 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-10-19 13:00
If materials "don't make a difference" in tone quality, than how can a thick walled clarinet vs a thin walled clarinet sound?
Shouldn't they be "identical"? (if materials don't affect due to the "walls not vibrating at all" than if the walls are thick, very thick, or thin it shouldn't make a difference).
So can it be said that materials do make a difference?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2004-10-19 13:03
So what proof is there that wall thickness makes a difference? Have you objective measurements on the resulting sound spectrum?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-10-19 13:32
I'm sorry, David, but you're speculating. You might be right, but there's no proof. It has been noted many times that the material does make a difference, but that difference is too small to be heard in most situations (the body of the tube does not vibrate sufficiently to make an audible difference if the wall thinkness is of some appreciable size, though I can't tell you what that size is).
It wouldn't be especially hard to prove, though:
1) Take a billet of some uniform material - perhaps the type of resin used for plastic clarinets; machine it to be a thick-walled tube with an ID of sufficient size to receive a mouthpiece. No tone holes are required.
2) Using a plastic reed on a mouthpiece & artificial embouchure, record the sound on a high-quality system. The air pressure in the artificial embouchure & air temp need to be measured. We don't care if it sounds good or bad - that's not the point of this test.
3) Remove the mouthpiece assembly, being careful to to move ligature or reed. Remove material on the OD of the tube.
4) Do step 2 ensuring same air pressure and temperature.
5) Repeat 3 - 4 until the tube is too thin to be of use.
6) Analyze results, both via spectral analysis & listening from observers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2004-10-19 14:58
There's a book called Clarinet Acoustics by O. Lee Gibson (out of print now) that has a lot of useful information along these lines. Thin or thick does make a difference. If you can get a copy of this book I highly recommend it for your library. It's something each serious student should read.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-10-19 15:00
One of our posters here on the BB has a fabulous collection of professional-quality metal clarinets, and I recently had the opportunity to play them, side-by-side with my own wooden clarinets. Most of the metals sounded as good as, or better, than my wooden ones, and I would bet you a week's pay that in a careful double-blind test, any group of musicians you could put together would be unable (statistically) to tell the metal clarinets from good wood ones just by the sound. Some of the metal clarinets had thin single walls, some had double walls with an air space in between. So you believe that variations in wall thickness of a wood clarinet make an audible difference? I sincerely doubt it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2004-10-19 15:06
I personally think material makes a big difference. The reason I think that is that non of the plastic (and every non-wood material) clarinet I've tried just didn't have the woody sound wooden clarinets have.
I forgot about it but I will now ask the teacher in my university about the material of the clarinet. She is a specialist in this field of how material of instruments affect its sound. I would dare say she is one of the most knowledgable people about this in the world.
Hope I find some answers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Morton
Date: 2004-10-19 15:19
This is interesting in light of the recent discussion about the effect of lacquer on saxophones - surely wall thickness (or a double wall) would have a greater effect than a coat of lacquer ...
I make metal fretted instruments in which the body material has an important influence on the tone, as well as the qualities of attack and sustain. The sounds of steel and brass and the effects of their thickness are distinctly different and easy to hear. (The sound is produced by an amplifying cone like a Victrola, so the metal body is only a resonating chamber.)
Therefore I am ready to believe wall thickness makes a difference - but I have no inclination to prove it! I'm as skeptical as the next person, and laugh out loud when someone describes how they can hear the difference between an ebony and a rosewood fingerboard ...
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-10-19 15:27
I personally am unwilling to take someone elses word for if it makes a difference or not unless I try the Clarinets myself.
Different playing abilities, ear sensitivity and player feel will vary greatly among individuals.
Not saying that I'm the best or worst player - but I'd need to try em myself to form an opinion.
And I haven't 
But it makes one wonder why Selmer makes the Recital Clarinets with such thick walls that it creates a clarinet which is so damn heavy that playing it without any support (leg or neckstrap) would almost guarantee injury for a heavy duty player.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-10-19 15:32
Brenda Siewert wrote:
> There's a book called Clarinet Acoustics by O. Lee Gibson
That book would not be my first choice in learning clarinet acoustics; any by Benade would be more rigorous and accurate.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-10-19 15:33
clarnibass wrote:
> I would dare say she is one of the most knowledgable
> people about this in the world.
