that answer make for the best sound and feel to musicians? A musician from one of the major symphonies who sometimes posts here took the time to call me twice regarding a certain ligature and explained how it should work in detail. I now understand how a Bonade Inverted ligature should function, and I did ask him how he adjusts his screws on it, so I guess I too am guilty of being a ligature nerd in that sense. Dedicated musicians are always looking for ways to get the most out of their instruments no matter what they play. This discussion got me to think of this in different ways, but for me it always comes down to my old ears and how it sounds, how the reed responds and feels, and sometimes what others may say to me about my playing. The good news is we all seem to be searching for an answer to allow us to sound better when we play music. That is a good thing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2015-02-28 17:51
A formula to determine optimum tightness of the ligature sounds like a great idea. However, in order to use such a formula, those of us who play on natural cane reeds, which vary a great deal even within one brand and one size-number, would need to know the density, the exact hardness and a bunch of other stuff about each individual reed. I don't even want to think about how long it would take me to try to measure all the variables about the individual reed when the other option only requires a few seconds of trial-and-error with tightening and loosening the ligature. Maybe as an amateur I'm too inclined to evoke the old KISS rule: Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-02-28 18:09
ClaV wrote:
> Reeds vibrate at much higher frequencies (kHz) and then the main function > of the reed-ligature-mouthpiece-barrel system is to enable generation of the > wide spectrum of frequencies, with the dominant frequency actually
> different from the natural resonant frequency of the reed itself (mounted to
> a mouthpiece).
When you use the term "frequency" above are you referring to the reed's degree of vibration affecting pitch, or the loudness of the sound?
I would think that pitch is controlled by the distance the sound travels down the clarinet before exiting most of its pressure at the nearest opening in the instrument, not by the degree and speed to which the reed vibrates up and down. Rather I would argue that this latter vibration of the reed equates more with how loud the pitch that we produce is.
But maybe I have it wrong......or not completely correct.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-02-28 19:40
Lelia Loban wrote:
> A formula to determine optimum tightness of the ligature sounds
> like a great idea. However, in order to use such a formula,
> those of us who play on natural cane reeds, which vary a great
> deal even within one brand and one size-number, would need to
> know the density, the exact hardness and a bunch of other stuff
> about each individual reed.
I'm not sure the variables connected to the reed would matter to the formula. You may have a crummy reed, but the vibration at a specific ligature tension and point of application shouldn't change. You'll still have a crummy reed, but you'll know it isn't because the ligature is too tight, too loose, too high, too low, etc. Whatever characteristics the individual reed has, they *should* be optimal with optimally applied pressure.
Or maybe not. We'll never know until someone tries to work the problem out systematically.
> Maybe as an amateur I'm too inclined to evoke
> the old KISS rule: Keep It Simple, Stupid.
>
I think some are taking this too seriously, at least from the point of view of playing. It's, at least for me, a matter of curiosity, not a practical need as a clarinetist to think about how this kind of prediction could be worked out. It will always be easier to find the ligature tension and placement that are optimal for me by just putting it on the mouthpiece and testing it (yes, Keep It SImple).
But such a calculation or statistical analysis could, conceivably, influence people at the design level. When you think about it, while we can control the tension level easily with any ligature on the market, we generally have no control over where the tension is applied or how it's distributed. A couple of ligature makers give us some choices via interchangeable plates, but we still have to choose from the alternatives the manufacturer gives us. Who knows what additional alternatives might be thought of in view of the kind of calculation we've been talking about.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-02-28 19:45
I agree Lelia that there is too much variability to get cause and effect down to a useful and compact formula here; even we all played synthetics (and even if synthetics weren't subject to variability in production, user, and as a result of wear and tear.)
Rather than---if I make a metaphor--exactly predicting the weather, I desire to, like a scientist, hold all other variables constant, and see if I can come to understanding how the nature of how we grip the base of this "spring" (and to the physicist that's all it really is..perhaps shock absorber too) we call a reed responds.
