Hey all - it's been very interesting checking out everyone's
ideas/opinions/resources about the importance (or lack thereof) of the
material a mouthpiece or instrument is made out of.

Although it seems pretty clear from the current research that material
is negligable there are definite examples that make us feel as if we are
experiencing other wise.

The best I can think if is plastic vs wood clarinets.  I think all
clarinetists would agree that you MUST have a wood clarinet to get the
desried sound for an orchestra.  And it does seem to the ear that
plastic clarinets do not achieve as robust a sound as their wood
counterparts.  I have a hard time believing that it is merely a better
bore improving the sound.  If there was an R13 made out of plastic would
it sound the same?  One would guess not.

With mouthpieces, I can understand the material being negligable since
it is a smaller part of the resonating body of the instrument.  But when
you apply this clarinet example to that of the brass in a saxophone,
doesn't it seem to imply that the material will have more of an effect
than some of us think?

I'm definitely not convinced either way on this issue - just wanted to
add this example.

Wil Swindler
www.wilswindler.com <http://www.wilswindler.com>
www.chamberjazzensemble.com <http://www.chamberjazzensemble.com>
www.singlereedconsultants.com <http://www.singlereedconsultants.com>

In any instrument where the material is not supposed to vibrate to 
produce the sound, the material will have very little contribution to 
the sound.  However, I think the jury will always be out on this, 
because of the subjective nature of musicians.  No matter how much 
proof is presented, there will always be opinions from musicians to 
the contrary. Bird played on a plastic sax and I don't think too many 
people complained.

Thanks, Ken
- - -
Ken Barry
Saxscape Mouthpieces
http://www.saxscape.com

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Wil 
Swindler" <wjswindler@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Hey all - it's been very interesting checking out everyone's
> ideas/opinions/resources about the importance (or lack thereof) of 
the
> material a mouthpiece or instrument is made out of.
> 
> Although it seems pretty clear from the current research that 
material
> is negligable there are definite examples that make us feel as if 
we are
> experiencing other wise.
> 
> The best I can think if is plastic vs wood clarinets.  I think all
> clarinetists would agree that you MUST have a wood clarinet to get 
the
> desried sound for an orchestra.  And it does seem to the ear that
> plastic clarinets do not achieve as robust a sound as their wood
> counterparts.  I have a hard time believing that it is merely a 
better
> bore improving the sound.  If there was an R13 made out of plastic 
would
> it sound the same?  One would guess not.
> 
> With mouthpieces, I can understand the material being negligable 
since
> it is a smaller part of the resonating body of the instrument.  But 
when
> you apply this clarinet example to that of the brass in a saxophone,
> doesn't it seem to imply that the material will have more of an 
effect
> than some of us think?
> 
> I'm definitely not convinced either way on this issue - just wanted 
to
> add this example.
> 
> Wil Swindler
> www.wilswindler.com <http://www.wilswindler.com>
> www.chamberjazzensemble.com <http://www.chamberjazzensemble.com>
> www.singlereedconsultants.com <http://www.singlereedconsultants.com>
>

I know of some clarinetists (Tom Ridenour and customers) who like all hard rubber clarinets.
   
  http://www.ridenourclarinetproducts.com/
   
  Believe it... or not!
   
  Paul

Wil Swindler <wjswindler@...> wrote:
            Hey all - it's been very interesting checking out everyone's ideas/opinions/resources about the importance (or lack thereof) of the material a mouthpiece or instrument is made out of.
  Although it seems pretty clear from the current research that material is negligable there are definite examples that make us feel as if we are experiencing other wise.
  The best I can think if is plastic vs wood clarinets.  I think all clarinetists would agree that you MUST have a wood clarinet to get the desried sound for an orchestra.  And it does seem to the ear that plastic clarinets do not achieve as robust a sound as their wood counterparts.  I have a hard time believing that it is merely a better bore improving the sound.  If there was an R13 made out of plastic would it sound the same?  One would guess not.
  With mouthpieces, I can understand the material being negligable since it is a smaller part of the resonating body of the instrument.  But when you apply this clarinet example to that of the brass in a saxophone, doesn't it seem to imply that the material will have more of an effect than some of us think?
  I'm definitely not convinced either way on this issue - just wanted to add this example.
  Wil Swindler
www.wilswindler.com
www.chamberjazzensemble.com
www.singlereedconsultants.com

  

         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
 		
---------------------------------
Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1�/min.

Do you know a clarinet maker who doesn't like the
clarinets they sell??!!

By the way, I have nothing against hard rubber
clarinets, and I don't claim they are not as good as
wood. I have no opinion on them since I've never
played one.



