Players report that only about 30% of the cane reeds in a box are of good quality, 40% are medium and 30% are bad, according to a survey of over 375 musicians (Munoz Arancon survey, Le Mans University thesis 2017, as summarized in the Acta Acustica review by Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel 2024). The lab data explain why: 55 clarinet reeds of one model and cut had first bending resonances spread from 1838 to 2154 Hz (Taillard et al., Acta Acustica united with Acustica 2014), and tip stiffness fell by almost 45% after 300 minutes of playing (Kemp and Scavone, Wood Science and Technology 2020). On the player side, two KTH oboists used blowing pressures as high as 124 cm H2O (Fuks and Sundberg, KTH TMH-QPSR 1996). The raw material behaves like a tonewood with a wide natural spread, a theme we covered for spruce and maple in our violin tonewood density statistics. We aggregated data from the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, Acta Acustica, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, McGill University, the University of Antwerp, the Journal of Wood Science, PLOS ONE and the European Acoustics Association proceedings, and kept only figures we could read in the primary documents.
TL;DR
- About 30% of reeds in a box rated good, 40% medium, 30% bad by players (Munoz Arancon survey of over 375 musicians, 2017).
- First bending mode of 55 same-model clarinet reeds ranged from 1838 to 2154 Hz (Taillard et al., Acta Acustica united with Acustica 2014).
- Static tip stiffness tracked playing-ease rankings at r = 0.729 to 0.768, p < 0.001, across 27 clarinet reeds (Gangl, Hofmann and Mayer, AAAA Congress 2016).
- Reed tip stiffness decreased by almost 45% after 300 minutes of playing (Kemp and Scavone, Wood Science and Technology 2020).
- One professional oboist reached 124 cm H2O; two clarinetists stayed within 20 to 55 cm H2O (Fuks and Sundberg, KTH TMH-QPSR 1996).
- Quasi-static beating pressure near 33 kPa for an oboe reed vs about 17 kPa for a bassoon reed (Almeida, Vergez and Causse, JASA 2007).
- Air-dried Arundo donax cane: 439 kg/m3 density, 6.92 GPa Young’s modulus (Obataya, Journal of Wood Science 1999).
- Jazz-cut saxophone reeds opened 30% wider at rest than classic cuts (Gazengel et al., Acta Acustica 2025).
- Wetting dropped a clarinet reed’s first bending resonance from 2200 Hz to 1800 Hz (Pinard, Laine and Vach, JASA 2003).
- Loudness rose from 98 to 109 dB(A) as alto saxophone reed strength went from 2.00 to 3.50 (Ukshini and Dirckx, Applied Acoustics 2023).
1. Same Number, Different Reed: Stiffness Spread Inside One Strength Grade
A reed’s “strength” is a sorting label: manufacturers push on the reed near the tip, measure how far it bends, and print a grade. The measurements show how coarse that grade is. Across 55 Vandoren V12 clarinet reeds, the first bending resonance ran from 1838 to 2154 Hz (Taillard et al., Acta Acustica united with Acustica 2014), and nominal strength correlated only about 0.7 with the best single vibration indicators. A “resonance” here is a frequency at which the reed itself prefers to vibrate, measured off the instrument with optical holography.
