Untitled Document
     
Advertisement Click to advertise with us!
     

Comments and questions on "The Mouthpiece Review - reviewing a wide variety of mpcs"

Carl H.

Distinguished Member
Distinguished Member
I figured this was a better place to post rather than cluttering up an informative thread with dumb questions and perhaps petty bickering.

post #42
In my mpc stock I have a pre 1938 and a post 1938 Selmer mpc. What significance is that .. well at first I thought the only difference was the Brand system markings on it. These were simple marking that specified the facing and tip opening.

But on prepping the pre 1938 for sale I noticed alot more differences that aren't realized by just looking. First off the mpc went on a mpc arbor much more further ( 0.58 inches - over half an inch) than the other one. So this brings forth that the internal shank bore design is much different.

But how does the shank bore affect the tonal quality of the mpc ?

It's realitively quite simply, though quite complex as even minute changes - hundreds of an inch can have some pretty drastic effects.

For example:

A smaller diameter bore can make the lower register including the throat tones relatively sharp. This can also make the higher register flat and less sonorous.

a larger diameter bore can do the opposite - make the lower register including the throat tones flat. But to the contrary make the higher register sharp but more sonorous.

Of course one can ream out the bore to be cylindrical or conical. And on a conical bore the taper will affect how the mpc plays based on the diameter at various points of the taper.

But these two mpcs have at least a 3 stage reaming .. ala polycyclindrical bore of different varying sections.

In examinging two 1926ish Selmer mpc we have the same variation. One is a HS, the other a HS*. The HS has a overall smaller diameter bore than the HS*. THe HS seems to have 2 smaller tapers, and the HS* has 3 larger tapers.

As you can see it seems as though it can get quite complex. So 2 mpcs of the same brand, and made only a few years apart, can be quite different.

A little later we'll summarize review the tip, side rails, and more importantly the roof of the mpc (opposite the window) and how slight changes to it can greatly affect intonation and timbre.
So this is an area which can be explored to correct imperfect twelfths?

Does this alteration of interior bore also have the same effect when applied to barrels?

I am slowly searching for a barrel for an SML 5*. ATM my horn is a bit sharp and the twelfths are a bit off. If I was to find a barrel of suitable length could the mouthpiece be modified with this poly diameter bore to correct intonation or would it make more sense to have a mouthpiece modified to correct intonation first, and then go after a barrel? OR should the two be purchased at the same time and modified as a pair to give the best end results?

I hope the answers are in the future as I realize this is a recent discovery, but it sounds like a pretty big discovery (re-discovery?) to me.

Keep up the great thread Steve

Carl H.
 
Last edited:
Clarinet mpcs are little pieces of artwork in addition some some engineering complexities.

There are mpc refacers that simply correct the rails and table of a mpc to make it play easier. But understanding the entire dynamics of the mpc inside and out requires alot of expertise and knowledge. I don't know all .. or maybe not even half but i certainly am learning alot.

The bore can affect registers of the clarinet.

But also keep in mind that the floor (or sometimes called roof - the section behind the tip rail and before the throat - the part you see without a reed on as you look inside the window) has effect on intonation too.

think of it in 3 sections
the upper section right after the tip rail can affect the left hand notes and higher register sound production.
the middle section affects the left hand low notes and the lower section the low register.

So the entire internal design of the mpc can affects ones timbre, sound produciton, sonority and intonation.
 
So would you open it up overall to widen the twelfths or just a specific "zone", assuming you were satisfied with the general performance characteristic of a given mouthpiece?

I understand this is still a process of learning and understanding the subtleties of MINOR modifications. So theoretically what would you guess?

Have you done any experimentation to determine why the Moennig taper works and to what degree the effect is when compared to the standard barrel bore? IE: What happens when the reverse taper is greatly exaggerated? What happens when it is only 1/2 as much?

I am very curious to understand what does what and how much or little of a change affects overall performance down stream. Does a modification of the bore by .005 in the mouthpiece have a more noticeable effect than the same in the barrel or further down stream?


If only I had the tools and time...
 
I have not done any great experimentation with barrels .. yet. i'm still learning and learning about mpcs

first off, Moennig preferred the Buffet bore
he mentioned in some literature that the Selmer (large) bore is played loudly that it spreads and the pitch flattens. in soft playing the tone diffuses and goes sharp. err .. I don't get this problem on my Selmer but .... hey ...

and ignoring the body intonation corrections ......

in general,

a barrel with a section larger than that of the bore will make the low regster flat and raise certain upper register notes

a barrel with a smaler section than the bore wll raise the lower regster and make certain upper notes flat.

of course, the tone holes closer to th ebarrel are going to get more and more affected.
And htis ignores the impact of the mouthpiece

so what does an inverse taper barrel do ??

