 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: malibu
Date: 2004-04-26 22:44
I have only been playing the clarinet for 3-4 years. I've been playing a generic plastic mold, and am wondering: does material (wood, plastic, grenadilla) make a large difference in the playability and tone of an instrument? And if so, what causes the difference? I would appreciate any information I could get on this topic and also what a smart buy would be for an intermediate player.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-04-26 23:12
From all the semi-reliable information I have encountered on the topic, it seems that the material is probably irrelevant.
What IS relevant is many aspects of acoustic design - bore (shape and surface finish), tone holes (placement, diameter and height), etc.
With a high quality instrument the maker is more likely to attend more to these details. Most high quality instruments are made from timber because of market forces. This is slowly beginning to change.
The DIS-advantages of timber are significant. Makers have hardly begun to utilise the large range of modern materials available today, and there is likely to be an explosion of new materials available to manufacturers in the near future.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2004-04-26 23:28
There is an amount of conjecture on this subject. There is, in general, nothing wrong with some sort of non wood product being used to make instruments. The main proviso, however, being that the density/weight etc. is similar to or the same as the wood that would normally be used. The original 'substitute' product was, in fact, hard rubber similar to the material that most high quality non metallic mouthpieces were made from. In the first instance these rubber instruments were no cheaper than wood and, in fact, probably more expensive. Boosey & Co and later Boosey & Hawkes made the Imperial model 926 out of both materials the rubber models being designed for use in extreme weather.
Most moder 'plastic' clarinets are made of some sort of ABS (the full chemical name has gone out of my head for the momeny but a quick search of Sneezy will get you the answer). They generally feel inferior to wooden instruments for a couple of reasons. The ABS material seems to be lighter, I must qualify that I haven't bothered weighing anything, and consequently less dense allowing sound to penetrate the body walls more than it should. The other issue is that of overall quality level. Everything has its price and he less you pay the lesser the quality. Most plastic clarinets are in the lower price ranges and suffer from a certain cheapness of design, construction and quality control. Another option is the composite body which is made of a wood powder bound with a plastic or epoxy material. Examples are the Greenline series made by Buffet and both the Oehler and Boehm systems made by F.K. Roedel in Germany. The Greenline, at least, suffers from some structural weakness. Professional level plastic instruments are made by Fox Bassoons and are designed for extreme climates. The professional, plastic, Fox bassoon is a top class instrument.
There is some debate as to whether the body material should, or does, have any accoustic effect at all. This argument is put by Joe Wolf, an Associate Professor in Physics, Oboist, English Hornist, Saxophonist and Composer. His website is available at <www.unsw.edu.au> and the department is Physics and the website is concerned with musical accoustics. Joe does not believe that the material that the body of a clarinet is made out of has no accoustical effect. Many disagree.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-04-27 02:04
It seems that you refer to the reference at the end of
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/clarinetacoustics.html
to
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/musFAQ.html#materials, written by Wolf.
"....In wind instruments, the materials are of much less importance, provided that they are sufficiently rigid. In common brass and woodwind instruments, the walls radiate at most a very small fraction of the total sound.........."
Sure, the material has a minute theoretical effect, but Wolf's statement is open to interpretation. He does not deny that the effect may be insignificant to the point of irrelevance, as many acousticians believe (and calculate).
He reports the controlled study done on flute materials - and flute players make more of a deal here than clarinetists do - and seems to accept the findings without question.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-04-27 14:29
Data points:
My hard rubber Kohlert bass clarinet sounds essentially identical to my wood Kohlert bass clarinet.
My hard rubber M. Lacroix Eb clarinet sounds indistinguishable from a good wood eefer.
My metal Moennig Bros. Bb clarinet has fooled other players who thought it sounded like wood until they looked at it.
Etc.
Design and quality of construction are 99.5% --- material choice may be the remaining 0.5%, if that much.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-04-27 14:45
Acronitrile-Butadiene-Styrene is what Yamaha claims to use(Mark!). I do take issue with claims made by some that "plastic" instruments won't crack since I've seen a number of them with broken sections. Granted that plastic horns may not develop the kind of longitudinal "crack" that wood horns can develop but plastic will break. The main production problem with molded articles is the presence of unbalanced stresses during cooling and this has led to the molding of "billets" which are then machined. But machining of plastics causes stresses too. But to address your post: If you play a generic molded plastic horn for 20 years you will probably sound as good as someone who played a wood horn for same length of time!! The posts above mine pretty much tell the story.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2004-04-27 15:19
For many years, early in my playing career, I fooled many professional "ears" who were quite surprised to discover that my clarinet was really a Bundy Resonite. My secret?--an idea of what I wanted to sound like and a great HS** Selmer mouthpiece, which I still have, but no longer use. And, up ontil a couple of years ago, I played many a professional wind ensemble and orchestral "gig" on my Bundy bass clarinet. So I do not think that "wood" necessarily sounds better than plastic, or metal. It's just that wood clarinets are manufactured to finer control specifications and as a result, they play and tune better. With todays production technology, there is no real reason why someone could not manufacture a metal clarinet that would play as nicely as a wood. But then, we would probably argue about titanium versus gold, versus platinum, and so on........clarinetists will probably always agree to disagree.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-04-27 15:47
I disagree with William about agreeing to disagree, although I agree that clarinettists often disagree without actually agreeing to do so......