--- "Paul C." <tenorman1952@...> wrote:

> I know of some clarinetists (Tom Ridenour and
> customers) who like all hard rubber clarinets.
>    
>   http://www.ridenourclarinetproducts.com/
>    
>   Believe it... or not!
>    
>   Paul
> 
> Wil Swindler <wjswindler@...> wrote:
>             Hey all - it's been very interesting
> checking out everyone's ideas/opinions/resources
> about the importance (or lack thereof) of the
> material a mouthpiece or instrument is made out of.
>   Although it seems pretty clear from the current
> research that material is negligable there are
> definite examples that make us feel as if we are
> experiencing other wise.
>   The best I can think if is plastic vs wood
> clarinets.  I think all clarinetists would agree
> that you MUST have a wood clarinet to get the
> desried sound for an orchestra.  And it does seem to
> the ear that plastic clarinets do not achieve as
> robust a sound as their wood counterparts.  I have a
> hard time believing that it is merely a better bore
> improving the sound.  If there was an R13 made out
> of plastic would it sound the same?  One would guess
> not.
>   With mouthpieces, I can understand the material
> being negligable since it is a smaller part of the
> resonating body of the instrument.  But when you
> apply this clarinet example to that of the brass in
> a saxophone, doesn't it seem to imply that the
> material will have more of an effect than some of us
> think?
>   I'm definitely not convinced either way on this
> issue - just wanted to add this example.
>   Wil Swindler
> www.wilswindler.com
> www.chamberjazzensemble.com
> www.singlereedconsultants.com
> 
>   
> 
>          
> 
> 
> Link to Paul's articles from Main page of
> "Saxgourmet":
> 		http://www.saxgourmet.com
> Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
>            http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952
> 
> Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX
> products from 
> http://www.saxrax.com 
> For SAXRAX products, email Paul at
> saxraxus@...
>  		
> ---------------------------------
> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make
> PC-to-Phone calls.  Great rates starting at 1�/min.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

I am one of them...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Paul C. 
To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 8/21/2006 4:27:32 AM 
Subject: Re: [MouthpieceWork] Continuing the debate of material vs design


I know of some clarinetists (Tom Ridenour and customers) who like all hard rubber clarinets.

http://www.ridenourclarinetproducts.com/

Believe it... or not!

Paul

Wil Swindler <wjswindler@...> wrote:
Hey all - it's been very interesting checking out everyone's ideas/opinions/resources about the importance (or lack thereof) of the material a mouthpiece or instrument is made out of.
Although it seems pretty clear from the current research that material is negligable there are definite examples that make us feel as if we are experiencing other wise.
The best I can think if is plastic vs wood clarinets.  I think all clarinetists would agree that you MUST have a wood clarinet to get the desried sound for an orchestra.  And it does seem to the ear that plastic clarinets do not achieve as robust a sound as their wood counterparts.  I have a hard time believing that it is merely a better bore improving the sound.  If there was an R13 made out of plastic would it sound the same?  One would guess not.
With mouthpieces, I can understand the material being negligable since it is a smaller part of the resonating body of the instrument.  But when you apply this clarinet example to that of the brass in a saxophone, doesn't it seem to imply that the material will have more of an effect than some of us think?
I'm definitely not convinced either way on this issue - just wanted to add this example.
Wil Swindler
www.wilswindler.com
www.chamberjazzensemble.com
www.singlereedconsultants.com




Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...


Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1�/min.
 

I have just finished restoring a pre-WWII metal clarinet; no one in the store can tell the difference between it and an R13 (when using the same mouthpiece).  Also, in woodwinds, the bodies DO NOT vibrate sympathetically. - Lars

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Wil Swindler 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:37 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Continuing the debate of material vs design



  Hey all - it's been very interesting checking out everyone's ideas/opinions/resources about the importance (or lack thereof) of the material a mouthpiece or instrument is made out of.

  Although it seems pretty clear from the current research that material is negligable there are definite examples that make us feel as if we are experiencing other wise.

  The best I can think if is plastic vs wood clarinets.  I think all clarinetists would agree that you MUST have a wood clarinet to get the desried sound for an orchestra.  And it does seem to the ear that plastic clarinets do not achieve as robust a sound as their wood counterparts.  I have a hard time believing that it is merely a better bore improving the sound.  If there was an R13 made out of plastic would it sound the same?  One would guess not.

  With mouthpieces, I can understand the material being negligable since it is a smaller part of the resonating body of the instrument.  But when you apply this clarinet example to that of the brass in a saxophone, doesn't it seem to imply that the material will have more of an effect than some of us think?