Such knowledge advances our ability to accept or reject product maker's claims and whether current ideas on best practices are in fact best.
Again with metaphor, tsunamis differ in size and effect to. This doesn't mean that if you see beach water drastically heading out to sea (a tell tail sign of an impending tsunami) that you don't head for higher ground, even if calculating that tsunami's size or ability to inflict damage is too variable to pinpoint.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClaV
Date: 2015-03-01 02:38
WhitePlainsDave wrote:
> When you use the term "frequency" above are you referring to the reed's
> degree of vibration affecting pitch, or the loudness of the sound?
>I would think that pitch is controlled by the distance the sound travels
> down the clarinet before exiting most of its pressure at the nearest
> opening in the instrument, not by the degree and speed to which
> the reed vibrates up and down. Rather I would argue that this latter
> vibration of the reed equates more with how loud the pitch
> that we produce is.
> But maybe I have it wrong......or not completely correct.
Frequency (typically measured in Hz) would correspond to the pitch (give or take psychoacoustic effects).
The loudness of sound is correlated to the sound wave amplitude, but less directly so to the amplitude of reed vibration (a mouthpiece chamber construction plays a very important part - there my limited knowledge ends).
Absolutely, the nearest tonehole opening determines the length of the air column which will set the resonant frequency, at which the reed will be forced to vibrate - so the reed vibration should accommodate a wide spectrum of frequencies.
My point relevant to the discussed analogy was that given that the reed is forced to vibrate at different pitches plus employing different harmonics upon overblowing - it is quite different form the springboard.
How reed is attached (contact points, pressure) should matter, especially with respect to dampening of higher frequencies (overtones) that "darken" sound, as it is often the case with leather ligatures. (I apologize for my limited vocabulary of "dark" and "bright").
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: saxlite
Date: 2015-03-01 03:18
I think that the Earspasm guy in the video demo has gotten it right. As long as the reed is reasonably well held to the mouthpiece table, there seems to be very little difference between ligatures. Of course, I have many friends who are excellent players who debate me on this, but personally I find the security and convenience of the cloth strap type to outweigh any sonic advantage that I could (not!) find.
Jerry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-03-01 04:02
I support Mike's findings about ligatures, and other's don't. To each their own.
But please understand that Mike sought to question just how much ligature variation matters to sound quality, while I seek to find out how pressure points and pressure against a reed affect vibration: hopefully a more measureable metric.
Clav: yes, of course, mea culpa. When you said higher frequencies in your post..I don't know why, I thought of the reed vibration up and down, when I should have been thinking more about the speed (frequency) with with it does go up and down.
I would imagine though that this displacement of the reed from its base point (above or below it) would be directly correlated with air pressure, itself closely correlated with the degree of loudness.
Post Edited (2015-03-01 04:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClaV
Date: 2015-03-01 05:21
WhitePlainsDave wrote:
> Clav: yes, of course, mea culpa. When you said higher
> frequencies in your post..I don't know why, I thought of the
> reed vibration up and down, when I should have been thinking
> more about the speed (frequency) with with it does go up and
> down.
Perfectly understandable, I wish that I could express my points more clear (less technical).
> I would imagine though that this displacement of the reed from
> its base point (above or below it) would be directly correlated
> with air pressure, itself closely correlated with the degree of
> loudness.
>
The air pressure would be a very good characteristic!
If just to consider the reed displacement, then close mouthpieces should inherently play less loud than open mouthpieces (which is largely, but not always, the case).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClaV
Date: 2015-03-01 05:44
I think I dare to bring some of my experience with ligatures, it may possibly be instructive for some thinking.
In an attempt to be as brief and as understandable as I can (something that I should work a lot upon), I just summarize the essential points (and will give more explanations/examples, as further discussion (if any) unravels):
1) Shoelaces (nylon specifically) can do a great job acoustically. For those blessed with the dexterity to put them fast and reliably and the skills to play them comfortably without reed disruption - there may be no need to look any further:)
2) Ligatures seem to matter significantly more for open mouthpieces.