Who is your teacher?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt Locker
Date: 2004-10-19 15:36
clarnibass:
I had a hard rubber Yvette (with a copper lining in the upper joint) that I felt was as beautiful & sweet sounding as my Yamaha SE-V (or other R13/Selmer/...) using the same mpc/reed combination that I use with the Yamaha. I didn't really like the feel of the keywork though & didn't need all the clarinets I had so I sold it. I sometimes regret that I did.
Why was it so sweet? I have my doubts that it was the rubber. More than likely it was everything else that made it a clarinet. Bore finish & consistency of that finish, bore dimensions, tone hole dimensions & shape, pad condition/type/clearance, and a host of other effects cause infinitely more tonal variation than the material used in the body of the instrument. The reason student plastic clarinets sound like they do is because they don't have the attention to details that pro wooden clarinets have. BTW, my Vitos have much rougher bores than either the Yamaha or the Yvette. I've considered doing an experiment with trying to get the bore as smooth as possible but am not yet willing to sacrifice a good clarinet if the experiment fails!
I really like Mark's experiment description - basically removing material working from the outside in. Even so, you'd also need to map the internal dimensions of the pipe after each operation to guarantee that as you are removing material from the exterior of the instrument that you aren't changing the shape of the resonating cavity through excessive heating or stress of the material.
MOO,
Matt
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2004-10-19 16:16
Her name is Dalia Cohen and she is a teacher (and a proffesor I think) of Acoustics and Instrument Theory (not sure of the correct name in English). She wrote several books and has done A LOT of research. I was taking her class (which was not really in depth because it was just a basic course about the subject) but had to leave in the middle. she talked breifly about each instrument and I missed the part about the clarinet. I remember how she explained that on violin for example the material of the back and front matter, but the side doesn't matter. on ud (spelling) the front material matters but the round thing doesn't matter. I hope she knows the same about the clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2004-10-19 16:28
I seem to say this very often, but many manufacturers suggest or state that the material does make a difference, and it would be sad if they of all people were so ignorant that they got a basic issue like that so wrong. The only explanation otherwise proffered is that they deliberately lie in their advertisements because that is what businesses do in advertisements. I find that a very unconvincing theory.
I would have thought material had a lower degree of effect than various other design factors, but until we see the manufacturers say that the material only matters as regards its properties of robustness, machinability, weight and so on, and does not impact directly on tone, then I will hold it a distinct possibility that the material has an affect which can be appreciated by the player and the listener. Ditto the thickness of walls etc.
A parallel:- Before yesterday there was no evidence accepted by the UK authorities that passive smoking damaged health. Yesterday a report was published that proved it definitely does, and to quite some extent. Things which many feel are true often lack scientific proof today, only to receive it tomorrow.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2004-10-19 16:40
Mark, You are probably right about your suggestion. Do you have a specific title in mind?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-10-19 17:09
Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics, 2nd edition, 1989, Oxford University Press
It's a bit dated now and there are some errors in his analyses in places (searching thru JASA titles will bring some of those up; other acoustical societies I'm sure have others) but a really good primer. You'll need to have covered advanced algebra to get though the equations.
http://members.aol.com/dspondike/mnr/mnrmusicog.html is a great listing of links to different places where research is being done.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2004-10-19 17:49
A thick-walled clarinet (like the Selmer Recital) will have longer tone hole chimneys than a thin-walled one. Benade says that tone hole shape has a strong effect on an instrument's sound, so I think it's likely that wall thickness will have an effect.
Walter Grabner (and, I suppose, Morrie Backun) make barrels with a non-cylindrical outer shape because they think (or know) that it makes a change, though Clark Fobes believes it is quite subtle. http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2000/10/000137.txt. Benade stuck lead tape on the outsides of barrels and noted a difference in sound. http://test.woodwind.org/Databases/Klarinet/2003/09/000581.txt.
Clark - what can you add?
Has anyone tried the lead tape experiment?