  I'm definitely not convinced either way on this issue - just wanted to add this example.

  Wil Swindler
  www.wilswindler.com
  www.chamberjazzensemble.com
  www.singlereedconsultants.com



   

--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com> , "Lars Kirmser" <syrinx@...>
wrote:
>
>  no one in the store can tell the difference between it and an R13

Lars-

No offense, but unless your store is staffed with professional
orchestral clarinetists this is hardly a good survey.  I'm not one
myself, but I can surely guarantee you that top clarinetists whose ears
are tuned for this sort of thing would be able to tell the difference -
otherwise, we'd have at least ONE non-wood clarinet in a major symphony
in the world.



However, I ami interested in your statement that woodwind bodies do not
resonate sympathetically - is this fact or opinion?   If it is fact, can
you provide some data to back it up?  That would help clear the debate!!



thanks

Wil Swindler

www.wilswindler.com <http://www.wilswindler.com>

www.chamberjazzensemble.com <http://www.chamberjazzensemble.com>

www.singlereedconsultants.com <http://www.singlereedconsultants.com>

I have the perception that before the web, virtually no one 
questioned whether materials made a sonic difference in instruments 
and mouthpieces.  Every teacher, repair shop, store and musician 
seemed to be preaching the same dogma.  If there were any nay-sayers, 
I never got to hear their voice.  We all loved the emperor's new 
cloths.  Same thing with open-holed flutes...

I think the web has allowed the few studies that have been done to 
circulate around the world fast.  Also, they remain accessible to 
search engines for new players surfing the web.

As with many debates, I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.  
Material matters, but way less than many people think.  Or, it 
matters a significant amount in ergonomics (feel) but not 
sonically... directly.

In the case of mouthpieces.  I generally do not think it matters 
until the wall thickness is sufficiently thin enough to bring out the 
effect.  My Delrin Quantums sound different than metal Quantums.  
Quantums have thin beaks.  Ralph Morgan believes his thin-wall 
Excaliber line resonates differently.  So do many players.  I think 
Plastic Dukoffs sound like metal Dukoffs.  Same with metal vs HR 
RIAs.  But you sure do know which one is in your mouth.  You can not 
have a perfect blind play test if you can feel the material 
differences.  You can have a lister judge but if they hear a 
difference it might be that the player favors the feel of metal over 
plastic and plays them differently.  But the few scientific tests we 
have do show that the listener can not tell the difference.

Yeah, Ken.... but there is people with good ear and people without.
 
You wrote Bird played on a plastic sax and I don't think too many people complained
 ... but the good ears complained with the pawnshop that keep the naked lady for money... Do you think C.P. was happy to play on a plastic sax? 
 I think he play it because pawnshops dont give money for plastic...
 ___________________________________________________________
 
 Anyway we are talking about material, so I want to compare the sax brass with the cymbal brass. I got experience on cymbals in plus than 30 years playing drums. I got too a good experience with Paiste, 20 years ago I was kind of  demonstrator in Italy when there are not yet the workshops. 
 
 If is true, as most of you said, materials don't change the sound of mouthpiece, but only the design is responsable of the change, maybe this is true for mouthpiece, but it is absolutely not true for the cymbals.
 
 When only a 3 or 4% of silver is added on a cymbals of same size, thickness and quality, the sound come out brighter and you can compare and feel the difference. And I remember when Zildijan come out with a bronze not finished ride cymbal called Earth. No one of them had same tone, but more important... I was able to change tone playing the stick on different areas where different material not well blended were out.
 
 So my conclusion is to turn the point on other side, the new question is now: change of sound due to material can happen only on small sites as a mouthpiece? I'd like to see the spectrum of the wave running inside (as a wind gallery) on different materials.
 Mostly of you said a wave reflected inside a mouthpiece don't change on different material but only the design push the wave in different way. 
 So my question is: why sound change on the bigger area of the body when I use a metal resonator instead of a plastic resonator or a rivet, even if pads are made by same factory? and the cymbals too are the best example.
 
 Now I'm confused. Mostly of you said on this blog material don't affect the sound of the mouthpiece, but I know material give a different sound on any instrument.
 Do you think the material can change the sound only on big volume area but not in a small? Ritenour said HR is like wood... ummmm?!?!
 
 I just have in my mind how is hard to play a wood mouthpiece respect the same model in Hard Rubber (see Lebayle for example...).
 