The practical reading: a strength grade narrows the odds but does not pick the reed for you. McGill researchers who tracked identically rated alto saxophone reeds found different static stiffness between reeds and between points along the same tip (Kemp and Scavone, ISMA 2017), a lopsidedness researchers call asymmetry.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Clarinet reeds measured by holography (Vandoren V12, strengths 3 to 4.5) | 55 reeds (12 at 3, 12 at 3.5, 20 at 4, 11 at 4.5) | Taillard et al., Acta Acustica united with Acustica 2014 |
| First bending mode frequency across all 55 reeds (series A): mean, standard deviation and lowest to highest | 1996 Hz, SD 77 Hz, 1838 to 2154 Hz | Taillard et al., 2014 |
| Spread of mode frequencies (standard deviation divided by mean) | 2% to 5% | Taillard et al., 2014 |
| Correlation between printed strength and the best single vibration indicators | about 0.7 | Taillard et al., 2014 |
| Alto saxophone reeds with identical geometry and rating, tracked at several tip points | 8 reeds, 6 points per reed | Kemp and Scavone, ISMA 2017 |
| Clarinet reeds of one cut (V12) sorted across three strengths | 89 reeds (29 at 2.5, 30 at 3, 30 at 3.5) | Gaillard et al., Forum Acusticum 2025 |
| Repeatability of a stiffness bench at the reed center, 3 mm from the tip (relative standard deviation) | around 3% | Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel, Forum Acusticum 2023 |
Context: a 3% bench repeatability (Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel, Forum Acusticum 2023) means reed-to-reed differences well above a few percent cannot be blamed on the measuring bench. The 2025 Le Mans study of 89 reeds (Forum Acusticum 2025) asks whether measuring the reed alone can predict how it behaves on a mouthpiece.
2. How Many Reeds Players Keep, and Why They Disagree
The 30/40/30 split is player testimony, not a lab count, but it is consistent with the measured spread in section 1. The harder finding is that players do not agree on which reed is good. In a study of 20 tenor saxophone reeds of the same brand, cut and strength, reed identity explained 44.1% of the variance in perceived softness but only 8.1% for global quality, which was not significant (Petiot et al., Acta Acustica united with Acustica 2017). In plain words: musicians agree on whether a reed feels soft or hard, not on whether it is good.
Softness, meanwhile, is measurable. Static stiffness at the tip and 8 mm from it tracked the playing-ease ranking of 27 clarinet reeds at p < 0.001 (Gangl, Hofmann and Mayer, AAAA Congress 2016).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Share of reeds in a box players rate good / medium / bad (survey of over 375 musicians) | about 30% / 40% / 30% | Munoz Arancon, Le Mans University thesis 2017, cited in Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel review 2024 |
| Tenor saxophone reeds and musicians in a perceptual study (Vandoren Classic, strength 2.5) | 20 reeds, 10 musicians | Petiot et al., Acta Acustica united with Acustica 2017 |
| Correlation between perceived softness and threshold pressure (the mouth pressure where sound starts) | r = -0.73 | Petiot et al., 2017 |
| Variance explained by the reed: perceived softness vs global quality | 44.1% vs 8.1% | Petiot et al., 2017 |
| Reeds correctly sorted into hard, medium and soft from a threshold-pressure model | 70% (14 of 20) | Petiot et al., 2017 |
| Correlation of static tip stiffness with playing-ease ranking, 27 clarinet reeds | 0.729 to 0.768 (p < 0.001) | Gangl, Hofmann and Mayer, AAAA Congress 2016 |
| Correlation of stiffness 16 mm from the tip with playing-ease ranking | 0.401 (p < 0.05) | Gangl, Hofmann and Mayer, 2016 |
| Reeds given the same quality class in every rating (2 clarinetists, 4 repetitions each) | 5 of 13 | Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel, Forum Acusticum 2023 |
Outlier note: Petiot et al. discarded one of their two players’ acoustic data because of low repeatability between sessions, so the softness model rests on a single player.
3. Arundo donax: What the Cane Is Made Of
Almost every cane reed comes from Arundo donax, a giant grass. Air-dried cane measured 439 kg/m3 with a Young’s modulus of 6.92 GPa at 25°C and 60% relative humidity (Obataya, Journal of Wood Science 1999). Young’s modulus is the stiffness of the material itself, and the loss tangent is how much vibration energy the material turns into heat on each cycle. Cane’s loss tangent (14.8 x 10^-3) was roughly double that of the acetylated sitka spruce tested alongside it (7.3 x 10^-3), so cane absorbs much more of its own vibration than the stiffer woods proposed to replace it.