3) Less dampening ligatures offer more possibilities to control/modify higher frequencies/overtones elsewhere in a clarinet acoustical setup.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-03-01 08:19
Hank,
I checked out the video link you provided, and I preferred his shoestring ligature. Perhaps it is now time to open a new subject on which shoestring would be the finest bass clarinet ligature, and do an in depth scientific study on shoelaces. Then again we could just spend the time practicing which actually might make us sound better. Well, off to do those long tones.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomS
Date: 2015-03-01 18:17
On this ligature business, are we "milking a mouse"? Does it really make a nickles worth of difference?
Yup, I think as much as two-bits worth of difference! Is it worth it? I'd say yup, again, at least for me.
The expression "milking a mouse" is one that I heard from a famous (now deceased) loudspeaker engineer, Paul Klipsch, who lived in our neck of the woods and was a frequent visitor to a place that I worked during the 1970-80s. Paul would not approve tiny tweaks that yielded little measurable or no audible improvement. Always good engineering compromises and cost effectiveness was on his mind. One of Mr. Klipsch's saying was: "If you can't half it or double it, don't mess with it". (I have substituted the word "mess" for a word not acceptable on this BBoard)
So if a ligature wouldn't half your tuning anomalies or double your loudness, Paul wouldn't implement the change.
Tom
Post Edited (2015-03-01 18:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-03-01 19:33
Tom/Larry:
Your ideas are ones I agree with and have been well discussed here before. I too am definitely not a "ligature guy," though I respect those that are. Still more, I have wondered if the reason I don't discern differences in ligs as much as others is attributable to lack of aptitude/accumen on my part; though I suspect not.
Yes, self praise is oxymoronic, but when combined with humility (after 40 at this I am very competant, not virtuosic), glimmers of truth may arise.
Still more, if you'd like to discuss them, go ahead; heaven knows I've steered my share of threads in different directions.
But it is precisely because what you discuss is so full of opinions that can't be measured easily by "classic" science (no disrespect to the social sciences), that rather, I set out, in essence, to merely debunk the idea that keeping a loose ligature, and using one with minimal contact points to the reed, allows the maximum vibration of the reed, which runs contrary to what I know about pure physics: whose laws may not apply so precisely here because of forces not accounted for.
Vibration and pressure can be measured with tools, as can be the size and location of a lig's pressure points, as opposed to people's feelings on how a lig plays. I make no claim that maximum vibration is associated with best sound or play; although I admit to having an opinion that it might. And the reason I first sought to know more about this is based in part on the idea that a swimming pool diving board, (despite many difference from a reed faily noted above, still remains a solid metaphor to a non-synthetic reed, provided those differences are noted) bounces best, all other things equal, when the diving board's end is firmly secured to an immovable object.
Now, that said, let me break my own rules and discuss the Earspasm post and ligature types.
Mike Lowenstern, I think, not only because I believe so, but because he's likely going to read this, is a extremely fine clarinetist and good guy; certainly knowledgeable in his craft. That said, I was, shall I say, less than thrilled when not shortly after? that eye opening video on his Youtube Earspasm channel, another video was released (I think and hope it was after), this time from Vandoren, with Mike, now a Vandoren artist (put cash register cah-ching noise here) using and plugging Vandoren's Optimum ligature.
(Yes, he was also plugging a Vandoren mouthpiece. But that's not fair game I think for criticism. Mike never claimed the interchangeabillty of mouthpieces.)
Now, is the Optimum a bad ligature? No way. In fact, is the Optimum a really fine ligature? Yes, I think so. From its changeable pressure plates to its double threaded screw, which doesn't merely pull one end of the lig closer to the other, but rather both ends together, it produces great results for players, and allows fast but stable tightening and untightening (given this double thread--which can also strip easier (not easily) than classic good but no-name brand larger metal lig threads.) I might argue that it is not much better, marginally speaking, when it comes to play, (if not speed of tightening and untightening) than some of the "non-ligature" ligatures that Mike demonstrated, but again, "to each their own."