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-10-19 18:31
Some people continue to make analogies between clarinet wall vibrations and those of other instruments (e.g. saxophones and stringed instruments). But consider the ratio of wall thickness to diameter (or if you prefer, wall thickness to surface area) of these various instruments. The clarinet, compared to saxophones and most other brass instruments, and especially compared to stringed instruments, has a much greater wall thickness-to-surface area ratio than do the others. Now imagine a sounding board (or loudspeaker cone) that's only a couple of inches in length per side and is as thick as a clarinet body wall, trying to vibrate! Low-frequency vibrations would be non-existent because of the stiffness of this 'diaphragm', and high-frequency vibrations would be highly damped. This little mental experiment may help you convince yourself that wall vibrations in a clarinet should have little if any audible effect on the sound of the instrument as heard by a listener. Note that I leave the possiblility open that there may be a difference perceptible to the PLAYER, as some vibrations may yet be felt through the keywork by the fingers, or through the mouthpiece possibly into the mouth.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2004-10-19 18:40
I just cant resist jumping into this "warm" fire. I heartily endorse Mark C's suggestion of at least a "home-made" model's testing, AND Dee's suggestion of a frequency spectrum analysis [the energy distribution among the first few harmonics, which IMHO determines the bright/dark as we measure our sound, without the help of sophisticated instrumentation]. While the "advanced" Benade research/writings will be our "last words", in his simpler "Horns Strings & Harmony" the last chapter is devoted to [making] home-made insts, one of which is a clarinet !! Since I worked in research for many years, I think we should realize that to do a "satisfactory project" is prob. via several PHD-candidate's thesis investigations. Any takers ?? Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2004-10-19 19:05
A strange thought--but here it is--what about the shape of the inside of the player's mouth before it gets to the reed/mouthpiece?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2004-10-19 19:13
oh boy
one thing is for sure- metal and hard rubber clarinets dont BLOW OUT
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2004-10-19 19:21
(to be fair, i do actually beleive in the "blow out thing", but just that it's subtle changes to the instrument caused by the bore/joints changing over time, and that it doesn't happen to every instrument
)
i think a number of experiments similar to those suggested by Mark would be really really interesting- Marks experiment is a really good idea because the bore would stay the same. One using different tubes of various material would be less rigorous, but an interesting addition. And maybe an experiment that involved a tube that could play two notes....
One thing to take into account- when makers use different materials, they also use different design, so the fact that a metal clarinet and a wooden clarinet sound "the same" doesn't actually prove that the material makes no difference. Ken Shaw commented on the tone hole chimneys, which is rather more "on topic" here.... or at least addresses the question posed by DB
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-10-19 22:15
The height of the tone hole chimneys is (at least in theory) independent of the wall thickness of the body, at least on saxophones and metal clarinets in which the toneholes are often separate entities soldered in place, though nowadays on saxes they're gnerally drawn out of the brass body -- in other words, for any given body material /wall thickness, the manufacturer can pretty much make the tonehole chimney heights whatever he wants --- so these variables should be assessed independently. On thickwall clarinets toneholes are often recessed somewhat, effectively making the tonehole chimney shorter --- not necessarily the same height as the outer surface of the body.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jim lande
Date: 2004-10-20 02:37
Personally, I think that the mouth, mouthpiece, and reed make the biggest difference.
Last Saturday I was the other person in the room with Dave S. We played a ton of saxes and clarinets and a whole slew of mouthpieces that Dave had refinished. What a blast. My opinions on metal clarinets are well know. i love them. But I don't think they give me a different sound.
For accoustic blues jams I now carry a Silva Bet in A and a Penzel Muller double walled metal clarinet in Bb. The former now has an O'brien that Dave reworked inside and out. The clarinet has a smokey tone -- you can actually see the lights dim in the room and hear ice clinking in glasses. I Use a Fobes San Francisco on the Bb and get a nice bright tone. Since I don't know many licks, I want a pair of clarinets that sound so dissimilar that people think I must be playing something different. (Well, besides different wrong notes because the key has changed.)
Anyway, if I switch the mouthpieces, the sound switches. Sure, they don't completely reverse, but the Bb has the more sultry tone and the A becomes the brighter sounding horn.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-10-20 02:46
Absolutely - and I doubt anyone pretty much anywhere would argue with that statement. The Mouth, Mouthpiece and Reed do make the most difference.
But there are other factors which can/do/maybe yes/maybe no make a difference too no matter how small they may be.
Because a high level player deals in nuance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTS
Date: 2004-10-20 05:20
As far as the “Recital” is concerned, the tone holes chimneys are definitely longer than on an R-13. I doubt anyone would argue that tone holes don't effect the sound. Longer tone holes mean more options for undercutting, etc. Recitals have a small bore and a wider diameter than more standard models, unfortunately making them heavier. But if you like them, you will find a way to cope, many top notch players have. A side note, the Signatures have longer tone hole chimneys as well. The Sigs actually have tone hole inserts, so the tone holes are shaped separately from the rest of the body then glued in. Interesting Idea, but you can end up with leaky tone holes from time to time.