The newer data show how wide the natural range is. Strips from three commercial French cane brands ranged from 670 to 1060 kg/m3, and the mean Young’s moduli of all three brands differ significantly (Karczewski et al., Materials 2025). The cane is also strongly directional: about ten times stiffer along the fibers than across them.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Density of air-dried cane at 25°C and 60% relative humidity | 439 kg/m3 | Obataya, Journal of Wood Science 1999 |
| Dynamic Young’s modulus of air-dried cane (along the fibers) | 6.92 GPa | Obataya, 1999 |
| Loss tangent (internal damping) of air-dried cane | 14.8 x 10^-3 | Obataya, 1999 |
| Acetylated sitka spruce tested as a reed alternative: Young’s modulus and loss tangent | 12.43 GPa, 7.3 x 10^-3 | Obataya, 1999 |
| Density range of reed strips from three commercial cane brands from southern France | 670 to 1060 kg/m3 (whole stem around 500 kg/m3) | Karczewski et al., Materials 2025 |
| Young’s modulus along the fibers vs across them (tissue values) | about 11 GPa vs 1 GPa (ten times higher) | Karczewski et al., 2025 |
| Share of the cane cortex made of soft parenchyma (filler) cells | 43% to 57% | Veselack, Ball State University thesis 1979, cited in Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel review 2024 |
| Combined diameter of xylem and phloem in a vascular bundle (the plant’s fluid transport tissue inside each fiber strand) | about 167.5 µm | Lee et al., PLOS ONE 2025 |
Most recent available data: Obataya, Journal of Wood Science 1999, for the density, modulus and damping of untreated cane measured side by side with reed-alternative woods; Veselack 1979 for parenchyma share.
4. Blowing Pressure Thresholds: Clarinet, Saxophone, Oboe and Bassoon
Blowing pressure is the air pressure in the player’s mouth above room pressure. The KTH data are in centimeters of water (1 cm H2O = 98.0665 Pa, so 124 cm H2O x 98.0665 Pa = about 12.2 kPa). One of two professional oboists reached 124 cm H2O, more than double the clarinet’s top of 55 cm H2O (Fuks and Sundberg, KTH TMH-QPSR 1996). The oboe reed’s opening at rest is around 2 mm2, against typically 7 mm2 for a bassoon reed (Almeida, Vergez and Causse, JASA 2007), so the oboist pushes harder through a much smaller slot.
The saxophone sits at the other end: an artificial mouth started an alto saxophone with only 0.9 to 1.4 kPa on a strength 2.00 reed (Ukshini and Dirckx, Applied Acoustics 2023). Sustained high-pressure playing is also loud playing, which is why pit musicians appear in our orchestra pit acoustic shield statistics.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Clarinet blowing pressure range, two professional players | 20 to 55 cm H2O | Fuks and Sundberg, KTH TMH-QPSR 1996 |
| Alto saxophone blowing pressure, player Sx1 range and player Sx2 maximum | 15 to 80 cm H2O; 55 cm H2O | Fuks and Sundberg, 1996 |
| Oboe blowing pressure, players Ob1 and Ob2 | 35 to 95 cm H2O; 41 to 124 cm H2O | Fuks and Sundberg, 1996 |
| Bassoon blowing pressure, players Bn1 and Bn2 | 12 to 90 cm H2O; 13 to 52 cm H2O | Fuks and Sundberg, 1996 |
| Typical mouth pressure, clarinet vs saxophone (journal version) | 2.0 to 5.9 kPa vs 1.3 to 8.3 kPa | Fuks and Sundberg, Acta Acustica united with Acustica 1999, cited in Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel review 2024 |
| Clarinet on an artificial mouth: pressure below which there is no sound or only squeaks | about 3 to 4 kPa (depends on lip force) | Almeida et al., JASA 2013 |
| Alto saxophone minimal blowing pressure, reed 2.00 at 2 N lip force, three mouthpieces | 1.3, 0.9 and 1.4 kPa | Ukshini and Dirckx, Applied Acoustics 2023 |
| Quasi-static reed beating (closing) pressure, oboe reed vs bassoon reed | near 33 kPa vs about 17 kPa | Almeida, Vergez and Causse, JASA 2007 |
Context: for oboe, the University of New South Wales acoustics group notes blowing pressure possibly above 10 kPa for a loud high note (UNSW double reed acoustics). The 1996 KTH figures come from only two players per instrument.
