 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: John Stackpole
Date: 2004-12-25 11:38
A question (on Christmas morning, yet! - don't ask) - acoustics theory only....
If one uses tuning rings to effectively lengthen the barrel, as Bill was doing with his old Selmer, doesn't this upset the continuity of the cylindrical bore that is the essence of a clarinet?
Near as I can tell, with my stock R13, the end of the mouthpiece tennon buts up against the "step" inside the hole in the barrel, as does the tennon on the upper segment of the instrument when it is pushed into the barrel. Thus the cylindrical core is continuous all the way.
But with a ring in place, you can't (intentionally) push the mouthpiece tennon all the way in (or does the ring go on the other end of the barrel - no matter) which has perforce to leave a little gap "inside" the clarinet at the joint.
I don't suppose this makes a difference with the lower - longer wavelength - notes, but I would think it very well could with the higher frequency notes.
Or maybe the "gap" is so small - two or three mm at most - that this is of no import. But small dimension changes can make appreciable auditory changes - can the shorter waves "fall into" that gap, at least in part, and set up (undesirable - ?) reflections and overtones?
JDS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DezzaG
Date: 2004-12-25 11:47
John I don't think you understand how tuning rings work, they are small(about the size of an Aussie 10c piece with a hole in it, who knows what size that is in US!) and sit in the barrel so that when you push the barrel on it won't go all the way down...but the bore is continous still because the ring fills this new gap.
Hope that makes sense, it is nearly midnight here!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2004-12-25 15:03
The thing about the tuning rings that has always baffled me is, shouldn't they be wood or something other than metal?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2004-12-25 15:43
Wooden ones sound the best , of course!
(Sound of pin being removed from explosive device . . . )
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Douglas
Date: 2004-12-25 15:44
The DEG tuning rings are metal, but there are also hard rubber and wooden rings on the market, or at least there used to be because I still have wooden and hard rubber ones in my case.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jbutler ★2017
Date: 2004-12-25 15:57
However, one would be surprised (perhaps) of the number of mouthpieces that when pushed into the barrel socket do not fill the entire cylindar, thus leaving a small gap between the end of the mouthpiece and the bottom of the barrel socket. Some instruments also have this situation occuring between the upper and lower joints. Clark Fobes has addressed this issue in one of his writings which I believe is posted elsewhere on this site. His feeling is that this is not entirely a bad "thing", but does occur more often than one might realize.
Secondly, tuning rings are sometimes of a different bore size than the clarinet. Perhaps there has been a study of what "problems", if any, this may cause. I believe it is better to use them than not, but why not purchase a barrel of proper length?
jbutler
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-12-25 22:04
It is the norm for that gap to be 0.3 mm to 0.6 mm thick. Definitely not precision manufacture, unless it was actually intended.
Brenda, you must know by now that the material of the body of the instrument is immaterial or very close to it.
I make the rings from ABS or acetyl, or brass - anything that is on hand and easy to machine. When these materials are in close proximity to the timber, the timber has a sensuous experience, and produces a tone even more luscious than before. :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2004-12-25 22:20
***Brenda, you must know by now that the material of the body of the instrument is immaterial or very close to it.***
Yeh,.... and the earth is flat too
Vytas Krass
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Stackpole
Date: 2004-12-26 00:38
Thank you, I did indeed not understand where the ring(s) were placed.
No gap, perhaps, but not a closed topic either, it appears.
JDS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John O'Janpa
Date: 2004-12-26 16:24
The idea is to remove the gap left when the barrel is pulled for tuning. The ring fills this gap, and if properly sized, makes the bore continuous. It also helps to keep excessive moisture from entering the end grain of the upper joint, when used with a generous dollop of cork grease.
I make them out of rubber hose washers. For the ultimate sound, the material of choice would be unicorn ivory.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-12-26 19:51
Is that better than the horn of a white rhino?
I find ambergris to give a rather rich sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-12-27 06:44
Well the thing would be that you would never be able to get unicorn ivory. Because they are impossible to catch. The only person ever rumored to catch one was in a Grimms Fairy Tale (who did so in order to prove to the king that he could marry his daughter).
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Stackpole
Date: 2004-12-27 11:06
I understood it was only virgin princesses who could catch unicorns - and she wants to marry the king's daughter?
This story is getting interesting...
JDS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-12-27 14:02
"It also helps to keep excessive moisture from entering the end grain of the upper joint, "
An interesting observation,John. Perhaps there's a correlation between upper section cracks and pullouts.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2004-12-27 14:46
"Brenda, you must know by now that the material of the body of the instrument is immaterial or very close to it," posted Gordon.