Here is the best explanation for it all
taken from
http://www.clarkwfobes.com/Tuning article/Tuning the Clarinet for PS.htm

THE INFLUENCE OF MOUTHPIECE AND BARREL ON INTONATION

Without question the mouthpiece is the component of the clarinet that can exert the greatest degree of variation on the intonation of the entire system. There is a narrow range of minimum to maximum overall volume for a mouthpiece that will create good modal ratios and proper fundamental pitch. Dr. Gibson states that this optimal volume is 13.5cm3. When a mouthpiece volume falls out of this range it will play either too sharp (small volume) or too flat (large volume). Regarding volume and interior shape, an interesting inverse relationship exists between the bore and the tone chamber. Mouthpiece makers achieve a variety of tonal colors by playing with this equation, indeed develop their signature sounds this way. However, the bore cannot exceed roughly two-thirds of the overall volume without compromising modal ratios.

The intonation of a properly designed mouthpiece can be compromised by the style of facing that is applied. Short/close facings tend to play sharp where as long/open facings tend to play low. This knowledge can be used to correct inherent problems of improperly made blanks. A low pitched mouthpiece can be shortened from the tenon end, but the character of the sound will also change. I have had succes improving mouthpieces that were sharp by adding a .5mm tuning ring to the end of the tenon. Some intonation irregularities can be balanced with a properly matched barrel. In fact, the barrel must be considered as part of a coupled system with the mouthpiece.

In the design of the earliest clarinets, the mouthpiece and barrel were one unit. It probably became clear to makers early on that as mouthpieces broke it was simpler to make the mouthpiece and barrel joint separately. The separation of mouthpiece and barrel becomes the most common design beginning in the middle 18th Century . Now in the 21st Century the clarinetist is offered enough variations in mouthpiece and barrel combinations to make his head spin. The barrel has become not only an element of proper intonation, but also one of tone production.

A properly designed mouthpiece should generally require a 66mm barrel (on a Bb Buffet R-13) to play in a range of A=440-441. 67mm or 65mm barrels are acceptable. Buffet A clarinets generally require a 65mm barrel, but 66mm or 64mm are also acceptable. When one is forced to use a barrel outside of these limits there is a problem with either a) the mouthpiece, b) the clarinet, or c) the person producing the sound.

Barrels, no matter the outside shape, fall into two categories: tapered and non-tapered. The design of the Buffet R-13 clarinet calls for a barrel with a nominal bore of 14.95mm with no linear reduction (taper). This translates into a dimension at the mouthpiece end of the barrel of .589"-.590". The reason for this is to compensate for the flattening in the third mode (tones above C3 – the "altissimo"). This design suits small bore mouthpieces such as those provided with Buffet clarinets.

For several reasons, most players in the U.S. have come to prefer larger bore mouthpieces similar to the design of Frank Kaspar. This larger bore mouthpiece coupled with the non-tapered barrel creates two problems of intonation. The third mode is too sharp and the throat tones are flat. Welcome Hans Moennig and the reverse cone tapered barrel. Reverse cone barrels are larger at the mouthpiece end. Moennig barrels as made by Buffet are .589"-.590" at the mouthpiece end and reduce to about .579" at the opposite end.

Moennig’s innovation for American clarinetists was not a new idea. It had been in place with German clarinets for many years, but we must credit Mr. Moennig for introducing the use in this country. The prevailing clarinets favored in the U.S among professional players until about 1960 were large bore (Selmer). As Buffet came into dominance, players did not want to give up their large bore mouthpieces designed for these large bore clarinets. Moennig’s tapered barrel was the ideal compromise.

The rather severe reduction in the barrel bore has several positive affects. The third mode is not as sharp and the twelfths near the mouthpiece are reduced in size. The throat tones are sharper and brought into better focus. The choke created by the step at the juncture of mouthpiece and barrel can add a nice resistance that increases response and adds center to the tone.
 
Last edited:
So a Selmer barrel bore is bigger than a Buffet? Is that for vintage or current production as well?
 
So a Selmer barrel bore is bigger than a Buffet? Is that for vintage or current production as well?

that was probably a generalized statement Moennig made a couple of decades ago.

