The Clarinet BBoard

The Clarinet BBoard The C4 standard

New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search | Help/Rules | Smileys/Notes | Log In

Previous Message | Next Message

Re: Again, the R-13 Identification Subject

Author: jim S.
Date: 2003-04-03 18:54

Reversed cones were around, perhaps, because Moennig knew all about the concept from his early training in Germany and Selmer was using it. I understand the device was used in bassoons and in unfraised Selmers of the 1930's. But I didn't know that Buffet was using the device in 1951 on their clarinets, which have been thought of as "pre R-13".

Your (Mark's) comment prompted me to go back to Gibson's "Clarinet Acoustics" to see what I could find. He has always said that Caree's poly-cylinrical bore design began in 1950 or '51. I don't know whether he had contacts at the factory that gave him this information, but he was a great measurer of instruments and probably confirmed his statements, at least, with measurements of instruments he had in his hands. In his book, (p. 32) Gibson describes the Caree bore as being cylindrical in the barrel. In his table on p.38 he shows the Caree bore (treated as constant, post-1950) as being reduced by .03" in the barrel to 14.92 at the bottom. I believe this converts to .587" at the bottom using the conversion factor of 25.41. Though this indicates a small reversal in the dimensions, it hardly meets the definition of "reversed cone", since Moennig's dimensions are .589" at the top and .580" at the bottom. It looks to me as though, in my 1951 Buffet, Caree was already experimenting with the bore, defined as beginning with the top of the barrel. My clarinet, if I have measured it correctly, looks like it began as a classic R-13 in the LH bore and has warped a bit at the top of the section. The really strange thing, though, is the fact that it seems to have a classic Moennig-style reversed cone barrel. The barrel is definitely the original. I think it was part of Caree's on-going experimentation at this early stage in the development of the R-13 design, and a feature that he ultimately rejected. Just a theory, and another reason to call for more practical measurements from the field.

Reply To Message | Avail. Forums | Flat View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Topics