I get your point and agree somewhat. But, to the perfectionistic amoung us there could be a tad bit difference in the sound. Remember the discussions about wood or plastic/rubber mouthpieces?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2004-12-27 16:02
Locally, the earth appears flat. Many daily tasks can be accomplished under that assumption. Also, in most daily situations, the mass of an object can be assumed constant, although Einstein showed that, as an object's speed approaches a significant fraction of the speed of light, its mass can finally be seen to increase with velocity. Finally, the physics of acoustics predict that the material of which a clarinet is made has an imperceptible (or perhaps as much as 'nearly inaudible' if your ears are orders of magnitude better than the average human's) effect on the sound of the instrument, (a) ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL (which in practice they never are), and (B) WE"RE NOT TALKING ABOUT GUITARS, VIOLINS, OR PIANOS WHICH TRULY PRODUCE SIGNIFICANT BODY VIBRATIONS. Clarinets, remember, have very thick and stiff walls compared to their limited external surface area for acoustic radiation.
Thank you for listening, and Happy New Year. Vytas, please continue to enjoy your misconceptions, if they make you feel better. Feeling good, after all, is what it's all about, isn't it?
"She blinded me........with Science"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CPW
Date: 2004-12-27 16:44
Brenda wrote
"The thing about the tuning rings that has always BAFFLED me is, shouldn't they be wood or something other than metal?"
[my caps]
Great pun!!!
The thing I love about tuning rings is how they are a soooo easy to remove. (NOT)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2004-12-27 18:35
*****WE"RE NOT TALKING ABOUT GUITARS, VIOLINS, OR PIANOS WHICH TRULY PRODUCE SIGNIFICANT BODY VIBRATIONS. Clarinets, remember, have very thick and stiff walls compared to their limited external surface area for acoustic radiation.*****
So you admit that guitars "TRULY PRODUCE SIGNIFICANT BODY VIBRATIONS' and at the same time you're saying: "Clarinets, remember, have very thick and stiff walls compared to their limited external surface area for acoustic radiation".
That's bull! Have you ever held in your hands a Gibson Les Paul electric guitar? Thickness of the body and the neck are much greater than the thickness of clarinet walls. And yes the ENTIRE body (including all hardware) PRODUCE SIGNIFICANT BODY VIBRATIONS. There's is no doubt in my mind and the entire guitar community that different wood (or combination of woods) produce different tone. The reason for this is that almost everyone can hear the difference.
I remember the time when scientists', acousticians and other nerds were trying to push their bubble theory that electric guitar pickup can only recreate metal string vibrations and the material of the body has no difference. (Sounds familiar?) And they couldn't be more wrong!
Also the physics of acoustics predict that wooden body of the clarinet doesn't vibrate but rather column of the air vibrates. It's ridicules! Have you people completely lost all your senses? Can't you feel the vibration when you play your clarinet through your fingers, teeth, lips and brain?
The vibrating source (reed, string, voice) sends to vibration the material/s that is CONNECTED to. Touch your neck when you speak. Do you feel vibration of your flesh?
Anyone can write a book but it doesn't mean that everything you read in it is the truth.
Sorry, I still have to work on my English which is not my native tongue.
Yeh.. I feel good!
Vytas Krass
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-12-27 19:58
Arguments are seldom won by yelling ... and few people change their mind once they've made them up, whatever the evidence.
In any case, the "material/sound" debate is literally academic (and of interest to manufacturers). If your prized rosewood-cocobolo-grenadilla clarinet and your prized glass-ceramic-rubber clarinet sounds great ...
You're lucky. You've found two great clarinets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2004-12-27 21:24
Thanks CPW. I wondered if it would be caught or just tossed aside.
hmmm.
Mark, don't you hate it when you send the kids to their rooms and forget to take away their computers? They use the punishment to go online and access the bboard.
Post Edited (2004-12-27 21:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-12-28 02:40
vytas, get a transducer to vibrate the body of your clarinet to the extent that you are used to feeling. This will be a very low amplitude indeed, and I think you will find that almost zero sound is transfered from that piece of vibrating timber to your ears via the air. That is because the amplitude (i.e. volume) transferred to the air from the timber is also minute.
By comparison, the amplitude of the AIR vibrations at the end of the air column is huge. It is THIS volume that the listener's ear perceives.
Yes, the player may well receive different sensations in his ears which have been conducted from the timber and mouthpiece via the and bones.
Yes, the player may get a feel-good effect by feeling the vibration of the timber under his fingers. But that is not what the listener HEARS.
You cannot compare clarinet with instruments such as guitar. This is like comparing the sound produced from a speaker cone, to that produced from the vibration of the speaker cabinet itself.
Oh dear! Why did I write this?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2004-12-28 04:11
***"Oh dear! Why did I write this?"***
Gordon,
I'll make it simple.
I, Vytas Krass, HAVE THE ABILITY to hear the difference in tone/sound between different materials clarinet is made from. Because of this reason I don't really care what some intellectual pencil pusher or genius acoustician (who never played the clarinet in his life) or scientist tells me. *I CAN* that's all it counts.