 Gian
 
 
 
 Kenneth Barry <tenorsaxx@...> wrote:                                     In any instrument where the material is not supposed to vibrate to 
 produce the sound, the material will have very little contribution to 
 the sound.  However, I think the jury will always be out on this, 
 because of the subjective nature of musicians.  No matter how much 
 proof is presented, there will always be opinions from musicians to 
 the contrary.Bird played on a plastic sax and I don't think too many 
   people complained.
 
 Thanks, Ken
 - - -
 Ken Barry
 Saxscape Mouthpieces
 http://www.saxscape.com
 
 --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Wil 
 Swindler" <wjswindler@...> wrote:
 >
 > 
 > Hey all - it's been very interesting checking out everyone's
 > ideas/opinions/resources about the importance (or lack thereof) of 
 the
 > material a mouthpiece or instrument is made out of.
 > 
 > Although it seems pretty clear from the current research that 
 material
 > is negligable there are definite examples that make us feel as if 
 we are
 > experiencing other wise.
 > 
 > The best I can think if is plastic vs wood clarinets.  I think all
 > clarinetists would agree that you MUST have a wood clarinet to get 
 the
 > desried sound for an orchestra.  And it does seem to the ear that
 > plastic clarinets do not achieve as robust a sound as their wood
 > counterparts.  I have a hard time believing that it is merely a 
 better
 > bore improving the sound.  If there was an R13 made out of plastic 
 would
 > it sound the same?  One would guess not.
 > 
 > With mouthpieces, I can understand the material being negligable 
 since
 > it is a smaller part of the resonating body of the instrument.  But 
 when
 > you apply this clarinet example to that of the brass in a saxophone,
 > doesn't it seem to imply that the material will have more of an 
 effect
 > than some of us think?
 > 
 > I'm definitely not convinced either way on this issue - just wanted 
 to
 > add this example.
 > 
 > Wil Swindler
 > www.wilswindler.com <http://www.wilswindler.com>
 > www.chamberjazzensemble.com <http://www.chamberjazzensemble.com>
 > www.singlereedconsultants.com <http://www.singlereedconsultants.com>
 >
 
   
      
                       

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

This has been shown to be a fact, in that, the amount of energy produced in woodwinds (which is measurable) is FAR below that which is required to cause the body of all woodwinds to vibrate sympathetically or couple with the vibrating column of air. This has been shown by Rossi, Benade, Coltman, and others, through independent and scientific research. In the case of VERY thin mouthpieces (i.e. some thin-wall flutes,  bassoon bocals, and some very thin sax necks) there may be a very small amount of measurable sympathetic vibration in a small portion of the initial length of the m.p. tube. As too having to be a professional orchestral clarinetist to be able to have a valid opinion, well, I think this is a bit arrogant. - Lars

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Wil Swindler 
  To: MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Monday, August 21, 2006 10:59 AM
  Subject: [MouthpieceWork] Re: Continuing the debate of material vs design




  --- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Lars Kirmser" <syrinx@...> wrote:
  >
  >  no one in the store can tell the difference between it and an R13 

  Lars-

  No offense, but unless your store is staffed with professional orchestral clarinetists this is hardly a good survey.  I'm not one myself, but I can surely guarantee you that top clarinetists whose ears are tuned for this sort of thing would be able to tell the difference - otherwise, we'd have at least ONE non-wood clarinet in a major symphony in the world.



  However, I ami interested in your statement that woodwind bodies do not resonate sympathetically - is this fact or opinion?   If it is fact, can you provide some data to back it up?  That would help clear the debate!!



  thanks

  Wil Swindler

  www.wilswindler.com

  www.chamberjazzensemble.com

  www.singlereedconsultants.com




   

You can not bring the vibration of cymbals into a discussion of wind
instruments.  

In a sax, it is the column of air that is vibrating as a standing wave with
the help of the reed to sustain this vibration.  Soft pads can dampen this
sound by absorbing a significant amount of the accoustic energy.

Also, I think you were asking about frequency spectrums for different
materials?  This comparison is included for the paper on plastic vs metal
Dukoffs.  There is a link to it on the MP Work site.
  

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Thanks for the info on the resonating bodies - that seems like it 
should put the debate to bed.

The next question would be what causes the sensation to the performer 
of difference in sound in instrument material.  With mouthpieces it 
seems to be accounted for by difference in size/shape of the mouthpiece 
as opposed to material (i.e. thinner metal mouthpieces vs fatter HR).  
With instruments, what can account for the very different quality of 
sound between a Silver Mark VI and a Lacquer Mark VI (that one is 
undeniable! and with identical design).

