 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: rc_clarinetlady
Date: 2004-10-26 05:34
I have a Buffet R-13 Bb and a Selmer Series 10 A ( both about 30 yrs. old) that I play in our community orchestra. I was always so sharp so I bought a 67mm Buffet Moennig barrel thinking I had done the right thing in keeping the same maker of barrel to the same make of my clarinet. I am no longer sharp and as a matter of fact am right on the A 440 mark on the tuner with this barrel. Problem solved right? Well, I've just noticed that the Moennig barrel is narrower in bore size than my upper joint of my clarinet. Both clarinets actually. It is easily seen if you look down the upper joint with the barrel on and I can feel it with my little finger. is this a problem? I am experiencing a frustration with my "sound" right now too. I don't seem to be able to get it back and my Dad seems to think this barrel could be causing problems. He's somewhat of an engineer and he thinks that if the air flow is disrupted in the chamber then it is going to afffect the sound. Anybody know anything about this subject?? What should I do? Custom bore the Moennig? Wouldn't that change what the Moennig is all about? Help! Rebecca
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: OpusII
Date: 2004-10-26 06:13
Did you try the old barrel and got the same sound frustration than?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-10-26 07:15
How do OTHERS perceive your sound? You may not like this change in sound but in reality what matters is how OTHERS hear you. You may just not like the 'change' or may THINK it sounds worse but maybe others can't even tell the difference or even PREFER the change.
You may also want to try your older barrel with some spacers in there. I know they sell spacing rings in .5, 1, and 2 mm sizes, or you could always simply take a sophisticated measuring device to measure how much of a gap to leave in the barrel (often times a nickel is said to be good - I've also heard for the best tone, try to use a nickel manufactured between the years of 1973 - 1983, preferably from the Philadelphia mint . . . ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif) )
That way you'll hopefully retain the old dimensions of the inner barrel and have at least LESS of a difference when there's only a slight, one mm spacer that is changed instead of swapping out 6 mm for an entirely new 7 mm of accoustic differences.
Worst comes to worst and you can't seem to find a solution with these too barrels, go ahead and try some other ones.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rc_clarinetlady
Date: 2004-10-26 07:42
Good question OpusII. I did switch back to the old one in an experiment to see if the sound was affected and it is a little freer blowing on the old barrel. I really want to stay with the Moennig barrel because of what it does for my intonation. Solves most every problem with tuning I every had in a heartbeat.
Does anyone know enough about the physics of sound to know if the few mm. off that there is between the two wood pieces, the barrel and the upper joint, would make a difference in the overall tone of the instrument? If not then I will continue to play and look for solutions elsewhere but if so, then I need to find out how to fix this. Suggestions?
Rebecca
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rc_clarinetlady
Date: 2004-10-26 08:00
Alexi, You are right in that I am the only one who seems to be able to tell a difference in my sound but I just know something is missing and it may not have anything to do with the barrel. It just seemed an obvious place to try since I changed that in my set up.
I played a Wells B2 mouthpiece with Vandoren 3 1/2-4 reeds for years. When I came back to playing, the Wells was "shot". Horrible sound. I tried 6 different mouthpieces and ended up liking the Pyne Bel Canto the best. It comes the closest to my sound of the past but something just isn't quite right yet. I suppose when my Dad mentioned the barrel issue I thought maybe that was the answer to the problem and it may be. I just don't know. I've tried to stick with one mouthpiece now for the past 6 months for consistency but I still can't get this right.
Any barrel experts out there? Could this be a problem? Can I have the Moennig re-bored and if so does it change what it was made to do? Thanks. You all are a lot of help on the BBoard : )
Rebecca
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2004-10-26 12:13
The Moennig barrel is based on a reverse cone taper. This taper is usually from .589" tapering to .580". Thus, the lower end of the barrel is smaller than the bore at the upper end of the upper joint.
This taper creates a "choke" (or compression) which gives the standing wave column greater intensity of reflection upon itself.
The Moennig barrel can also feel different as far as resistance in your instrument ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2004-10-26 15:03
Comparatively little air moves down the bore of the clarinet -- certainly not enough for a narrowing of the bore to crate a venturi effect. Rather, the air already in the bore vibrates in sympathy with the reed.
As GBK says, with a reverse-tapered barrel, the bottom is intentionally made smaller than the top of the upper joint.
Similarly, the top of the bell is made smaller than the bottom of the lower joint.
Robert Carre's polycylindrical bore design has a profile in the upper joint that is neither a cylinder nor a straight cone.
When you turn a jumprope, you can easily get it to swing in two or three loops. Each pattern is known as a standing wave and is determined by the length of the rope. Similarly, the air in the bore vibrates in a standing wave (although in the clarinet it's half a wave, since it operates as a closed tube).
Each bore alteration affects the playing qualities, by stabilizing the standing wave, reinforcing it or changing its frequency slightly (to bring the different registers in tune).
There's no perfect balance. Each maker chooses a particular set of compromises. A large part of the custom tweaking that artist repair technicians do is the fine-tolerance optimizing of the bore, particularly in the mouthpiece and barrel.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rc_clarinetlady
Date: 2004-10-26 20:58
Perhaps, then, the set up is good and I just need to get used to it. I had intonation problems in college that I couldn't fix. Now that I've got the Moennig barrel the intonation is so much better. Maybe I need to quit looking for my old sound and try to find my new sound with this set up..... Long tones!!!!
Some of my problem is in the articulation. It feels a little sluggish particularly in the upper register. Could that be the barrel too or is that more in line with a mouthpiece issue??
Thanks for the physics of sound lessons. I knew someone had to have a good understanding of this subject. Thanks for sharing!! You all are a wealth of knowledge!
Rebecca
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2004-10-27 14:14
The cone changes the reflective frequency wave back to the compressive zone at the inlet bore of the mouthpiece. This in turn alters pitch.
The inlet of the barrel also needs to be altered in response to the outlet bore of the mouthpiece. The figures given for Moenig bores were adopted in response to the Kaspar mouthpiece bore. (search archives for mouthpiece outlet bore/barrel matches)
For this reason, some adaptation is necessary to accomodate individual needs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