JTS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2004-10-20 08:12
This is like WMD: those who assert their existence will continue to believe, no matter how long the search proves negative.
Post Edited (2004-10-20 15:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-10-20 10:42
David wrote, "....On thickwall clarinets toneholes are often recessed somewhat, effectively making the tonehole chimney shorter --- not necessarily the same height as the outer surface of the body."
And some current Selmer models have tone holes that project considerably higher than the body in order to increase the tone hole length.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-10-20 10:46
For Marks suggested experiment, the ID would definitely need to be checked as the experiment progressed. There are likely to be stresses in the walls from the manufacturing/growing process, and as the OD is turned smaller these get relieved somewhat, having considerable potential to alter the ID.
I turned down a stainless steel tube once, from thick to thin wall, and after that lathe cut, the cross-section had changed to pear-shape, on account of the stresses in the seam of the tubing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oxfeely
Date: 2004-11-02 15:21
All these threads and posts with people asking for proof. . .
I don't remember, when I was 10 and a clarinet student, mocking my clarinet teacher's practical experience and demanding clinical proofs.
Such an approach is a guise for extreme closed-mindedness, and really is quite foolish. Don't wait for illusionary "proofs" in any Art - simply test and try for yourself. You'll quickly find your own way, but likely will be aided by the findings of other players.
Go for it with heart and soul, and not "science-lite"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-11-02 17:44
oxfeely,
Demanding proof (or, more correctly, evidence) that something produces a certain effect is hardly closed-mindedness --- quite the opposite --- it is the essence of the scientific method, and without the scientific method we'd still be living in caves mixing potions, doing rain-dances and generally being at the complete mercy of the universe.
The subjective nature of Art does not exclude objectivity; it supplements objective reality with individual interpretation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2004-11-02 22:47
Proof? Science? Who needs ‘em?
It’s obvious to anyone who looks that the sun and the heavens revolve around the Earth. It was established many years ago that everything is composed of four elements. And that sacrifices influence the weather. And everybody knows that disease is caused by evil spirits. And that Earth is 7000 years old. And Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And clarinet body material effects sound.
Let the elders pass down knowledge and cursed be they who dare challenge such wisdom!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-11-02 23:03
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> There are things which science can and can't measure.
Or more accurately, things that science can't yet measure. But those are a lot more esoteric than what we're talking about here.
Now, if your meaning is those things that science can measure but can't interpret the same way as our senses "misinterpret" them (similar to the misinterpretation of the apparent size of the moon near the horizon), then science has to resort to logical explanations, since the measurement doesn't jibe with our perception. Many times our perceptions are flawed, but they're "our" perceptions nonetheless and deserve thoughtful explanation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-11-03 12:02
I would tend to lean in the science is right direction. However, there are also factors which have to be taken into account.
If I feel that all plastic clarinets don't have the tone of wooden clarinets it is that there aren't plastic clarinets which are made comparable to the wooden ones. So even though it isn't a fair measurement, it is what it is.
So if a plastic clarinet was made exactly the same as a buffet prestige (for example) asto the measurements, etc, etc so that the only difference would be the materials then it would be a fair and accurate test to see if there was a difference at all in sound, feel, etc.
But since there aren't any, ya got to go with what is available. So there is no science involved because there isn't a valid test of the 2.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-11-03 13:42
WOW...this thread should be required reading and I'm saving it for more thorough study. I still have a clarinet with a brass liner and it sounds great..but like the other poster find the keywork rather tacky. I've also compared metal,wood and plastic clarinets in my collection and can detect similarities and differences in sound. But....I do not jump to the conclusion that the differences are due to the material of construction. There are so many variables involved as to boggle one's mind. Seeing and hearing are not the same, but I still like a simple experiment one astronomy professor used: "Is a penny round or not? Hold it up with Lincoln facing you and it's round. Hold it on edge and it's a line. Which is it? It's so easy to jump to conclusions.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2004-11-03 13:50
“So if a plastic clarinet was made exactly the same… But since there aren't any…”
But there is such an instrument. The Buffet Greenline is an R13 made out of wood-filled resin. According to Buffet's website:
"The Green Line clarinets benefit from the same level of finishing level as wooden clarinets with all the qualities which have built the fine reputation of BUFFET CRAMPON."
Also according to Buffet's website,
"Many soloists, musicians of symphonic or military Orchestras around the world have chosen to play Green line clarinets”
Buffet charges a premium for the Greenline. I guess we’ll just have to inform those misguided Greenline players that their instruments sound inferior.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-11-03 14:45
I tried them about 5 years ago and wasn't impressed. Same for one of the Phila. Orchestra members who is quite a known teacher and player.