As for arrogance - It is not arrogant to suggest that Mark Nuccio, 
Robert Marcellus, Ricardo Morales, Bil Jackson, David Schiffrin, or 
Larry Combs will have a keener ear for the clarinet than the people 
working in your store.  Let's all give respect to those who have taken 
the craft to a high level!!

Gian-

Keith is right - the cymbal is more akin to reed (vibrating element) 
rather than the body.  The only similarity is that they are both made 
of metal.  The metal is serving different functions in these instances.

wil swindler

that is like saying that a bundy saxophone sounds as good as a mark 
vi.  all plastic clarinets are student models.  i played on a 
ridenour HR bass clarinet and while the keywork and intonation were 
by any measure absolutely terrible, it sounded as good as any wood 
bass i've played.

-andy rayborn
--- In MouthpieceWork@yahoogroups.com, "Wil Swindler" 
<wjswindler@...> wrote:
>
> 
> Hey all - it's been very interesting checking out everyone's
> ideas/opinions/resources about the importance (or lack thereof) of 
the
> material a mouthpiece or instrument is made out of.
> 
> Although it seems pretty clear from the current research that 
material
> is negligable there are definite examples that make us feel as if 
we are
> experiencing other wise.
> 
> The best I can think if is plastic vs wood clarinets.  I think all
> clarinetists would agree that you MUST have a wood clarinet to get 
the
> desried sound for an orchestra.  And it does seem to the ear that
> plastic clarinets do not achieve as robust a sound as their wood
> counterparts.  I have a hard time believing that it is merely a 
better
> bore improving the sound.  If there was an R13 made out of plastic 
would
> it sound the same?  One would guess not.
> 
> With mouthpieces, I can understand the material being negligable 
since
> it is a smaller part of the resonating body of the instrument.  
But when
> you apply this clarinet example to that of the brass in a 
saxophone,
> doesn't it seem to imply that the material will have more of an 
effect
> than some of us think?
> 
> I'm definitely not convinced either way on this issue - just 
wanted to
> add this example.
> 
> Wil Swindler
> www.wilswindler.com <http://www.wilswindler.com>
> www.chamberjazzensemble.com <http://www.chamberjazzensemble.com>
> www.singlereedconsultants.com 
<http://www.singlereedconsultants.com>
>

Sorry but that MarkVI different is deniable, and it is
easy to say why there is a difference. There are two
reasons. One is that the design of two MarkVI or any
two horns is not 100%. Maybe it is in theory, but you
must have the same goo repairer make them as identical
as possible. A small difference in pad heights, and
even pads and resonators type will make a huge
difference in comparison to the plating. Also are you
sure those MarkVI saxes are the same design? I won't
be surprised at all that the actual design (tone hole
placement, bore, etc.) was slightly changed over the
years of the MarkVI production.

The other explanation is even simpler - psychology!
and those excellent clarinet players that you
mentioned are not less likely to be affected by
psychology than anyone else (from my experience it has
more to do with anyone specific personality than
playing ability).

To the person who said a plastic R13 would sound
different than the regular wood R13 - you are probably
right. But, also two wood R13 clarinets can sound
different. If you meant the plastic won't sound as 
good, then I think you are wrong. If Buffet made a few
plastic R13 and built them in the same quality as
their wood ones and made a blindfold test, I doubt
anyone could identify which is which (as long as the
players themselves can't tell by feel which clarinet
they are playing, which means they have to make the
mabout same weight, etc).

Wait! Actually Buffet have done something similar,
with their Greenline clarinets! I have played the
Buffet Bb models Festival, RC, RC Prestige, Tosca, two
of each in wood and two of each in Greenline (and even
more A clarinets in wood and Greenline) and there was
absolutely no difference that was just between the
wood and Greenline. For example, there was a
difference bettwen a wood RC and a Greenline RC, but
not bigger than between the two wood RC clarinets
(giving the RC model as example, this happened with
most models).




--- Wil Swindler <wjswindler@...> wrote:

> Thanks for the info on the resonating bodies - that
> seems like it 
> should put the debate to bed.
> 
> The next question would be what causes the sensation
> to the performer 
> of difference in sound in instrument material.  With
> mouthpieces it 
> seems to be accounted for by difference in
> size/shape of the mouthpiece 
> as opposed to material (i.e. thinner metal
> mouthpieces vs fatter HR).  
> With instruments, what can account for the very
> different quality of 
> sound between a Silver Mark VI and a Lacquer Mark VI
> (that one is 
> undeniable! and with identical design).
> 
> As for arrogance - It is not arrogant to suggest
> that Mark Nuccio, 
> Robert Marcellus, Ricardo Morales, Bil Jackson,
> David Schiffrin, or 
> Larry Combs will have a keener ear for the clarinet
> than the people 
> working in your store.  Let's all give respect to
> those who have taken 
> the craft to a high level!!
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

I think this gets right to the crux of the matter.  
   
