 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: dim
Date: 2008-08-23 04:50
What is the differences between Polycylindrical and Cylindrical clarinet bore??
What is the sound character of its bore and which is the best??
I see on specification of top line Yamaha clarinet use Cylindrical bore and many others brand use polycylindrical bore.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-08-23 14:30
"What is the differences between Polycylindrical and Cylindrical clarinet bore??"
The prefix "poly" means many. So a poly-cylindrical bore has at least three different diameters of cylinder that decrease in diameter as you progress down the bore. (this is the second diagram in the article I provided in you last post).
"What is the sound character of its bore and which is the best??"
Arguably the answer is personal preference at best...I guess you should listen to a recording of Jack Brymer (English big bore clarinetist) vs Juilan Bliss (English small bore clarinetist).
The relationship between between the bore size and the undercutting is important to note. The big bore clarinets didn't NEED undercutting (although many had it), whereas small bore clarinets MUST have it (or the notes won't speak properly and in tune).
You can learn a lot about the undercutting from Clark Fobes' article:
http://www.clarkwfobes.com/Tuning%20article/Tuning%20the%20Clarinet%20for%20PS.htm
"I see on specification of top line Yamaha clarinet use Cylindrical bore and many others brand use polycylindrical bore."
I didn't know anyone was producing purely cylindrical models anymore (aside from Peter Eaton) and would speculate that someone simply didn't put "poly" in front of it. Do we have someone who can comment on the Yamaha horns?
Gnothi Seauton
Post Edited (2008-08-23 23:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2008-08-23 16:06
Well said, J T [ G S ! also]. Can't help on Yamahas. I might suggest a Search [above the Board]] in both BBoard and Keepers, etc [see the check-list] as we have had many discussions of this subject. Good info. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-23 21:25
Tobin
How do you know that Eatons are cylindrical? The tone holes are undercut so are they not polycylindrical? Infact Boosey where undercut, at least the pair I had were.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-08-23 21:56
cigleris wrote:
> How do you know that Eatons are cylindrical? The tone holes are
> undercut so are they not polycylindrical? Infact Boosey where
> undercut, at least the pair I had were.
Undercutting and cylindrical are not mutually exclusive.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-23 23:16
Yes, I read this, but I feel that the section on wide bore instruments was far to general. Perhaps it would be best to ask Peter Eaton himself and the other makers or wide bore instruments as regards polycylindrical and cylindrical bores for wide bore instruments.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2008-08-23 23:23
I think all makers are employing polycylindrical bore and under cutting
wherther they're emphasizing 'poly..' or not.
Perfect cylindrical bore will give you terrible intonation.
It's more to do with intonation than tonal quality.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-08-23 23:29
Hello Peter,
I was hoping that one of the UK clarinetists would add to the post. I was including Peter Eaton only in that he produces wide bore clarinets. I have no idea as to what amount of undercutting he provides.
Rereading my post I realize that I did not clearly state what I meant to, and only inferred something: Small bore clarinets are definitely polycylindrical with a great deal of undercutting. Large bore need not necessarily be polycylindrical and can be undercut to varying degree. Peter is the only manufacturer I am aware that is still producing wide bore clarinets that might be only cylindrical, and not polycylindrical.
Do you know the fundamental details of his clarinets?
"The tone holes are undercut so are they not polycylindrical?"
Not necessarily.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2008-08-23 23:39
from what my understanding is and what gbk was trying to hint was that polycylindrical refers to the actual bore of the instrument. there are different sized reamers that address the bore, thus polycylindrical.
undercutting on the other hand involves cutting the holes Beneath the actual tone holes, not the bore. undercutting helps to correct the pitch between the instrument.
hope that helps.
