Klarinet Archive - Posting 000347.txt from 2003/09

From: ormondtoby@-----.net (Ormondtoby Montoya)
Subj: [kl] Clarinet complexity (was: C clarinet intonation problems)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 21:22:23 -0400

Forest;

Nancy has now stated specific things which make Selmer not her favorite.
Hence this thread doesn't relate to her initial post any longer.

But I want to say one more thing about complexity as it relates to
clarinet manufacture. Let's remove the human being from this
discussion. Instead of talking about "plays right for me", let's talk
in terms of amplitudes measured by a meter. We won't ask whether the
resultant sounds are pleasing or not.

You wrote:

> The science of the clarinet is largely
> understood. The differences from one
> manufacturer to the other has more to do with
> the compromises decided upon by the design
> team, management and pressure from
> players.

Okay, if I wanted (say) the amplitude between the third and fifth
partials increased by 75% while affecting the third and fifth partials
by less than 10%, can a manufacturer offer a solution (without
trial-and-error experiments) or can a manufacturer tell us without
trial-and-error that it can't be done? Or is the problem too complex?

A clarinet may be a machine, but I doubt that we know enough about it
(yet?) to be certain of the answers to all physical questions that we
can ask. I know that I'm not saying anything new here, but it bothers
the heck out of me when I hear: "Be scientific / objective / whatever,
or your question is irrelevant" --- which was my **mistaken** (I admit
it) impression from the first two posts in Nancy's and Dan's thread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is supported by Woodwind.Org, http://www.woodwind.org/