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2004-04-27 15:54
Until there is definitive evidence from a controlled experiment that demonstrates a measurable difference in the sound produced by different body materials, the argument is no different than sports call-in shows.
In case anyone doubts William’s point that clarinetists would argue over titanium vs, gold etc., just check what flutists pay for silver plated vs, solid silver vs. gold plated vs. solid gold vs. platinum. And of course there are "authentic" wood flutes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2004-04-27 16:16
Theobald Boehm, who among other things was a rather renowned metallurgist, made a study which concluded that silver is the best material for a flute. This was based on tone and "player fatigue."
Top-level flautists have been arguing over that with their purchases ever since.
I once believed that a Clarinet made from a length of garden hose could be made to have a sound indistinguishable from wood. Having reviewed Clarinet acoustics with a more critical eye, it now seems rather certain that a more elastic tube is needed (i. e., one which transmits vibrations better).
Regards,
John
who plays 90% on a V-40, genuine plastic
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-04-27 16:38
John, you're confusing 'elasticity' (spring rate or ability to deform and return to original shape) with low 'damping' (damping is the conversion of vibrational energy to heat) --- a garden hose is very elastic, but tends to have high damping, at least over a certain frequency range. But we've had this discussion a million times --- nobody on this BB has the background to properly and clearly explain the physics in question, so let's not go there again. A complete and proper set of empirical experiments has never been performed, nor are such experiments likely to be done without a large financial grant. So let's just all offer our own anecdotal experiences and unsupported non-scientific intuitions, and deal with the issue on that level.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: martind
Date: 2004-04-27 18:15
If there are any acoustic experts that could address this subject it would have to include Lee Gibson, NTSU and Bill Stubbins, U/Mich publications.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-04-27 22:14
Please, don't get me going on the O. Lee Gibson book again --- it is anything BUT acoustics science. Try Arthur Benade for starters. The few things Gibson gets right in his book are those he quoted from Benade.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2004-04-27 22:17
(Disclaimer - I sell a new student plastic clarinet) I am not an acoustics expert but my recent practical experience with ABS plastic clarinets has pretty much convinced me that the size, shape, placement, finishing (e.g. undercutting) of the tone holes has a tremendous amount to do with the frequency spectrum (tone) of a note produced. The total sound frequency produced by the clarinet has many components and the material of the body (as well as all the other parts) play some role, but minor IMHO to the tone hole variables.
The Doctor
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2004-04-28 00:26
David: Sorry my post was in error. You are correct, of course, in that some highly elastic materials can provide very high damping... no good for the purpose.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-04-28 13:46
In my haste to impress everyone with my intelligence I mis-spelled the "A" part of ABS.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Pinner
Date: 2004-04-29 10:48
My can opener is wearing out. I just keep oopening these cans of worms. For those that haven't met Joe Wolf, he is a top guy and not as pragmatic in person as it may seem from his web site. He also plays on a wooden cor and oboe. I noticed the proviso that Gordon cited. Especially the "suffiently rigid" bit. If somebody could define adequately define "suffiently rigid" then we would be getting somewhere.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pete
Date: 2004-04-29 13:14
Take many high end wood bassoons.
You play into a metal bocal. The joints are lined all the way to the boot where you have a brass U tube. Most of the tone holes are lined.
After leaving the U tube, many fine instruments are lined up until the bell section.
The only thing the wood is doing is holding on the keys.
Emerson Musical Instrument Repair
North East Wisconsin Band Instrument Co.
ToneLure Tone Enhancement
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: saxlite
Date: 2004-04-30 22:53
Just had the pleasure of visiting Tom Ridenour at his workshop in Dallas. (For those of you who don't know, for years Tom was the chief clarinet designer at LeBlanc- most of LeBlanc's current models were designed by Tom.)
Tom played his model 147 Bb clarinet for me- it had the roundest tone I have ever heard from any clarinet-certainly the equal of any of the "Big Four". And it was made of HARD RUBBER! Tom stated that it was the acoustic design that was important-and that he chose hard rubber mostly because it held its dimensions better over time than the other materials, while having acoustic properties similar enough to grenadilla. As far as I am concerned, I am now a believer- I'm getting one! (My other clarinets are a Selmer CT and a 10SII).....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-04-30 23:59
I am of the same thought as Dave Spiegelthal above. I do notice SLIGHT differences in tones between a good clarinet in two different materials, but that also could be accoustical.
One incident was between deciding between an Amati 604 (grenedilla) and the Mopani wood amati clarinet. Both sounded great to me. But I thought (maybe it was only in the mind. I'll never know) that I heard a difference in tone. Both sounded good, but one had a slightly different 'quality' to it than the other. I decided that I liked the grenedilla better.
And many people also say that there is a noticeable difference between a rosewood and a grenedilla clarinet. Also, Walter Grabner offers three different barrels (delrin, cocobola, and grenedilla) and says that each one imparts a different sound (cocobola being one of the more popular choices for looks/sound among his customers).
So I feel that accoustic design is the #1 thing to look for in a clarinet. But that the material of the clarinet DOES make some sort of impact on the tone and it's colour.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