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. they are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which was already but too easy to arrive as railroads lead to Boston to New York
-Walden; Henry Thoreau
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-23 23:59
Tobin,
I'm afraid I don't know the fundamental details of his instruments, I just play them. I wonder if there is a section on his website that would perhaps shed some light on this. I see about undercutting. Peter's instruments must surely all be undercut as I've never heard an out of tune Eaton (including my own). My gut instinct is that the bores may well be tapered. The reason I say this is becuase Mike Lomax, when I met him in London, measured my barrels and found them to have a taper as I was talking with him regards different barrels etc. As I might, in the future, look seriously into Morrie Backun's bells and barrels. What I have tried so far has impressed me but I digress. In my understanding , if the barrel in tapered then it may not work with a purely cylindrical bore?? Honestly I don't know enough about this, all I know is that people pay me to play and are happy with the results of that.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-08-24 00:32
Hello Peter,
The tapered barrel works to address one particular issue in small bore clarinets: to narrow the twelfths. This is a problem because we generally use mouthpieces that have larger bores than the upper joint cylinder.
The tapered barrel keeps the twelfths from coming out so much sharper than the fundamental.
So really, I have no idea what effect a tapered barrel would have on a big bore clarinet...I would presume it would be detrimental...but who knows? I can't imagine, however, that your clarinet bore is tapered.
Hmmm. Do you know Peter Eaton? Could you send him an email?
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-08-24 00:37
Just hit Eaton's website. His horns are all hand undercut, regardless of whether they are small or large bore instruments.
No mention of the type of cylinder used (in fact, there's no mention of the word cylinder at all).
Also, Eaton's page makes a statement that refutes one of mine: he insists that his big bore instruments cannot be played with "french small bore" mouthpieces. Perhaps the standard mouthpiece that we play over here is not as big as I thought?
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2008-08-24 00:48
cigleris wrote:
> Please explain Mark
I'm not sure what to explain ... undercutting refers to removing wood where the tonehole enters the bore, cylindrical or poly-cylindrical refers to the bore, not the toneholes.
Most if not all bores have a taper (not really cylindrical but acoustically acts as one - the cylinder is actually a section of a cone with a very small taper). Poly-cylindrical refers to a bore that is made up of multiple (ordinarily 3) cylinders, with a sharp step (discontinuity) between each cylinder.
That's why undercutting and bore type are not mutually exclusive.
Wide bore instruments generally do not need or have little need for undercutting to adjust the tuning - why, I'm not so sure. I'm sure it was empirically derived before someone figured out the mathematics behind it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2008-08-24 10:39
The wide bore English clarinets (B&H 1010 and Eaton Elite) require a mouthpiece with an absolute parallel bore to give correct intonation. The bore is not bigger than french style but has no taper whatsoever.
Incidentally the B&H 926 does have a tapered mouthpiece bore but generally much less accute angle than French and many of the earlier Leblanc instruments were suppied with mouthpieces with much less taper than a "standard" mouthiece.
Is there indeed any one standard or correct taper for a mouthpiece? I suspect many instruments would benefit from changes in this area of their set-up.
The 1010, 926 and Elite bores are purely cylindrical. I believe some Eaton International (medium bore) models have a very small degree of reverse cone at top of bore.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-08-24 14:53
Thanks Norman,
Does anyone know of anyone else that produces wide bore cylindrical clarinets? And to what degree do they undercut?
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Grabnerwg
Date: 2008-08-24 16:23
<<<<Also, Eaton's page makes a statement that refutes one of mine: he insists that his big bore instruments cannot be played with "french small bore" mouthpieces. Perhaps the standard mouthpiece that we play over here is not as big as I thought?>>>>>
Every mouthpiece I sell terminates in approx a 15 mm diameter. I imagine this is true of all the mouthpiece makers that use Zinner blanks.
I would sure like to see some numbers, vis a vis "big bore instruments" and "French small bore mouthpieces".
Walter Grabner
www.clarinetxpress.com
World Class Clarinet Mouthpieces
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2008-08-24 16:31
Hello Walter,
Still in love with the bass mouthpiece of yours!
So I'm not as wrong as I thought. The 15 mm exit of the mouthpiece is still more than the diameter of the upper joint. The reverse taper barrel does accommodate this and narrow the twelfths accordingly.
