Klarinet Archive - Posting 000921.txt from 2003/03

From: Tony@-----.uk (Tony Pay)
Subj: [kl] The spherical barrel
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:12:16 -0500

On Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:41:55 -0800 (PST), b1rite@-----.net said:

> Tony Pay wrote:
>
> > the sort of thing that a 'much too large' barrel does
>
> Tony, I **do** recognize that this is the major 'defect' in a ping pong
> ball experiment. It would simultaneously alter both the instrument's
> length and its volume, which would change the tone hole relationships
> and so forth.

Well, it's not so much that. The thing is that a barrel with anything
like a spherical interior just doesn't work *at all*.

> I **have** learned, first hand, how much difference it made when I
> changed the 'exit hole' diameter in my spherical bell by only 0.2 mm.
> (I did this since you played it.) So something as gross as
> substituting a ping pong ball for the barrel would be disastrous, I'm
> sure.

Yup.

> What I'm after is some sort of curve that replaces a straight-line taper
> along the instrument's axis. I'm misusing the term "spherical". For
> example, my "spherical bell" isn't truly a sphere either, although it's
> close. Perhaps I should be saying "an very oblate ellipsoid with the
> ends sliced off" ?
>
> The bell and barrel have different purposes, of course.

I tried to think of some analogy that would convey how different they
are; but in the end, I think you need to make yourself some sort of
barrel that isn't essentially, a cylinder (slightly conical barrels are
'essentially cylinders') so that you have a direct experience of quite
the sort of gum tree you're climbing up.

> I've been told that, mathematically, the bell replaces an infinitely
> long cylinder, whereas the barrel is not a substitute for an
> impractically long physical object.
>
> I've also read (as best I can) the section of Benade that discuss the
> value of restrictions in overcoming various problems (especially
> flutes). It may be that in order to maintain the correct volume &
> length relationships, a restriction of some sort would be necessary in
> the "very oblate ellipsoid" barrel.
>
> I'm really sorry, Tony, that this topic angers you so much.

It makes me cross because your going on about this particular thing
gives the impression that you're a fool, which I know you're not.

> I'm not trying to be confrontational or 'sacrilegious' (in the same
> sense that punk rockers sometimes go overboard and destroy their music
> just in order to portray their defiance). If there were a simple way
> for me to crank out experimental barrels myself, I would do so.
>
> In fact, I **did** make the 0.2 mm adjustment to my bulbous bell with
> the American equivalent of blutak first, and then Curtis Ferree machined
> the final part for me out of Delrin. (It goes without saying that all
> my tool purchases, which unfortunately aren't many, come from Feree's
> now. He's really a first class source of tools. Shameless plug.)
>
> So my apologies for offending you (or anyone else). But I'm not
> willing to give up on the idea until after I've tried it under
> conditions that aren't obviously self-defeating.

OK. I still think you could modify, say, one of those 35mm film
containers, or something else kicking about in US culture, that would
convince you.

> When all is said and done, I **enjoy** the sound of my bulbous bell and
> I seldom play with a flared bell any longer. A symphony orchestra
> would never hire me (regardless of which bell I put on my instrument,
> actually), but I play music for the pleasure of the sounds, not as a
> career.

The bell is something different.

> Peace, and I'll shut up about it?

It always was essentially peace, Bill:-)

Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE http://classicalplus.gmn.com/artists
tel/fax 01865 553339

.... The President has kept all of the promises he intended to keep.

---------------------------------------------------------------------