Klarinet Archive - Posting 000061.txt from 2005/02

From: "Karl Krelove" <karlkrelove@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] loose barrel rings
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:39:27 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Hayden [mailto:haydenmusic@-----.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:44 AM
> Here's a question, if paper & glue was such a great fix or the proper
> way to tighten rings why doesn't the manufacturers use this procedure and
> then sell ring tightening paper or glue to make more profit?
> Something to
> think about.

I haven't really seen a defense in this thread of glue, which seems to me
like a dangerous fix because the ring may need to be removed one day and the
glue will make that difficult or impossible, depending on the glue.

Manufacturers don't use paper because they are geared to do as much by
machine as possible and using paper is hand work. Hand-fitting mass-produced
rings initially to mass-produced barrels or bells, given the variability in
each during a manufacturing run, would involve a prohibitive amount of time
which can be saved by a mechanical approach. And I don't doubt that a better
or at least tighter initial fit results from using a ring machine. But if I
have two loose rings on my reasonably well-humidified barrel and want to
keep them from sliding off, I don't see why paper shims applied carefully
around the entire circumference of the ring seat would have any effect on
cracking potential. Having see any number of very highly qualified techs use
this same method without apparently any bad experiences, I can't see what's
wrong with paper shims.

Karl Krelove

+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Jan 31 10:25:22 EST 2005 - end of day 10 - 103 donors |
| The 2005 Woodwind.Org Donation Drive is Underway. |
| Please visit http://secure.donax-us.com/donation for more |
| information. Help Keep the List Going! |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org
Sat Jan 29 11:56:46 EST 2005