Peter, could you measure the diameter of your mouthpiece and tell us where it's at?
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2008-08-24 16:39
"Does anyone know of anyone else that produces wide bore cylindrical clarinets? And to what degree do they undercut?"
Luis Rossi make 1010 bore clarinets, and I suspect these will have undercut toneholes.
There's also the .590" bore plastic Bundys!
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2008-08-25 18:56
Undercutting has nothing to do with the bore. I spoke to Peter Eaton on the phone during the first year he made clarinets and he said the bore had "wiggles" to make them play better in tune than 1010s did. I have since presumed he meant they were polycylindrical. It would surprise me if anyone made a straight bore instrument these days, despite the oft made suggestion that they sound better. Old straight bore clarinets simply aren't as well in tune.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2008-08-25 22:09
Per Walters request above - its some time since I measured one but I think the 1010 mouthpieces were either 15.1 or 15.2 mm and the Eaton large bore mouthpiece is same size as 1010. However keep in mind that they remain at that diameter all the way up to the slot so have a much greater capacity.
Do Leblanc still make the Pete Fountain model? I think that was quite a large bore (15mm?) and had a parallel bore.
My pair of 1960 Leblancs have a 14.8 mmm bore that is fully parallel through the top joint but have a very small reverse taper in the barrels.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2008-08-26 00:40
I think perhaps we make too much of this "issue". We all know of polycylindrical R-13s which have severe intonation problems (I've worked on a few!), and I have a couple of 'cylindrical'-bore Boosey & Hawkes clarinets which tune beautifully.
And, as I've opined many times before, it is quite feasible to use 'standard'-bore mouthpieces with 'large'-bore clarinets, and vice-versa. Many other factors enter into the equation besides bore diameter and taper. Again, just my opinion, no science to back it up.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2008-08-26 19:07
I think the idea the bore determines timbre is a bit overdone at times...Thurston and Kell played on the same clarinet models and sounded completely different. Many players in England at the time also thought Thurston sounded like a continental players..very narrow focused sound. Much of our sound begins in the brain..it has to. Equipment..reeds..shape of embouchure and other factors play so much into sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-08-26 19:14
> Equipment..reeds..shape of embouchure and other factors play so much into
> sound.
Don't forget the gold vs ceramic teeth...
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2008-08-26 21:20
It's my understanding that you can only develop timbre from a wood clarinet.
If you leaf through the literature you find it's a knotty problem.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-26 21:35
Can I please put one thing straight and destroy the 'urban myth' that is popping up here.
You cannot use a 'normal', French (call it what you will) bore mouthpiece on a large, '1010' bore instrument. The French bore mouthpiece is quite simply to small and causes havoc with the intonation, especially round the throat notes and also effects the 12ths. This is why you need someone to bore them out to the correct measurements. Then you will find the clarinet plays a lot more comfortably and will be in tune with its self. The same aplies the other way round, it makes everything increasingly flat around the throat notes and really effects the 12ths going up to top C, ie, thumb and speaker.
Try it and you'll see
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-08-27 00:12
Peter Cigleris- "You cannot use a 'normal', French (call it what you will) bore mouthpiece on a large, '1010' bore instrument. The French bore mouthpiece is quite simply to small and causes havoc with the intonation..."
Since it seems that you are possibly the only one here that has these in their possession right now, could you do us all (or at least me) a favor? Please put a "normal" French mouthpiece on your clarinet and check the intonation and tell us where it goes bad and in which direction. You mention the throat and 12th, but do they go sharp or flat? I would be interested in the results and I think a few others would, too. Also, is the "English" mouthpiece the same length as the French?
The most "English" clarinet I ever tried was a BH Edgware. Not really a high end clarinet.