Anyway, in this Vandoren video, http://youtu.be/4WfsgtRHzko?t=5m36s sure enough Mike's plugging the Optimum lig, citing (ehem, clearing my voice) less than the most cogent reasons, IMHO, for his switch to the Optimum ligature. Maybe you disagree, but how many of you avoid metal ligatures because you've stepped on them accidently, only to find a metal ligature so good, that your willing to ignore your own best practices, (themselves questionable...lig crushing???) and make the switch?
Sorry Mike. You're a great guy, but the above is just my humble opinion on where some fair un-answered questions may lie. Still more, the reply, "we've all got a make a living," and the idea that an artist accepts promotional compensation on good products they use, in a world where its hard to make ends meet, is one I can forgive.
That's why I think posters should report their music affiliations, and to the extent they can , their biases on the bboard when writing.
(In fairness, Mike may have not been a Vandoren artist when he put out that lig video.)
I have no affiliations in music, and try my best to articulate my relevant biases: in this case sketicism over whether some musical products help consumers as much as their raise their producer's profits.
===
derf5585: you mentioned velcro ligatures. I think the only place where such straps, easily purchaseable at the big box Home Improvement stores, might be lacking as excellent ligatures is in slippage. And I think this is easily solveable, if in fact even a problem, by putting a rubber coating on the side of the strap that comes in contact with the reed and mouthpiece.
Good luck getting many lig manufactures to make them. Their arguments will be that the reed's vibration doesn't travel into the mouthpiece, while their marketers and bean counters will privately say, 'how much can we price something that the consumer can pretty much buy in a box store, to which we otherwise might have to pay royalties to Velcro Co. to use?'
(I'm not even sure that the reed transmitting some of its energy elsewhere (e.g. to the mouthpiece) is a good thing; one of the initial premises of this thread.)
Post Edited (2015-03-01 19:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2015-03-02 01:52
>Anyone try velcro ligatures?>
Yes! I have several antique clarinet and sax mouthpieces that don't work well with modern ligatures. Double-sided Velcro has worked well for me. I haven't had trouble with it slipping. I find it easier to use than string or shoelaces.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-03-02 18:18
Ok...noted on the time tyler. The hypocrisy never the less remains in the endorsement of one ligature in one video and the display of many non-ligature ligatures that all seem to work fine and equally in yet another video.
I admitted to not being certain on the time, and didn't bother to check precisely because I thought it in large part irrelevant, and as a "which came first, the chicken or the egg," type argument.
Speaking in metaphors, changing your tune doesn't matter based upon the order you play them. And not playing a metal base clarinet lig because you've just stepped on too many......? Let's just say that of my clarinet woes, this one, personally speaking is not high on my list, or any player's list I know; and my smaller Soprano clarinet ligs, for the few times I've dropped them, are even easier to visually miss and crush.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2015-03-02 22:42
It took me a few days to realize what it is about the "diving board" analogy that strikes me as not a good one.
For the most part the "diving board" IS what is producing the results. It creates "springiness." Much like my example of the speaker (in high-end audio the saying goes, "there are no good vibrations") where the speaker, or transducer needs to be the ONLY thing creating the end result, the same is true of the "diving board."
However, it is NOT the reed hitting the mouthpiece that produces sound on the clarinet (per se), it is the vibrating air column that is made to vibrate by the reed hitting the mouthpiece that is making the sound we hear. So as a 'primer,' if you will, rather than the 'main show,' the reed functions much differently than the "diving board."
That said, I'm not too clear on what all the variables are doing, but I do know (from my perspective......if no one else's) that the hardness of ligature material makes a difference to the sound (irrespective of tightness, but more of a difference when the ligature is tighter). Also the material of the mouthpiece makes a difference as well, say going from a hard rubber mouthpiece to a wooden mouthpiece or one made from acrylic.