Nowadays each maker has several models with different bores and designs. Back in the the days when there was only the R13, and only 1 Selmer .. or two like the Series 9 and 9*, a few Leblancs ..... it was different.

so back in the day Selmer normally had a larger bore, Buffet had a smaller bore.
here's a list of bore sizes of various past models
http://www.clarinetperfection.com/clbore.htm#bore

Selmer seems to always trend towards the larger bore.
Buffet had larger bores than the R13 in their earlier models
Leblanc .. i haven't really kept track of but seemed to have mix. The Symphonies were small, the Dynamics were large, the LL was medium.
 
Last edited:
OK

So far it is making sense. The numbers given are helpful but a set is missing:

What would be considered Large bore - numerically - and what would be considered small bore? For those of us who do not have ready access to a Kaspar mpc this might be a helpful measurement. I do have a vintage Buffet wood mpc in pristine condition, however. Would/should this be considered small?


I'm beginning to get a handle on what I need to be looking at in choosing a barrel for both my Bb and A. The next problem to address is a source of multiple barrel sizes and styles within a reasonable drive from where I live or gig.

Insert wrench:
What of the Chadash barrels? What is the design idea incorporated in to them?
 
there is no strict defnition of medium, small and large bore.

For instance, I consider my Leblanc LL at 14.80mm a medium bore
a Selmer CT at 15.0 a large bore
and my R13 at 14.66 a small bore.

But the R13 is multiple stages going from 14.80 at the top to 14.66 at the bottom of the top joint, whereas the LL and CT are cylindrical.

at one time I played a Leblanc Symphonie at 14.64 which easily falls into the small category
 
Last edited:
I do have a vintage Buffet wood mpc in pristine condition, however. Would/should this be considered small?


Good question. I wonder how old the mpc is. Being wood doesn't help though, as it will easily contract and expand due to the temperature and also humdity.
Checking my shelf I have a 1989 Buffet here wraparound register boehm.. bore at the top of the top joint is 14.88mm

whereas a Buffet 1950 Master model top of top joint is 14.84mm, and 14.74mm at bottom of top joint

so you assume the barrels are the same guess i'll check that tomorrow). So we basically have us some large bore buffets here. It's amazing what you learn just by digging around one's work shelves.

MPCS - shank bore size at openings (quick measurements, not exact)
1926 Selmer - 15.04mm
1939 Selmer - close to 15.26mm
old Buffet evettine - 14.97mm
M13lyre - 14.96mm
B45 14.92
Grabner K13 - a little more than 14.98mm
all conical-ish bores it seems

I also went thru a handful of Buffet supplied R13 mpcs - the good ones, and they are all approx 15mm shank bore too.

I guess the next thing to do is use my stock barrels and probe to see if there's a ledge in there between the mpc and the top of the barrels.
 
Last edited:
Woodwind G5 - 15.14
Selmer H* - 14.86
Selmer C85 - 115 - 14.76
Sumner Accousticut 3 - 15.20
Noblet scroll V2 - 15.5
Selmer C85-120 - 14.73
Selmer HS* - 14.79
Selmer C85-105 - 14.73
Woodwind table K7 - 14.89
Hite premire - 15.07


So we can safely say that there are small french bores (at least at the exit) and larger bore mpcs.

Now we'll dive into a few of the mpcs and study the diameter at a couple locations in the bore. And recommendations on the selection to analyse ?
 
Last edited:
If we're daying .5mm of bore diameter has profound effects, then I bet the mpcs expanding in the heat (as warm air is blown through it) has an effect too.

So if you're playing in a warmer auditorium, or climate, you'd change your mpc to match?
 
i'd first question how much the interior of a mpc expands rather than guestimate/stipulate 0.5mm expansion. remember, the interior will be fighting against the pressure of the exterior. Rubber is more stable than wood. it may be far less than 0.5mm

good question .... and of course i have no answer until we run an experiment. Ill play for 30-45 minutes and measure the outside bore of the shank and also the tip width and bottom of the window width and also the depth at the bottom of the window. ... might as well take a couple measurement points.

of course the only "standard" we will have is me playing it. and I'm not known to blow much hot air ... well .. except for times not playing the clarinet !!
 
I mean, .5mm in dia is the difference, more or less, between the large and small bore mpc's as described above. I haven't a clue what the expansion would be.
 
I would think that the interior of a mouthpiece would shrink, as it is a volume of air, whereas the body of the mouthpiece surrounding it would expand (in all directions) as it heated up (thereby impinging on the volume within the mouthpiece).
 
Back
Top Bottom