Klarinet Archive - Posting 000576.txt from 2000/08

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausmann1@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] taking up the clarinet again
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 23:50:34 -0400

At 03:22 PM 8/19/2000 -0700, William Wright wrote:
> I'm looking at the bottom joints of my plastic Yamaha and my
>instructor's wood Howarth as I type.
> Of course, each hole with a ring has a 'tube' rising up from the
>joint itself, and the (properly adjusted) ring allows my finger to push
>the ring down sufficiently that the flesh of my finger seals 100%
>against the upper surface of the 'tube'.
> So far as I can see, the location and diameter of each hole, and
>the wall thickness of each 'tube', is identical for every hole of each
>instrument _EXCEPT_ for the G finger hole (right hand) -- which
>happens to be the hole that gives me trouble because working my right
>pinkie causes my fourth finger to slide upwards just a fraction and
>thereby uncover a bit of the G finger hole.
> On the Howarth, the wall thickness of G finger hole 'tube' is
>noticeably less thick (perhaps 50% as thick) as all the other 'tubes' on
>either instrument, and therefore this particular 'tube' offers less
>surface area in contact with the flesh of my finger. Hence the G hole
>is less "forgiving" of proper finger placement.
>
> Right now, I wish I had half-a-dozen other pro wood clarinets so
>that I could see whether this is an unusual situation? Or is it the
>norm for pro instruments, and Yamaha's student horn has a thicker wall
>just to help beginners?
> Whether you want to use the adjective "forgiving" or just
>"different" is a semantic issue, I suppose. But the physical difference
>is very real, now that I inspect the two instruments carefully.
>
Of course, you are comparing apples and oranges when dealing with
instruments from two different manufacturers. While we would, I'm sure,
LIKE to believe that manufacturers go out of their way to design student
clarinets to be especially forgiving, I really think they are much to lazy
and cheap to do. In fact, my own observation suggests that their plastic
clarinets are generally just that -- identical versions of their wood
horns, but molded in plastic intead. This would apply to the YCL-20/34,
Noblet/Vito, Selmer 1401 (Bundy 577)/Selmer 100 at the very least. For
example, even the top version of that Selmer USA clarinet design, the
Selmer Omega MG295, has exactly the same .577 bore design and keywork,
albeit silver-plated, as the lowly Bundy. The Selmer 1400 has fallen into
disfavor somewhat, in part because, with it's large .590 bore (based on the
Centered Tone) and correspondingly large tone holes, it is more difficult
for young fingers to cover them. Their lastest models, the CL300 and
CL200/210/220 also share their design but with a smaller .573 bore. Both
of the smaller-bore designs have undercut toneholes, which are smaller at
the top.

I may have gotten carried away, but the point is that design is the main
key here. If the designer wanted thinner chimneys so he could enlarge the
tone hole while keeping the ring size the same, that's what he would do,
whether the clarinet was wood, plastic, or wood with plastic tone hole
inserts. Intuitively, I would think the thinner wall would seal just as
well anyway, because it would sink into the finger deeper. Just make sure
the ring heights are adjusted correctly!

Bill Hausmann NEW ADDRESS: bhausmann1@-----.com
451 Old Orchard Drive http://homepages.go.com/~zoot14/zoot14.html
Essexville, MI 48732 ICQ UIN 4862265

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is too loud.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org