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2015-03-02 23:25
Springboards are usually operated in a linear regime where they approximately obey Hooke's law. When loaded with a diver, the combination of the diver's approximately constant mass, and the constant stiffness of the spring(board) result in a resonance frequency that is adjustable by way of the spring constant (set by the fulcrum position)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Springboard
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: saxlite
Date: 2015-03-03 00:24
While what derf5585 says about the natural vibration of a free springboard (or a reed clamped at one end) is true, it is not very relevant to the actual sax or clarinet playing situation. As long as the natural resonance frequency of the reed is above the resonant frequency created by the length of the attached tube, the tube resonance totally dominates and the reed must vibrate at the tube's frequency. This is a simplification of the actual modes,harmonics, squeaks, etc in effect but is basically what is happening when we play the instrument. Dampening the reed , whether by embouchure or by various degrees of tightening of the reed's butt can affect the reed's complex vibration modes also present above the fundamental frequency and harmonics produced by the tube length, thus giving rise to changes in response and tone color. But, as demonstrated by Mike the Earspasm guy, these are small changes at best. If you feel the changes are worth the price of a exotic ligature, then you spends your money and makes your choice.
Jerry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2015-03-03 00:27
Dave's diving board is in a way a "straw man" that's really tangential if not irrelevant and keeps coming back as a distraction. The basic question really asks what, all other variables held static, the effect is (on some specific, given reed) of the various degrees of ligature tightness on any measurable vibration parameter. The question explicitly doesn't judge whether the effects are good or bad, nor does it really ask whether a reed and ligature act like a diving board and its anchor bolts.
It's agreed (several times over) that this information might have limited if any use to a player setting up his mouthpiece - we all have our own empirically derived ideas about it and function quite well, given the available ligatures on the market, just experimenting and listening. I think the information could help design a better ligature. Dave may have simply been curious. The question is perhaps mostly academic for us as players, but not something necessarily to be disregarded or (in some cases) derided because we already think we don't need the answer at all. Someone might find it useful.
And they might not care a fig about diving boards.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-03-03 01:14
Once again, Karl completely gets it.
The diving board IS a classic straw man here, or to restate, a sham argument set up to be defeated. Restated, I postulated that "many principles of physics that apply to diving boards don't apply to reeds, and accordingly, why is this so, as they do have similarities?"
I suggested the analogy between the two being perhaps a good one for lack of better examples, but by design, not a perfect analogy.
People offered answered.
That both reeds and divings boards are attached at their base: NOT a good reason.
That, as Karl pointed out early, the fact that diving boards, unlike reeds, lack a mouthpiece window type structure below their business end, complete with rails of varying length, width and curvature: good reason.
Paul: For the most part the "diving board" IS what is producing the results.
OK....but only, and more relevantly because a weight at its business end allows the board to collect potential energy in its downstroke, that it releases (converts to kinetic energy?) in its upstroke. The weight or pressure has its analogy to our air stream.
Of course you won't get the same results bouncing on a concrete floor. The diving board's presence is key, and maybe what you are referring to, but to the physicist, the point is that the board isn't going to "bounce on its own," anymore than our reed vibrates and the clarinet plays itself. Somebody's mouth needs to blow air at the business end of the instrument, just as sure as we need a mass at the end of the diving board for it to do its thing.
def5585: all true, but I'm not sure I get the relevance. Hooke's law, stripped down for simplicity, says nothing more than "the harder I push, the more mass(or the greater distance holding mass constant) I move/displace. Hooke's law doesn't "care" if that force is the air pressure of a clarinetist or that of the belly flop diving champion in desperate need of health related caloric reduction.
saxlite: practically, I'm with you. My interest in this subject came from a new ligature with essentially a torque meter on it, referenced above, and my failure to explain why a reed held with near vice grip strength against a mouthpiece wouldn't play better than one hanging on for dear life, as might be the case for a diving board. Accordingly, the next train of thought was to ask, well, how does a reed differ from a diving board relavant to the discussion at hand.
