Posted by Klaus on August 23, 2001 at 04:23:33:
In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Mouthpiece Modifications posted by Barry Guerrero on August 23, 2001 at 01:15:19:
"Your m.p. just might become even brighter by further opening up the backbore."
Sorry, Barry!
But this one calls for a profound disagreement. Your statement is in a strong contrast to all of my experiences.
When choosing mouthpieces I go for a number of parameters:
A: potential of range and, to some degree, dynamic span. This has something to do with the cup diameter, which my lip texture and embouchure nature tells me shall be almost as wide as it comes.
B: potential of fullness in sound and, again to some degree, dynamic span. This has something to do with cup volume, which shall be almost as large as it comes. And with a cup shape, which might call for the term "deep bowl", only that the bottom bowl portion shall be funnel shaped. Some part of my memory tells of a German mouthpiece theorist talking of the contrast between apple and pear shapes. I am on the pear side.
In almost any case selection procedures along the above mentioned outlines have let me end up with mouthpieces, that were good except for one point. They had too much edge to their sound. Another wording would be, that the sound was too bright.
A decade or so I started out experiments with tools of an unbelievable primitivity. My main tool to this day is a 13 mm barrel shaped reamer. It started its existence as a tool for cleaning up smoking pipes. A bit of filing has been applied to modify its outline.
This is the tool I go for first, always. By applying a barrel shape to the lower backbore I gain in warmth and fulness. With the desired losses in edge and brightness.
If the throat presents too much of a cylindrical bore, a factor giving stiffness in all aspects of playing, I try to make this area conical. Working from the backbore end with tools, which not all are owned by me. Thereby gaining in all of the potentials mentioned above. Only not in brigthness and stiffness.
In two cases not to be mentioned in this context have I worked from the cup side to change the throat area. That worked in these special cases. But basically I consider the cup side approach to the throat a sacred area.
You idea of opening the throat bore in most cases will involve a cylindrical drill bit. Inducing mostly stiffness and too much slotting in the playing qualities of the given mouthpiece.
Not necessarily what the initial search was out for.
Klaus