Klarinet Archive - Posting 000922.txt from 2003/03

From: Elgenubi@-----.com
Subj: [kl] Cylinders vs. Cones
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2003 13:26:47 -0500

This is a great discussion!
Some brief points, while I wait for my dessicated bassoon reed to soak,
before I jam it into my clarinet.......
*I understand science, and am pretty good at math, but I have never
understood why a clarinet overblows the 12th. For all the reasons discussed
already, there is no one line explanation. I understand that 1st order
theory says the cylindrical bore, closed at one end should overblow the 12th,
yet Dan Leeson says anecdotedly that it overblows the octave.
*I have always assumed that one day I'd read Bonade and get a handle on the
2nd order issues that must be having an influence.
*You all are working the problem. This is good.
*One issue you are all beginning to address is the definition of a cone and
cylinder. Intuitively, I would say that a clarinet is a cylinder 1st order,
irrespective of the minor cones and 'polycylindrical bores' and varying bell
shapes. And I would say that flutes are cylinders, too, irrespective of the
fact that some are made with slight cones and that some are not. The
definition of a cone is a shape that terminates in an infinitely small point;
oboes and saxophones really do seem like cones; their reeds and mouthpieces
seem to me to be quite small with respect to the end of their bores.
*My bassoon reed is probably ready; I'll report back in a bit. For now I'll
state my hypothesis; and I'm sorry that it is not a clean one. I believe
that I'll find the fundamentals and overtones to be funky and unclear. I
believe that I will have a system that is not clearly a cylinder or a cone
and that the exact setup will be extremely critical. More scientifically, I
think I will end up wishing for a spectrum analyzer to quantitatively measure
harmonic content.

Wayne Thompson

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