Post Edited (2008-08-27 00:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: graham
Date: 2008-08-27 06:53
Re Thurston and Kell, this is misleading: For most recordings you hear of Thurston he is playing a 1010, and this had a 15.2mm bore. For most recordings of Kell, he played a Hawkes & Sons Excelsior Sonorous clarinet with a bore dimension of c. 14.8 or 14.9mm. That is not to say that the different instruments made all the difference, but it is wrong to say that they made no difference at all or that this is a good example where the instrument can have had no part to play.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2008-08-27 07:46
Skygardener
I'm sorry, I don't really have time in my schedule to do what you ask at the moment as I'm preparing for a comercial recording session which starts next week but i'll try and do something if I have the time.
The 'English' mouthpiece is what you want it to be, it just needs to be bored out with a '1010' reamer. I myself play on a Hite and other players such as Richard Hosford play Portnoy or whatever else they prefer.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2008-08-27 12:58
coincidentally, I've been delving into this area of the bore of the mpc recently due to prepping some for sale.
I've measured the bore of several of my mpcs.
for instance, at the exit, and exit only of 3 of my 1960s - 1970s Buffet mpcs:
14.88 mm
14.71
14.79
an earlier 1930s is 15.06
a few others
Vandoren 2V - 14.88
Yahama Custom 5CM - 14.99
1926 Selmer - 15.04mm
1939 Selmer - close to 15.26mm
old Buffet evettine - 14.97mm
M13 - 14.96mm
B45 14.92
Grabner K13 - 14.98mm
(of course, they may not be perfectly round. I took an avg, unscientific measurement)
BUT, I really started looking at this when I was putting new cork on mpc. I normally shape and sand down the cork on my lathe, which requires me to put the mpc on a mandrel.
That was where it first noticed the inconsistencies.
quote of me from another board:
"In my mpc stock I have a pre 1938 and a post 1938 Selmer mpc. What significance is that .. well at first I thought the only difference was the Brand system markings on it. These were simple marking that specified the facing and tip opening.
But on prepping the pre 1938 for sale I noticed alot more differences that aren't realized by just looking. First off the mpc went on a mpc arbor much more further ( 0.58 inches - over half an inch) than the other one. So this brings forth that the internal shank bore design is much different."
"A smaller diameter bore can make the lower register including the throat tones relatively sharp. This can also make the higher register flat and less sonorous.
a larger diameter bore can do the opposite - make the lower register including the throat tones flat. But to the contrary make the higher register sharp but more sonorous.
Of course one can ream out the bore to be cylindrical or conical. And on a conical bore the taper will affect how the mpc plays based on the diameter at various points of the taper.
But these two mpcs have at least a 3 stage reaming .. ala polycyclindrical bore of different varying sections.
In examinging two 1926ish Selmer mpc we have the same variation. One is a HS, the other a HS*. The HS has a overall smaller diameter bore than the HS*. THe HS seems to have 2 smaller tapers, and the HS* has 3 larger tapers."
take as it is. I'm still exploring the bore and how they vary (and I need a better method of measuring the diameter inside the bore) and more importantly .... what changes influence what.
FWIW, I had a vintage Selmer HS* which intonation-wise worked perfectly on an Eaton Elite. Not all my HS* did though.
FWIW - this is the first dive i did into researching/studying the bore design. I've done refacing, baffle & throat modifications and everything in front of the bore chamber .. but have never really studied the bore itself. This should prove to be interesting
==========
Stephen Sklar
My YouTube Channel of Clarinet Information
Post Edited (2008-08-27 17:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevesklar
Date: 2008-08-27 13:12
also this has lead me not to the bore size, which is measured at the bottom of the upper joint, but to the bore size at the top of the upper joint and the barrel itself.
which brings up to the reason Moennig created his inverse tapers barrel - to accompany the larger bore of alot of mpcs to the smaller french bore.
bigger at the top to accomodate the mpc,
and smaller at the bottom to accomodate the UJ bore
(ok,there's more to it than that, but it solved one particular problem)
==========
Stephen Sklar
My YouTube Channel of Clarinet Information
Post Edited (2008-08-27 13:52)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
