Klarinet Archive - Posting 000547.txt from 1997/09

From: Roger Garrett <rgarrett@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: Clarinet material
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:24:37 -0400

On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Jonathan Cohler wrote:

> Contacting Yamaha, Bach or Monty Python doesn't change the laws of physics.

You quoted a study/research done in 1971 as the laws of
physics...however....when another set of research is suggested that might
alter those findings (results?)......they are no good. Sounds like you
use only those findings that support what you believe.

> > Professional brass
> >players remove laquer from their horns all the time....that is considered
> >a material. The concept that the material has nothing to do with the way
> >vibrations occur is absurd!
>
> You need to study more physics and acoustics before making such sweeping
> declarations.

Notice the lack of comment regarding what I said here? Rather than deal
with fact, Jonathan accuses me of not knowing enough about physics.

> Not unless the surface is rough. The shape of the bore is what matters.

According to your study and unnamed textbooks.....which textbook says it
can't be smooth? Are there varying degrees of rough and smooth? An oiled
wood surface, a metal surface, a glass surface, we could go on and on.
The word rough is fairly general for a statement against materials!

> > This is precisely why Bach and Yamaha
> >manufacture horn with varying thicknesses of bell and leadpipe....note..I
> >did not say bore size, I refer to thickness of the material itself.
>
> That may be the reason that they state. But marketing hype and reality are
> very different things.

This seems to be a favorite statement.....marketing hype, etc. whenever
you do not have an answer. I took our "discussion" to the instrumental
faculty here at my school as well as another school across town (don't
want to name them!), and the brass players are 100% in agreement that the
material and thickness absolutely affect the resistance of the air in the
horn. Beyond that, the idea that it is all "hype" resulted in many
laughs. All I can say is that you tend to apply your narrow studies to an
area which is not supported entirely by the textbook. You simply are not
convincing! Just because you say "Untrue......you need to know more about
the laws of physics" doesn't prove your position. Sorry....that's the way
it is!

Roger Garrett

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org