People have different abilities to hear, smell, see, create etc. You can't just apply rules or put into scientific frame the ability, talent etc., and say "the physics of acoustics predict that the material of which a clarinet is made...blah...blah.
End of story!
Vytas Krass
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2004-12-28 04:17
Vytas wrote:
> I, Vytas Krass, HAVE THE ABILITY to hear the difference in
> tone/sound between different materials clarinet is made from.
Until you can prove it in public in a listening test the rest of us will just have to remain sceptics. No offense, but I've been through this in different subjects besides clarinet, and I've learned to be sceptical when people make claims such as this. You may very well be right, but I've not seen it proven by anyone yet that they can differentiate between materials in any recognized sense if they can't see the clarinet in question. I have seen people differentiate between the different models of clarinet with a pretty good accuracy, but even then not 100%.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2004-12-28 05:21
Mark,
Actually I did prove it once in public about 20 years ago but I have to say that even then there were several skeptics who believed I just got lucky or used some tricks. So I understand what you're saying.
Ok, I give up! From now on I follow the consensus. Ha-ha!
……And the consensus is that the material of the body of the instrument is immaterial or very close to it…..EXACTLY!
What else is new?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-12-28 05:41
20 years ago?
What were the two clarinets which were of different materials, but otherwise identical?
Do you understand the need, in comparisons, to have ALL other parameters equal, and also a 'double blind' testing situation?
What are the details of how you provided for double blind comparison?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2004-12-28 14:48
Vytas wrote:
****Ok, I give up!****
Gordon, which part of this statement you don't understand? Get over it! If it makes you feel better I'd say: 'YOU' are right!
.....armatures!
Vytas Krass
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2004-12-28 15:13
People do believe things that cannot be proven......
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jazz3774
Date: 2004-12-28 20:45
There are tuning rings made of plastic for use in the barrel and the middle joint.
I used them in the middle joint, since my Selmer 10 S goes way sharp when I hit that A above the staff. That helps a lot with the tuning. This Selmer 10 S has unusually large tone holes. That may be part of the problem.
Any thoughts on this ?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-12-28 23:30
Vytas, I was not asking you to lie to me.
I was merely asking you to provide a little substance to your claim, to give it a little plausibility. I am trying to be open minded, and thought you may have some evidence of substance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Avie
Date: 2004-12-31 13:50
I just had a friend make me up a couple of 1 mm tuning rings. I told him to make them out of plastic, or hard rubber. The reason being that many mp's and barrels are made from hard rubber. Should I have recomended a type of wood? If so, what kind of wood or other type of mat'l would be best for a wood Buffet ? Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2004-12-31 22:20
For any rings not currently being used, wood would break very, very easily. If they become tight from swelling and jamming, or from an oil or grease that is polymerising between them and the body timber, then they will be difficult to remove without breaking them.
Seriously, the material that these are made from is not relevant, apart from practical considerations.
Steel will rust. Brass may react with certain oils and saliva, and corrode. Plastic is ideal - Acetyl is probably easiest to machine.) Timber is not.
You could consider getting the set made with different thicknesses, such as approx .75, 1, 1.5, 2, to give you more versatility of thickness by using more than one at a time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2005-01-06 05:06
"....Bernard Portnoy could hear the difference with his back turned...."
Was it a "double-blind" test? If not, then other parameters present render the results meaningless, and not worth reporting.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2005-01-06 14:50
Gordon -
It was a single blind test. Portnoy turned his back and I played with and without the tuning rings, with the barrel pulled out the same amount each time.
A double blind test would be where someone else handed me the instrument with or without the tuning rings, and I didn't know which. While that would have removed my expectations about how the instrument would play, I had told Portnoy that I didn't think the rings made any difference, so my bias, if any, was toward a lack of difference.
This was in a stone studio at Interlochen in 1961, before I learned what a double blind experiment was. It's enough for me that he heard the difference when I was trying to play the same, or perhaps minimize it.
Of course, it's possible that what Portnoy noticed was a change in overal pitch level, or note-to-note intonation. If you have a time machine to take us back to 1961, we can run a double blind version, though it may not be possible to contol for intonation.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2005-01-06 23:07
Yes, in our listening we are enormously subject to even small changes in overall pitch.
A small change in pitch, relative to the previous pitch, gives a total mood change. This is surely a key element in musical expression.
I therefore still question that your reported experiment is even worth reporting. Some readers, with less knowledge of validity issues involved in testing, will take the results to be 'gospel'.
IMHO far too much of this happens in this, and other musician forums.
(This post had an element of devil's advocate :-)
Post Edited (2005-01-06 23:10)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2005-01-07 03:48
Gordon, go away! I'd rather read stories about extraordinary people like B. Partnoy than your annoying nonsense.
Vytas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-01-07 05:01
[ Let's all relax. Any further ad hominem attacks will cause this thread to terminate - GBK ]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
