 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-09-27 19:05
I just ran across a new paper from UNSW on the topic of clarinet glissandi, the effects of partially-covered tone holes, voicing, and why it is easier to bend notes downward than upward.
It touches some of what we talked about in the "intentional leaks" thread about lowering resonance peaks, but does so quantitatively. (See Figure 5)
Another interesting aspect of the paper is that it indicates that starting in the clarion register, experienced clarinettists typically tune their vocal tract resonance to about 150 Hz higher than the note itself. (See Figure 7)
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/reprints/ChenetalJASA09.pdf
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2009-09-28 13:46
I've never experienced any difference in bending up or down. Has anyone else? The only difference is where you start the bending. If you start at one extreme(limit of bending) you can't go much further. Up or down doesn't enter into it.
Freelance woodwind performer
Post Edited (2009-09-28 13:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2009-09-28 15:15
mrn wrote:
>> I just ran across a new paper from UNSW on the topic of clarinet glissandi, the effects of partially-covered tone holes, voicing, and why it is easier to bend notes downward than upward....another interesting aspect of the paper is that it indicates that starting in the clarion register, experienced clarinettists typically tune their vocal tract resonance to about 150 Hz higher than the note itself.>>
Yes. I liked the bit:
"For the range 450 Hz to at least 1400 Hz, they raise the frequency of their tract resonance to keep it substantially above that of the bore. As will be discussed below, it is easier to bend a note down than up on the clarinet. Perhaps having a tract resonance “nearby" -- 100–200 Hz away -- makes for a good performance strategy: Tuning assistance from the vocal tract can be quickly and easily engaged by adjusting the resonance frequency and strength appropriately, should the need arise. And perhaps having a resonance slightly below the played note is just too dangerous, because of the potential effects on the pitch, which will be discussed later."
...because intuitively, I associate having the vocal tract resonance below the played note with the danger of producing an 'unfocussed sound', rather than with the danger of lowering the pitch.
But I realise that I have no idea what the objective correlate of an 'unfocussed sound' IS.
I wonder if anyone else does.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2009-09-28 17:10
I assume tract resonance has nothing to do with vocal range...I'm a couple of octaves below the notes I'm playing for the most part.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-09-28 17:12
Arnoldstang wrote:
> I assume tract resonance has nothing to do with vocal
> range...I'm a couple of octaves below the notes I'm playing for
> the most part.
That's right. It's just the size of your vocal tract (including oral cavity). It has nothing to do with your vocal range.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