I recall that the "feel" wasn't good for me. Tone wise I can make anything sound good as that is my sound concept not the instrument.
but how good, etc..........
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: oxfeely
Date: 2004-11-04 07:06
PhatCat, you wrote:
"Buffet charges a premium for the Greenline. I guess we’ll just have to inform those misguided Greenline players that their instruments sound inferior."
The players that play greenline like the sound. They are aware that it is slightly different. Inferior?? That's your evaluation, not theirs.
When you tried the greenline, how did it sound and feel to you? Do you like them?
Post Edited (2004-11-04 07:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: OpusII
Date: 2004-11-04 07:33
I've tried the RC greenline's, and found them different from the regular RC. The wood of the bore was so smooth, that the resistant/sound felt different because of it. I also found them to vibrate less than a wooden clarinet...
I know there isn't any proof of the difference, maybe it's only between my ears.... but if there is a difference and it could be measured....wouldn't that be great? Finally we could al sleep again ![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2004-11-04 11:39
If the Buffet web site is going to be quoted we should not ignore the statement that greenline "has the same acoustic qualities as ebony." There is nothing ambiguous about that statement. So, it is either deliberately misleading (as no material in this context has an acoustical quality as such), or Buffet are ignorant of basic acoustic science, or that science is questionable. Take your pick.
This reminds me of the hi-fi debate concerning speaker cables and interconnects. The scientists repeatedly said that the various different products conveyed the same sound quality, and the only thing that gave us the feeling that they affected the sound was our own misperceptions. But if the very audible (sometimes painfully so) differences between these cables were really a matter of my perception then I can only say I doubt that my perception that this bulletin board even exists can be trusted; nor indeed the impression I have that I actually woke up this morning.
What science has not yet explained almost certainly far exceeds what it has as yet effectively and accurately explained.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-11-05 02:21
This reminds me of the hi-fi debate concerning speaker cables and interconnects. The scientists repeatedly said that the various different products conveyed the same sound quality, and the only thing that gave us the feeling that they affected the sound was our own misperceptions. But if the very audible (sometimes painfully so) differences between these cables were really a matter of my perception then I can only say I doubt that my perception that this bulletin board even exists can be trusted; nor indeed the impression I have that I actually woke up this morning.
---------------------------------------------------
Are they debating cables that cost only $100 or ones that cost $2000?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2004-11-05 02:54
This has become too mystical for me. I gotta go do some Baermann III to cleanse my brain of metaphysical goo.
Over and out.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Stepan
Date: 2004-11-06 18:59
I know just a little about physics,
but I think that the things affecting sound are these in decreasing importancy:
1) Dimensions of a clarinet and mouthpiece, material and dimensions (cut) of the reed and the way it is pressed by a lip.
2) Material of clarinet affecting reflections of the sound in the bore, because each material has different spectal reflectivity. (?)
3) Vibration of the body, affected by the thickness of the walls and material. It surely exists but God knows if it is audible.
I am convinced, that two clarinets with just one different paremeter, the thick of the wall, would be (almost?) undistinguishable.
Stepan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-11-06 20:49
Regarding the effects of the material of the body. Forgive me if I am wrong.... I am no acoustician. (Hence the lack of acousticians' jargon!)
The function of the clarinet body is to contain an air column. It needs rigidity to do this. The rigidity of both thick, dense timber, and thin metal , and thick plastic are higher than they need to be to fulfil this function adequately.
When we play, the slow, steady air flow THROUGH the instrument is irrelevant. It is merely a byproduct of the means by which we create the vibration of the reed. Good to get that out of the way.
When we play, we set up a "standing' wave in the defined air column. In simple terms, this means that in some locations more than others, the air PRESSURE within the air column rapidly oscillates. This is easily understandable at the top end of the air column, because the reed is repeatedly slapping the top of the air column, each time increasing the localised pressure. The other end of the standing wave behaves similarly, in sinc with the upper end. More about this lower end soon...
The length of this standing wave is determined (in a somewhat complex way) by the tone holes that are closed or open, the diameter and length of the open tone holes, the undercutting of tone holes, etc. This is not relevant to the rest of this epistle. The length determines the PITCH of the note, but this epistle is about AMPLITUDE.