5. Reed Resonance, Damping and Lip Force
The reed is a spring with its own resonance, set well above the notes it plays. A synthetic tenor saxophone reed showed resonance peaks at 1104 Hz and 2549 Hz with no lip on it, and its damping ratio nearly doubled, from 3.95 x 10^-2 to 7.71 x 10^-2, when a 1000 g lip load was applied (Tonetti and Piana, Forum Acusticum 2025). Damping ratio measures how fast a vibration dies out; the lip is the player’s main damper.
The lip also moves the threshold. With a synthetic clarinet reed on an artificial blower, the pressure needed to start a note fell from 4.5 kPa at a 0.3 N lip force to 2 kPa at 2 N (Yoshinaga et al., Forum Acusticum 2023). These lab benches use the same measurement logic as the test rooms in our anechoic chamber testing statistics: control everything except the variable under test.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Lip forces that still allow playing with the lip far back on the reed (long bite) vs middle position | three to four times higher | Almeida et al., JASA 2013 |
| Resonance peaks of a synthetic tenor saxophone reed (Legere 3), no lip load | 1104 Hz and 2549 Hz | Tonetti and Piana, Forum Acusticum 2025 |
| Damping ratio of the same reed, no lip load vs 1000 g lip load | 3.95 x 10^-2 vs 7.71 x 10^-2 | Tonetti and Piana, 2025 |
| Fitted reed stiffness per unit area, no lip load vs 1000 g lip load | 6.01 x 10^6 vs 1.95 x 10^7 Pa/m | Tonetti and Piana, 2025 |
| Reed resonance relative to the instrument’s lowest resonance | around 20 times greater | Tonetti and Piana, 2025 |
| Frequency of unintended squeaks on an artificial-mouth clarinet | typically around 1000 to 1200 Hz | Almeida et al., JASA 2013 |
| Clarinet lower threshold pressure with a synthetic reed, lip force 0.3 N vs 2 N | 4.5 kPa vs 2 kPa | Yoshinaga et al., Forum Acusticum 2023 |
| Correlation between static and dynamic compliance (inverse stiffness) of clarinet reeds | R = 0.99 | Gazengel, Dalmont and Petiot, Applied Acoustics 2016, cited in Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel review 2024 |
Context: Almeida et al. (JASA 2013) ran their clarinet on an automated playing system and tested reeds of two hardnesses (2 and 3.5); where the lip touches the reed matters, not only how hard it presses. The R = 0.99 result matters for manufacturers: a static push test tracks the reed’s dynamic springiness closely.
6. Synthetic vs Cane, and Why Strength Numbers Do Not Travel Between Brands
Strength numbers are a manufacturer convention, and makers give a value from about 1.5 to 4.5, without units (Almeida et al., JASA 2013). Measuring 24 tenor saxophone reeds, Le Mans and Basel researchers concluded that the strength of reeds with different material and cut can not be compared, and found the rest opening 30% higher for the jazz cut than the classic cut (Gazengel et al., Acta Acustica 2025). Synthetic reeds also fit the standard reed model less well, a sign that they bend differently, not just more consistently.