  And even if A is different from B, so what?  Does that mean that A is better than B?
   
  I did some tests about 10 yrs ago.  I had some non musicians listen to me play from behind a screen (really, a rollaround blackboard).  
   
  We all have heard some people go on and on about the desirability of having a "dark" tone, by which they meant a tone strong in fundamental and the lower overtons, and less of the high overtones.
   
  I played several saxes, A/B'ing with bright vs dark mouthpieces.  And a number of listeners.  The question was simply, do you prefer the first tone, or the second tone?  Which sounds better to you?
   
  In every single case, for every listener, they preferred the "brighter" setup.
   
  So much for that "dark tone".
   
  Paul

clarni bass <clarnibass@...> wrote:
          Sorry but that MarkVI different is deniable, and it is
easy to say why there is a difference. There are two
reasons. One is that the design of two MarkVI or any
two horns is not 100%. Maybe it is in theory, but you
must have the same goo repairer make them as identical
as possible. A small difference in pad heights, and
even pads and resonators type will make a huge
difference in comparison to the plating. Also are you
sure those MarkVI saxes are the same design? I won't
be surprised at all that the actual design (tone hole
placement, bore, etc.) was slightly changed over the
years of the MarkVI production.

The other explanation is even simpler - psychology!
and those excellent clarinet players that you
mentioned are not less likely to be affected by
psychology than anyone else (from my experience it has
more to do with anyone specific personality than
playing ability).

To the person who said a plastic R13 would sound
different than the regular wood R13 - you are probably
right. But, also two wood R13 clarinets can sound
different. If you meant the plastic won't sound as 
good, then I think you are wrong. If Buffet made a few
plastic R13 and built them in the same quality as
their wood ones and made a blindfold test, I doubt
anyone could identify which is which (as long as the
players themselves can't tell by feel which clarinet
they are playing, which means they have to make the
mabout same weight, etc).

Wait! Actually Buffet have done something similar,
with their Greenline clarinets! I have played the
Buffet Bb models Festival, RC, RC Prestige, Tosca, two
of each in wood and two of each in Greenline (and even
more A clarinets in wood and Greenline) and there was
absolutely no difference that was just between the
wood and Greenline. For example, there was a
difference bettwen a wood RC and a Greenline RC, but
not bigger than between the two wood RC clarinets
(giving the RC model as example, this happened with
most models).

--- Wil Swindler <wjswindler@...> wrote:

> Thanks for the info on the resonating bodies - that
> seems like it 
> should put the debate to bed.
> 
> The next question would be what causes the sensation
> to the performer 
> of difference in sound in instrument material. With
> mouthpieces it 
> seems to be accounted for by difference in
> size/shape of the mouthpiece 
> as opposed to material (i.e. thinner metal
> mouthpieces vs fatter HR). 
> With instruments, what can account for the very
> different quality of 
> sound between a Silver Mark VI and a Lacquer Mark VI
> (that one is 
> undeniable! and with identical design).
> 
> As for arrogance - It is not arrogant to suggest
> that Mark Nuccio, 
> Robert Marcellus, Ricardo Morales, Bil Jackson,
> David Schiffrin, or 
> Larry Combs will have a keener ear for the clarinet
> than the people 
> working in your store. Let's all give respect to
> those who have taken 
> the craft to a high level!!
> 
> 
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 


         


Link to Paul's articles from Main page of "Saxgourmet":
		http://www.saxgourmet.com
Listen to Paul's MP3's and view saxophone photos at:
           http://briefcase.yahoo.com/tenorman1952

Paul Coats is the sole US importer of SAXRAX products from 
http://www.saxrax.com 
For SAXRAX products, email Paul at saxraxus@...
 		
---------------------------------
 All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

Keith, 
 I know what you mean, I compare it just to show how different material with same design can change the sound, but asking  why in a small space as a mpc  don't affect and in a big  yes.
 
 I'm not a clarinet player... but I can reconize a plastic instrument from one in wood, even together with an ensamble!!!
 
My only opinion is that any materials change the sound even if so small, maybe the matter is that the ears can reconize until some frequency than lost perception, more or less as a microphone.
 
 Gian
 
 
Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:                                  You can not bring the vibration of cymbals into a discussion of wind
 instruments.  
 
