Klarinet Archive - Posting 000546.txt from 1998/03

From: Roger Shilcock <roger.shilcock@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: Scientific American Article
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 04:55:49 -0500

I think we need a litle more background info before most people consider a
material with, in effect, 95% "filler" as being plastic. It seems a LOT of
filler to me. "Reconstituted wood" would be a better description.
Roger Shilcock

On Fri, 6 Mar 1998, GTGallant wrote:

> Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1998 10:18:19 EST
> From: GTGallant <GTGallant@-----.com>
> Reply-To: klarinet@-----.us
> To: klarinet@-----.us
> Subject: Re: Scientific American Article
>
> In a message dated 98-03-06 09:48:32 EST, you write:
>
> << I
> consider this material to have the same acoustical qualities as a regual
> grenadilla wood clarinet. It is not plastic, but a material with some
> "life"
> in it. >>
>
> Ms. Klok -
>
> I understand you are in the business of selling instruments, but do not give
> the consumer misinformation. You can consider concrete wood if you like, but
> it will still be wood. The composite material you've "created" has been
> around for at least fifty years and is considerd a plastic by the plastics
> industry. Do not feel that you have to tell potential customers that the
> Greenline is still woodlike and not plastic. Physics and experimentation have
> proven that their is no discernable difference in sound to the listener and/or
> player between the two materials. I am already sold on the idea of plastic
> professional clarinets that resist extreme temperature changes.
> It takes time to convince players to change after years of tradition. When
> makers switched to using blackwood exclusively around 100 years ago, the "old
> school" claimed boxwood still had a sweeter and lovelier sound. Tell the
> consumer that plastic is the way to go and guarenteed, the flock will
> eventually follow.
>
>