Brand choice is concentrated anyway: in an Arizona State University survey of 305 clarinetists, Vandoren reeds were used by 56% of professional musicians and 72% of band directors (Druesedow, Arizona State University 2021). Durability figures for synthetics in circulation are the makers’ own claims: the June 2025 issue of The Clarinet, the International Clarinet Association journal, quotes Carbon reeds as lasting “20-30X longer than cane”, but its tester panel reported no measurements (Pimentel, The Clarinet 2025).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Range of strength values printed by reed makers | about 1.5 to 4.5, without units | Almeida et al., JASA 2013 |
| Rest opening (gap at the tip) of jazz-cut vs classic-cut cane saxophone reeds | 30% higher for the jazz cut | Gazengel et al., Acta Acustica 2025 |
| Equivalent reed area, classic cane vs classic synthetic saxophone reeds | 3.37 cm2 (±1.5%) vs 2.9 cm2 (±3%) | Gazengel et al., 2025 |
| Average model-fit error: cane vs American-cut synthetic vs classic synthetic reeds | 7% vs 9% vs 13% | Gazengel et al., 2025 |
| Synthetic clarinet reed (polypropylene and wood fiber): Young’s modulus and density | 5.5 x 10^9 Pa, 1140 kg/m3 | Yoshinaga et al., Forum Acusticum 2023 |
| Force needed to bend the tip 0.25 mm, 27 cane, fiber-reinforced and polymer clarinet reeds | 0.1 to 0.25 N | Gangl, Hofmann and Mayer, AAAA Congress 2016 |
| Median loudness on an alto saxophone at 2 N lip force, reed strength 2.00 vs 2.75 vs 3.50 | 98 vs 103 vs 109 dB(A) | Ukshini and Dirckx, Applied Acoustics 2023 |
| Synthetic reed lifespan, manufacturer claims (VENN; Ambipoly) | roughly 3-6 months; 12 months+ (vendor claims, not tested) | Manufacturer claims quoted in Pimentel, The Clarinet 2025 |
Context: the loudness row comes from an artificial mouth, but 109 dB(A) at the bell is a reminder that reed choice is also an exposure choice for the player, see our musician hearing loss statistics. Ukshini and Dirckx add that initial blowing pressure differs relatively little between reed strengths, while the useful range of lip force grows as strength increases.
7. Humidity, Wetting and Aging
Cane is a plant material that drinks water. Humidifying a clarinet reed dropped its first bending resonance from 2200 Hz to 1800 Hz (Pinard, Laine and Vach, JASA 2003, cited in the Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel review, Acta Acustica 2024), because water adds mass to the vibrating part and reduces its rigidity. Playing time adds a slower, permanent drift: tip stiffness fell by almost 45% after 300 minutes of playing (Kemp and Scavone, Wood Science and Technology 2020).
The newest data come from neutron imaging, which sees water inside the reed. In nine Vandoren V12 strength 3.5 reeds, drying began at the tip within 450 seconds and every sample was dry by 2250 seconds, and the end-of-life reed held less water in the tip and heart (Lee et al., PLOS ONE 2025). A worn reed literally soaks up less.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| First bending resonance of a clarinet reed, dry vs after humidifying | 2200 Hz vs 1800 Hz | Pinard, Laine and Vach, JASA 2003 |
| Change in reed tip stiffness after 300 minutes of playing | decreased by almost 45% | Kemp and Scavone, Wood Science and Technology 2020 |
| Break-in period until reed mass (water uptake) stabilizes in regular playing | roughly one month | Kemp and Scavone, ISMA 2017 |
| Mass lost by 55 clarinet reeds when dried between two measurement series | 2% to 4% | Taillard et al., Acta Acustica united with Acustica 2014 |
| Time window in which most shrinkage happens as a wet reed dries | first 5 to 10 minutes | Lee et al., PLOS ONE 2025 |
| Neutron imaging: drying starts at the tip / all samples dry | within 450 s / by 2250 s | Lee et al., PLOS ONE 2025 |
| Playing time of the end-of-life reeds in the neutron study | more than 20 hours over several months | Lee et al., 2025 |
| Rest opening of a new American-cut synthetic reed, first closing vs later repetitions | almost 10% greater at first | Gazengel et al., Acta Acustica 2025 |
Context: humidity was held at 45% to 55% during the 2025 Le Mans and Basel bench tests, a reminder that every stiffness figure in this roundup is only valid at the humidity it was measured at. Most recent available data for the wetting resonance shift: Pinard et al., JASA 2003.