 In a sax, it is the column of air that is vibrating as a standing wave with
 the help of the reed to sustain this vibration.  Soft pads can dampen this
 sound by absorbing a significant amount of the accoustic energy.
 
 Also, I think you were asking about frequency spectrums for different
 materials?  This comparison is included for the paper on plastic vs metal
 Dukoffs.  There is a link to it on the MP Work site.
   
 
 __________________________________________________
 Do You Yahoo!?
 Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
 http://mail.yahoo.com 
 
     
                       


The vintage saxophone webpage is here!
  www.bebopitalia.com
 Need a vintage sax in perfect condition?
 Need a flute or a windwood? Need a mouthpiece?
 Need an hard to find model? Just order to us!
 WE ARE HERE TO SERVE YOU AT NICE PRICE
 Specialized on SML and vintage sax
 

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

I'm willing to make a few mp3 samples of clarinets to
send to anyone who claim they can identify which is
wood and which is not (or even identify the actual
material). I will take the samples from CDs I have and
also recordings that I persoanlly made.

Anyone up for this challenge?




--- Bebop Italia <cubismofree@...> wrote:

> Keith, 
>  I know what you mean, I compare it just to show how
> different material with same design can change the
> sound, but asking  why in a small space as a mpc 
> don't affect and in a big  yes.
>  
>  I'm not a clarinet player... but I can reconize a
> plastic instrument from one in wood, even together
> with an ensamble!!!
>  
> My only opinion is that any materials change the
> sound even if so small, maybe the matter is that the
> ears can reconize until some frequency than lost
> perception, more or less as a microphone.
>  
>  Gian
>  
>  
> Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:        
>                          You can not bring the
> vibration of cymbals into a discussion of wind
>  instruments.  
>  
>  In a sax, it is the column of air that is vibrating
> as a standing wave with
>  the help of the reed to sustain this vibration. 
> Soft pads can dampen this
>  sound by absorbing a significant amount of the
> accoustic energy.
>  
>  Also, I think you were asking about frequency
> spectrums for different
>  materials?  This comparison is included for the
> paper on plastic vs metal
>  Dukoffs.  There is a link to it on the MP Work
> site.
>    
>  
>  __________________________________________________
>  Do You Yahoo!?
>  Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
>  http://mail.yahoo.com 
>  
>      
>                        
> 
> 
> The vintage saxophone webpage is here!
>   www.bebopitalia.com
>  Need a vintage sax in perfect condition?
>  Need a flute or a windwood? Need a mouthpiece?
>  Need an hard to find model? Just order to us!
>  WE ARE HERE TO SERVE YOU AT NICE PRICE
>  Specialized on SML and vintage sax
>  
> 
>  Send instant messages to your online friends
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

very ready man ! send it to info@..., I will apreciate a lot.
 
 Gian

clarni bass <clarnibass@...> wrote:                                  I'm willing to make a few mp3 samples of clarinets to
 send to anyone who claim they can identify which is
 wood and which is not (or even identify the actual
 material). I will take the samples from CDs I have and
 also recordings that I persoanlly made.
 
 Anyone up for this challenge?
 
 --- Bebop Italia <cubismofree@...> wrote:
 
 > Keith, 
 >  I know what you mean, I compare it just to show how
 > different material with same design can change the
 > sound, but asking  why in a small space as a mpc 
 > don't affect and in a big  yes.
 >  
 >  I'm not a clarinet player... but I can reconize a
 > plastic instrument from one in wood, even together
 > with an ensamble!!!
 >  
 > My only opinion is that any materials change the
 > sound even if so small, maybe the matter is that the
 > ears can reconize until some frequency than lost
 > perception, more or less as a microphone.
 >  
 >  Gian
 >  
 >  
 > Keith Bradbury <kwbradbury@...> wrote:        
 >                          You can not bring the
 > vibration of cymbals into a discussion of wind
 >  instruments.  
 >  
 >  In a sax, it is the column of air that is vibrating
 > as a standing wave with
 >  the help of the reed to sustain this vibration. 
 > Soft pads can dampen this
 >  sound by absorbing a significant amount of the
 > accoustic energy.
 >  
 >  Also, I think you were asking about frequency
 > spectrums for different
 >  materials?  This comparison is included for the
 > paper on plastic vs metal
 >  Dukoffs.  There is a link to it on the MP Work
 > site.
 >    
 >  
 >  __________________________________________________
 >  Do You Yahoo!?
 >  Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
 > protection around 
 >  http://mail.yahoo.com 
 >  
 >      
 >                        
 > 
 > 
 > The vintage saxophone webpage is here!
 >   www.bebopitalia.com
 >  Need a vintage sax in perfect condition?
 >  Need a flute or a windwood? Need a mouthpiece?
 >  Need an hard to find model? Just order to us!
 >  WE ARE HERE TO SERVE YOU AT NICE PRICE
 >  Specialized on SML and vintage sax
 >  
 > 
 >  Send instant messages to your online friends
 > http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 
 
