 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-11-30 12:50
This thought just hit me.
If cork is known for it's ability to ABSORB sound, as per it's use in recording studios, WHY is cork used in clarinets?
Does the cork on tenons have any effect on sound, and if so, is there any cork alternative? Are my cork pads actually ABSORBING sound?
While I'm on the topic of clarinet design, I also had this funny idea. Some of you may recall I had a shattered tenon on my lower joint. What if this joint were reversed - the tenon was part of the bell and the bottom of the lower joint had the socket? You see, bells are kinda replaceable, and most often replacing the lower joint isn't an option, which was given as an option for me.
Any other crazy thoughts, guys?
__________________
Don't hate me because I play Leblanc! ![[down]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley23.gif) Buffet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2004-11-30 13:33
Since the sound wave hits wood or plastic on the inner surface of the clarinet and not cork, it is very doubtful that the cork is making any difference at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-11-30 13:53
Wow. This sounds interesting.
As per the cork tenons, I'm going to say "nay" because they are on the outside of a grenedilla shell. The grenedilla wood and it's condition/configuration in that poly-cylindrical instrument is what would or wouldn't "absorb" the sound. (at least as far as my feeble mind can think it through)
I myself have wondered once or twice through whom and how the decision was made of which part would be a tenon and which part would be a socket. The upper joint is two tenons. The barrel, two sockets. I guess this makes it easier/cheaper to make barrels, but I wonder if that was one of the reasons it was initially designed like that.
If that IS taken into account, then that makes making bells a snap too. All you need is a piece of wood and a machine to bore it out (in bell shape of course). No corking, no glue, etc. This was all included on the CLARINET.
I'm assuming that from an economist's standpoint this makes making clarinets much cheaper. Since a good amount of care must be taken with the upper and lower joints ANYWAY due to toneholes, let's throw the tenons in there. This way we can have other machines pump out barrel after barrel and not have to worry about taking so much care with those. This might also explain why there ARE aftermarket barrels/bells to replace those mass produced ones (which probably were produced on a much larger scale than bodies. I have an idea in the back of my head that any large company such as the big four probably has produced at least three times more barrels/bells than instruments simply because it's cheap, quick, and easy, a few can be made from a piece of wood that JUST wasn't big enough to make an upper or lower joint, so they may as well have a few "extra" lying around.)
On the flipside though, for what I consider a "radical" design, check out the Orsi clarinets. They have threaded bells/barrels that literally screw on. (they are also the only manufacturer I know of that still lists a metal clarinet as part of their regular ordering lineup!)
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2004-11-30 16:27
The cork *is* there to absorb noise -- that of the metal key surfaces hitting one another or the wood.
If you put the socket at the bottom of the lower joint and the tenon at the top of the bell, the end of the bottom joint would be even thinner and more fragile. Also, the wood on the bell is quite thin, so the tenon would be thin and fragile.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2004-11-30 17:05
Make the lower joint/bell one piece? Sure, why not?
Problem solved 
- r![[cool]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/cool.gif) n b -
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2004-11-30 19:57
Except that the bore diameter at the top of the bell has to be smaller than the bottom of the lower joint. Acoustically, this reflects the vibrations back up the bore, increasing the resonance and stability of the tone.
The instrument "tweakers" work on this area.
Also, the mpingo tree grows slowly, and clear-grain billets are much more common in lower joint diameter than bell diameter. If you've seen the PBS special on the tree, you'll remember an oboe bell being turned in the Laubin shopthat shattered into splinters. If you crack the bell, you don't have to replace the entire joint.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-11-30 20:06
Ken, I think that at the tenon/socket themselves, the wall thickness is the same in the bell and lower joint. At the lower end of the socket, both the ID and OD are probably getting greater, but the wall thickness is much the same, necessitating the lower end of the current tenon having thinner timber. So I think that this sort of counters your argument for the current arrangement.
LeWhite, if a tenon cork were to absorb sound the sound (which resides in the AIR column, would have to have access to the cork, which it really does not.. What may well have some sound absorption properties is that significant gap, typically half to 1 mm, between the end of the tenon and the bottom of the socket. I have never understood why this groove is left so wide.
Ron B wrote "Make the lower joint/bell one piece? Sure, why not? "
The bell is made from a truncated square pyramid, and the lower joint made from a square 'bar'. If the lower body were Incorporated with the bell, then the pyramid would have to extend all the way to the top of the lower joint, with far more wastage of timber when it was turned down to the appropriate diameter of the lower joint.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2004-12-01 07:35
Yes but you see the tenon socket at the bottom of the lower joint WOULDN'T be as fragile as a tenon because it's got a big fat solid ring around it!
__________________
Don't hate me because I play Leblanc! Buffet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Musiccla
Date: 2004-12-01 12:52
This is from a friend:
-----------------------------------
Lower joint and bell in one piece is really not a good idea, if they had to be made from one piece of wood, it would lead to enormous increase in wood waste... You would have to use two or three times more wood than you now have to...
It would be only possible for them to be made of two pieces as now are and then stick them together somehow.... i do not like this very much....
But, for sure, ther would be a change in vibrations of body in
one piece and body in four pieces... It could affect sound somehow...
---------------------------------
Don't take yourself too seriously, control is only an illusion 
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-12-01 21:53
"there would be a change in vibrations of body in one piece and body in four pieces... "
Yes, probably.
"...It could affect sound somehow..."
Highly debatable. Very likely not.... as discussed many times elsewhere in this forum. Emotion, romance and belief aside, the body is merely a container to define the shape of an air column. What we hear comes almost entirely from the vibrating air column, not the vibration in the material of the container, whose AMPLITUDE of vibration (i.e. volume) is so small that we can barely even feel it with our fingers. By comparison, the amplitude of vibration of the air INSIDE the container is huge.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