Summary: Woodwind Reed Stiffness & Response by the Numbers
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Reeds in a box rated good / medium / bad by players (over 375 musicians) | about 30% / 40% / 30% | Munoz Arancon thesis 2017, cited in Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel review 2024 |
| First bending mode range, 55 same-model clarinet reeds | 1838 to 2154 Hz | Taillard et al., 2014 |
| Variance explained by the reed: softness vs global quality | 44.1% vs 8.1% | Petiot et al., 2017 |
| Static tip stiffness vs playing-ease ranking | 0.729 to 0.768 (p < 0.001) | Gangl, Hofmann and Mayer, 2016 |
| Tip stiffness change after 300 minutes of playing | decreased by almost 45% | Kemp and Scavone, 2020 |
| Air-dried cane density and Young’s modulus | 439 kg/m3, 6.92 GPa | Obataya, 1999 |
| Density range of commercial cane reed strips | 670 to 1060 kg/m3 | Karczewski et al., 2025 |
| Oboe blowing pressure, two professionals | 35 to 95 and 41 to 124 cm H2O | Fuks and Sundberg, 1996 |
| Typical mouth pressure, clarinet vs saxophone | 2.0 to 5.9 kPa vs 1.3 to 8.3 kPa | Fuks and Sundberg, 1999 |
| Beating pressure, oboe reed vs bassoon reed | near 33 kPa vs about 17 kPa | Almeida, Vergez and Causse, 2007 |
| Alto saxophone minimal blowing pressure (reed 2.00, 2 N) | 0.9 to 1.4 kPa | Ukshini and Dirckx, 2023 |
| Damping ratio, no lip vs 1000 g lip load | 3.95 x 10^-2 vs 7.71 x 10^-2 | Tonetti and Piana, 2025 |
| Clarinet threshold, lip force 0.3 N vs 2 N | 4.5 kPa vs 2 kPa | Yoshinaga et al., 2023 |
| Rest opening, jazz cut vs classic cut | 30% higher | Gazengel et al., 2025 |
| Model-fit error, cane vs synthetic reeds | 7% vs 9% and 13% | Gazengel et al., 2025 |
| Loudness, reed 2.00 vs 3.50 at 2 N | 98 vs 109 dB(A) | Ukshini and Dirckx, 2023 |
| First bending resonance, dry vs humidified | 2200 Hz vs 1800 Hz | Pinard, Laine and Vach, 2003 |
Methodology and Sources
- Taillard, Laloe, Gross, Dalmont and Kergomard, Statistical estimation of mechanical parameters of clarinet reeds using experimental and numerical approaches, Acta Acustica united with Acustica 100 (2014): arXiv 1202.2114
- Kemp and Scavone, Static Stiffness Evaluation and Aging Behaviour of Played Alto Saxophone Reeds, ISMA 2017, McGill University: proceedings PDF
- Petiot, Kersaudy, Scavone, McAdams and Gazengel, Investigation of the Relationships Between Perceived Qualities and Sound Parameters of Saxophone Reeds, Acta Acustica united with Acustica 103 (2017): McGill PDF
- Gangl, Hofmann and Mayer, Comparison of characterization methods for B-flat clarinet reeds, 7th AAAA Congress on Sound and Vibration 2016: mdw Vienna PDF
- Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel, Link between stiffness symmetry and perceived quality of clarinet cane reeds, Forum Acusticum 2023: EAA PDF
- Gaillard, Tahon, Urban, Brasseur and Gazengel, Is it possible to predict single cane reed mouthpiece interaction by measuring the reed alone?, Forum Acusticum 2025: EAA PDF
- Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel, Theoretical and experimental studies about single cane reeds: a review, Acta Acustica 8 (2024), source for the Munoz Arancon survey, Veselack 1979, Fuks and Sundberg 1999, Gazengel, Dalmont and Petiot 2016, Pinard, Laine and Vach 2003 and Kemp and Scavone 2020 figures: Acta Acustica full text