When we connect the lower end of the standing wave to the outside air via a tone hole (or the end of the instrument in the case of E/B) The following occurs.... When the pressure is momentarily high in the bore - i.e. within the standing wave - there is a rush of air out of the tone hole to the outside air. Likewise, when the pressure in the bore is momentarily lower, there is a rush of outside air into the bore. All this in the air's 'attempt' to equalise pressures. This rushing of air in and out of tone holes (in sync with the vibrating of the reed) is similar to the rushing of air (in a fast oscillating fashion) produced by the timber at the front of a cello, or the cone of a speaker.
With the cello or speaker cone, one can see the AMPLITUDE of this air movement. It is the same as the amplitude of movement of he cello timber or the speaker cone, which can be seen. It is quite significant. (More about this very soon....) Likewise, if you hold a thin strip of cigarette paper at an open tone hole of a clarinet, you can see the extent of the air oscillation. It is only at such a tone hole that the viola, the speaker cone, and the clarinet begin to behave the same, The oscillation instigates a TRAVELLING wave (keeping the terminology simple here) outside the instrument. It is this TRAVELLING wave that crosses the air space to our ears, and sets our ear drums into vibration, which we interpret as sound.
We don't hear the standing wave. The tone hole converts the standing wave into a travelling wave, which we do hear.
Back to the AMPLITUDE.....
This amplitude (i.e. how far the particles travel during each vibration) represents the VOLUME of a note. Furthermore, the relative amplitude of the overtones of the note, determine the tone (timbre) of the note.
Now, working towards the relevance of the wall material, remembering that it is merely a container of the air column.... The pressure changes within the bore, already discussed, also have an effect on the timber container. When the pressure is momentarily high, it presses out on the timber/plastic/metal, momentarily very slightly stretching the solid material, ever so slightly out. We could say that this slightly enlarges the bore (although it is likely to be somewhat more complicated than that) The timber returns (another simplification to keep it simple) when the pressure in the bore is at a momentary low.
Hence we have not only the air rushing in and out of tone holes, but also the timber set into vibration, 'rushing' out and in. Sometimes we can feel this with our fingers.
However, the amplitude of air oscillation, and the amplitude of the oscillation of the timber are very different in amplitude, which is determined by the density and 'springiness', etc of the material. To address the difference in great depth would involve very complicated science and maths, but we can get some idea of the difference with the knowledge that the density of the timber is roughly 800 times less than that of air. The amplitude of vibration of the timber will be very, very small compared with the amplitude of vibration of the air in the tone hole.
The vibration of the timber contributes to the sound in two ways. One is some extremely small 'feedback' alteration to the air pressure in the bore, which in turn, eventually turns into a tiny effect on the wave that gets to our ears. The second is that the vibration of the inside of the timber wall - i.e. adjacent to the bore - creates a travelling wave through the timber wall, eventually creating a travelling wave through the air.
The important point is that these effects created by the vibrating timber are only as great as its AMPLITUDE of vibration. Remember amplitude is volume. The amplitude of vibration of the timber is minute, so the amplitude fed back into the air from the timber is also minute compared with the amplitude originally in the air. Therefore the effect of the timber is minute, perhaps contributing 1/800th (or maybe a lot less) of the effects that the player/reed etc imparted originally in the standing wave.
For those who consider this discussion to be far too theoretical, the assertions have been backed up by quite a few CONTROLLED experiments that demonstrate that the nature of the container of the air column is insignificant to the sound produced, providing the container is sufficiently rigid to adequately contain/define the air column, and the surface inside the bore is similar in roughness.
Now we can talk about the effects of replacing the timber with plastic or composite material. The density is similar, the springiness is reasonably similar. We are making very minute changes to the containing ability of the material. We are making very little difference to the amplitude of its vibration. We are therefore making very little difference to what is already insignificant.
These insignificant factors are extremely small compared with the huge factors of player input, and psychological effects operating within the player - "I believe something is better, so I will make it better", or "the sensation of vibration in my fingers makes me feel that the sound is better, and my finger nerves are talking to my ears, such that I hear a better sound", etc.
Any IMAGINED tone change can be very real indeed to the player, and good players are perfectly able to respond by activating changes to the easily-altered parameters (air pressure, embouchure, etc), to make a change actually happen. Such is the well-proven power of the mind to deceive itself. I have frequently alluded to how our minds can deceive themselves with optical illusions, even when they KNOW they are being deceived.
A course in positive thinking would probably have more effect on perceived tone, and even real tone, than the wall material or wall thickness.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
