Klarinet Archive - Posting 000781.txt from 2000/08

From: "Rien Stein" <rstein@-----.nl>
Subj: [kl] Re: Plastic, wood and the G hole
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000 18:16:39 -0400

------@-----.BD1FCDC0
charset="iso-8859-1"

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000 17:52:13 -0700 (PDT) William Wright wrote

>>
An interesting demonstration would be to set up a machine that
produces a tone by blowing into a simple tube of some sort. Because of
its simplicity, the tube could be replicated in various materials, and
presumably the machine would blow in a repeatable manner.
<<

In my opinion, this would not be the best test. A better test would be, =
to make a few instruments with exactly the same (inner) dimensions, but, =
allowing for mechanical properties, with different material thicknesses, =
and also from different materials like wood, plastic or metal, and to =
have them played the way William suggested. The human hearing is so fine =
it can hear sounds that require an air displacement less than an atoms =
size. So a better test would be to both have the sound measured and =
analysed by the most sensitive apparatuses available, and judged by =
humans. As not everyone has the acuteness of hearing Mozart (WA) had, of =
course it would be advisable to use the well-trained ears of =
professional musicians, not from the popscene, but chamber music =
players, I'd say. When someone isn't able to hear the difference between =
viola and violin, or bassethorn and soprano- or bass clarinet he would =
not be fit for the test.

But then, if only those well-trained people can hear the differences, =
are they worth while all the troubles and costs for the average person? =
IMHO the main aspects of how a clarinet or saxophone "feels" are decided =
by the reed and mpc, the weight you have resting on your thumb, and the =
ease with which you can handle the fingerings: how hard to press, the =
accessibility of the holes and keys, that kind of things. Maybe research =
could also take these things into account?

Rien

------@-----.BD1FCDC0--