I'd love to compare ligature strength to sound or beauty, but I can't measure that easily. Vibration was the next best surrogate. The mission was/is greater understanding of how to design a ligature's hold and pressure points, and to debunk manufacturer's claims that their ligature permits optimal performance.
Post Edited (2015-03-03 01:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2015-03-03 02:54
If on facebook and friend Lisa's Clarinet Shop there is a picture of a reed the size of a Diving Board
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-03-04 00:20
Perhaps a better example than a diving board would be "walking the plank" on the pirate ships. Now those were made of wood, nobody jumped up and down on them, but they did vibrate when the poor guy went into the drink. We can spend eternity debating this, but at some point time is far better spent practicing in an intelligent manner. That will improve your tone. Long winded discussions will not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: earspasm
Date: 2015-03-09 03:46
Hi everyone. Lowenstern here.
Once again I'll mention that the Ligature video was indeed recorded *after* the Vandoren video. Yes, I'm a Vandoren artist. Yes, they gave me an Optimum. Yes, I play it all the time. Yes, I like it.
Do I sing its praises in the Vandoren video? Do I say that it makes a difference? Do I say I switched because it made a difference? Yep. Why? Because I've played bass clarinet for a few years, I've tried a few ligatures, and I find this ligature better than the Rovner it replaced. It's subtle (for me), but it's there (for me).
Am I a hypocrite because I turn around and make a video saying that I don't believe ligatures make a huge difference? I don't think so.
I say in the video that the Vandoren Optimum is my regular ligature. I use it as a benchmark for the other ligatures I play in the video. If you listen closely, especially at the end (where most people skip the rest of the video) I never said that ligatures don't matter -- in fact at the end I do say they make a difference. BUT IT'S A SMALL DIFFERENCE.
And I say this to my audience, who are mostly young students (I know this because Google Analytics tells me so), because I don't want them to go out and spend a lot of money looking for a magic bullet that doesn't exist.
But if I'm wrong -- if there's a magic bullet ligature that will make my reeds sound good in the bullsh*t weather we're having in the Northeast this winter -- please please please tell me. I will be your best friend.
xoxo
Mike
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-03-09 04:39
Mike:
Perhaps I am missing something but I just don't get why the order of the two videos matters much. One video finds a particular ligature superior, even if only by marginal amounts as you claim--and mind you a departure from your normal non-metal selections--all because you, and I paraphrase you, have a propensity to step on ligatures (really?), while another video suggests, at least to me, if it doesn't come out and say so, that the hoopla about ligatures isn't much more than that. And because I saw it that way, I thought the too ideas inconsistent.
Maybe I need to see this, and you would otherwise like me to see this as the idea that many things AND ligatures make good ligatures, but that small differentials can exist for experienced players with the accumen to sense such differences, who otherwise differ from the less experienced population who research has shown watch your videos by in large.
As someone who greatly supports meaningful time in front of "Rose Studies" over time shopping for gear (not that having great gear doesn't help) I guess I interpreted your video the way I wanted to: which was that people are spending too much time and money emphasizing the wrong things (gear) in advancing their play, trying to take short cuts that don't work.
I enjoy your videos and play, I know a lot of us do, and I loved the ligatures video for the "Emporer 's New Clothes" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes value I choose to take from I, perhaps incorrectly.
It was nice that you came on the bboard to explain things, which I hope to have done here pursuant to my prior thread comments above.
Post Edited (2015-03-09 04:39)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2015-03-09 04:46
Alternate name for this thread
"Clamp me ligature down sport"
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: earspasm
Date: 2015-03-09 15:48
Dave:
"people are spending too much time and money emphasizing the wrong things (gear) in advancing their play, trying to take short cuts that don't work"
Exactly! That's the whole point.
Mission Accomplished.
Thanks for the kind words about the videos man
Mike
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