 __________________________________________________
 Do You Yahoo!?
 Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
 http://mail.yahoo.com 
 
     
                       


The vintage saxophone webpage is here!
  www.bebopitalia.com
 Need a vintage sax in perfect condition?
 Need a flute or a windwood? Need a mouthpiece?
 Need an hard to find model? Just order to us!
 WE ARE HERE TO SERVE YOU AT NICE PRICE
 Specialized on SML and vintage sax
 

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

> 
> Anyone up for this challenge?
> 

I did sound clips a while back on cane vs Fibracell reeds.  Out of the 5
people who participated, they picked the correct reed 53% of the time.  So
get your flippin' coins out again.

The sound clips are still in the Files - Tenor section of the MPWork site. 
The results are in the Database section.  We could do something similar
with your clarinet material test.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Perhaps if someone would cast a mouthpiece (or clarinet) out of cement we 
would know the truth about how a mouthpiece vibrates, responds, and sounds 
compared to fine rubber.

Sometimes using extremes to make a point works.

My opinion is that materials do make a difference if the design remains the 
same.

And by the way the Ridenour clarinets are made out of rubber which is a 
natural material like wood and not a man made material like plastic. I think if one 
searches the Internet they would find an article from Tom Ridenour on the 
subject. I even think the rubber might be superior to wood. Even though I play a 
wood clarinet much of the time I always have the Tom's rubber clarinet in the 
Broadway Show pits.

Mike 

> My opinion is that materials do make a difference if the design remains
> the same.

This is why I cited RIAs and Dukoffs.  They do make the same designs in
metal and non-metal.

Drake makes a ceramic mouthpiece.   Close to concrete.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

First of all, the "rubber" that is used to make clarinets is not found in nature. It's a vulcanized formulation of various natural materials. You may be interested to know that Alan Fox (Fox bassoons, oboes, eng. horns, sail boats, etc.) once told me (many years ago) that he believed the polymer polypropolene to be superior for bassoon manufacture in nearly every aspect to maple (wood in general). I believe he still feels this way.  In addition, many pro-level oboe manufacturers (Loree, Fox,  for example) offer the option of having the upper section of their professional lines manufactured out of polymers. And, if you can satisfy oboeists, I'll bet you can satisfy anyone. - Lars

--- MVPROD@... wrote:

> My opinion is that materials do make a difference if
> the design remains the same.

Can you explain what you base this opinion on? For example, 
scientific evidence for it, or blindfold tests where only the 
material was changed.

Have you ever played a few instruments with only different materials 
and same design (although even if you have it would not prove 
anything because of psychology/subjectivity)?

The blindfold test on flutes mentioned (which I knew before) is one 
of the most reliable that I have seen, and I think it shows the 
difference is too small to hear. I'm actually surprised the 
difference between those flutes was not bigger, just because usually
different instruments are different, even same model. I'm impressed 
with Muramatsu for being able to do this!

I'm willing to bet that if they made 10 takes of one player playing 
all the flutes, and 10 takes of the same player playing one of the 
flutes, people on average would not be able to tell the difference. 
Notice especially how the silver flute was preferred overall more 
than all the gold flutes, while flutists usually automatically 
think gold is better (I know a professional who ordered a gold 
mouthpiece without even trying it assuming it will better than his 
silver mouthpiece just because it is gold!).

--- MVPROD@... wrote:

> My opinion is that materials do make a difference if
> the design remains the same.

Can you explain what you base this opinion on? For
example, scientific evidence for it, or blindfold
tests where only the material was changed.

Have you ever played a few instruments with only
different materials and same design (although even if
you have it would not prove anything because of
psychology/subjectivity)?

The blindfold test on flutes mentioned (which I knew
before) is one of the most reliable that I have seen,
and I think think it shows the difference is too small
to hear. I'm actually surprised the difference between
those flutes was not bigger, just because usually
different instruments are different, even same model.
I'm impressed with Muramatsu for being able to do
this!
Notice especially how the silver flute was preferred
overall a lot more than all the gold flutes, while
flutists usually automatically think gold is better (I
know a professional who ordered a gold mouthpiece
without even trying it assuming it will better than
his silver mouthpiece just because it is gold!).

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com