- Gazengel, Dalmont, Gaillard, Brasseur and Taillard, Characterization of single reed mouthpiece interaction in quasi-static regime, Acta Acustica 9 (2025): DOI 10.1051/aacus/2024082
- Obataya, Suitability of acetylated woods for clarinet reed, Journal of Wood Science 45 (1999): SpringerOpen PDF
- Karczewski, Potocka, De Tullio and Szymanowska-Pulka, The Physical and Mechanical Properties of Arundo donax (L.) Reeds Affect Their Acoustic Quality, Materials 18 (2025): MDPI
- Lee, Zhan, Trtik and Mannes, Moisture dynamics and ageing in clarinet reeds by neutron radiography, PLOS ONE 20 (2025): PMC full text
- Fuks and Sundberg, Blowing pressures in reed woodwind instruments, KTH TMH-QPSR 3/1996: KTH page
- Almeida, George, Smith and Wolfe, The clarinet: How blowing pressure, lip force, lip position and reed hardness affect pitch, sound level, and spectrum, JASA 134 (2013): UNSW reprint
- Almeida, Vergez and Causse, Quasistatic nonlinear characteristics of double-reed instruments, JASA 121 (2007): arXiv full text
- Ukshini and Dirckx, Objective characterization of saxophone mouthpiece playability, Applied Acoustics 206 (2023), University of Antwerp: repository PDF
- Yoshinaga, Soejima, Shoji, Miki, Yokoyama and Iida, Effects of the Bore Diameter on Oscillation Threshold Pressure and Tone Quality of Clarinet Mouthpieces, Forum Acusticum 2023: EAA PDF
- Tonetti and Piana, Imaging based saxophone reed modelling, Forum Acusticum 2025, University of Brescia: EAA PDF
- Druesedow, Survey of Clarinet Mouthpiece and Reed Preferences: Current Trends, Arizona State University 2021 (n=305): ASU PDF
- Pimentel, Exploring Synthetic Reeds, The Clarinet 52/3 (June 2025), International Clarinet Association: clarinet.org
- University of New South Wales Music Acoustics, Double reed acoustics: oboe, bassoon and others: UNSW page
- Data watch: the 30/40/30 reed-quality split is self-reported player experience from a survey in a 2017 thesis, read through the 2024 Acta Acustica review rather than the thesis itself; Gaillard, Koehl and Gazengel (Forum Acusticum 2023) phrase the same survey as about 30% very bad and only 30% good enough for a concert. The 45% stiffness loss (Kemp and Scavone 2020), the 2200 to 1800 Hz wetting shift (Pinard et al. 2003), the 1999 kPa ranges and the R = 0.99 compliance correlation were read in the 2024 review, not the paywalled originals. KTH 1996 pressures are in cm H2O from two players per instrument; the 1999 journal ranges in kPa were read only through the review, so the two sets should not be merged. Several measurements (Tonetti and Piana; Yoshinaga et al.) use one synthetic reed, so they describe mechanisms, not population averages. Synthetic-reed lifespans are vendor claims and are labeled as such; manufacturer strength comparison charts were left out because their values are published only as images. No peer-reviewed study we could read quantifies cross-brand strength equivalence directly.
Last updated: November 7, 2026. We update this roundup quarterly, and the next refresh is expected when the next Acta Acustica and Journal of the Acoustical Society of America single-reed measurement papers are published.