 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Johnny Galaga
Date: 2004-12-31 20:34
If I play the note A (440) on a clarinet, and someone else playes the same note on a trumpet, why do they sound different? The pitch is the same, but the trumpet sounds brassy and clarinet sounds pretty.
How can there be a difference in the sound if both instruments are vibrating at the exact same 440 Hertz ?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Stackpole
Date: 2004-12-31 21:02
Ah, but they aren't.....
Although the "main" (loudest) note coming out of both instruments is at 440 Hz (cycles per second), there are lots of other "overtones" that are determined by the shape of the instrument, what it is made of, and how it is blown (or bowed, or hit, or ...). And those different "extra" notes/tones/signals are what make the characteristic sounds. The person blowing can make things sound different, too.
You can learn more than you ever really wanted to know over at
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/woodwind.html
and probably other places as well.
JDS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2004-12-31 22:25
I think what makes the difference is the Grenadilla wood. That is why this wood is so sought after. The wood is what gives the clarinet that "pretty" wood sound. Also the way the air escapes from the cylinder. There are probably hundreds of other reasons.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bill28099
Date: 2004-12-31 22:48
It's all in the harmonics that makes trumpet sound like a trumpet and a clarinet sound like a clarinet. The primary frequency A=440 is all the same be it brass or wood.
A great teacher gives you answers to questions
you don't even know you should ask.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Contra
Date: 2004-12-31 23:21
A clarinet sounds like a clarinet because it's a clarinet. There are probably hundreds of other reasons, like bore, size, and not being a brass instrument, but it's a clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2005-01-01 00:22
A plastic clarinet still sounds like a clarinet (to most people's ears), so it's hard for me to buy that the primary factor is the grenadilla.
Rather, it's the means of tone production, and the primarily cylindrical (rather than conical, i.e. saxophone) shape.
If I recall correctly, the most significant difference is this: The "textbook example" of, for example, a flute waveform is close to a regular sine wave (base line -> Up -> base line -> Down -> base line), whereas a clarinet is doubled (base line -> Up -> base line -> Up -> base line -> Down -> base line -> Down -> base line). Hard to describe in words, easy on paper.
As with many instruments, the attack is the most distinctive part of the sound. If you heard a clarinet, flute, oboe, horn, and trumpet, each on a sustained note, without hearing the attack, it can be surprisingly difficult (depending on which note, etc.) to tell them apart.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-01-01 00:42
EEBaum wrote:
> whereas a clarinet is doubled (base line ->
> Up -> base line -> Up -> base line -> Down -> base line -> Down
> -> base line). Hard to describe in words, easy on paper.
The clarinet has most of it's tonal power in the odd-numbered harmonics (if you play A=440, you get most of the power in 440,1320,2200, etc.). It's the only instrument that uses the odd series (to my knowledge - there may be a few more obscure instruments); the others have their power in primarily the even series (440,880,1760, etc.).
That's why the clarinet has such a distinctive sound, even if we use vastly different qualities of clarinet. No matter what, we can recognize that sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Burt
Date: 2005-01-01 00:58
The most significant difference between a clarinet sound and most other instruments is that the clarinet's sound is nearly all in the odd harmonics. If you play a note at 200Hz (appx low "A" on a Bb clarinet), there is almost no energy at 400, 800, 1200Hz, but lots at 600, 1000, etc. I think that some members of the xylophone family and a bass drum with one head taken off (as in some trap sets) also have primarily odd harmonics.
This is the result of the clarinet being cylindrical, unlike a sax or oboe, and having one open end (bell) and one nearly closed end (mouthpiece), unlike a flute or violin.
There's been a lot of discussion about whether the material a clarinet is made of is a factor in its sound. I made one (hole, but no keys) out of PVC of the approximate diameter, and it didn't sound much like a clarinet. I suspect that the material doesn't matter so long as it's hard, heavy and elastic; if not, it would couple a lot of energy out of the air column, then dissipate it
As Alex pointed out, much of the difference among instruments (and players of the same instrument) is in the attack. I expect that's what limits an organ from sounding quite like the instrument it's trying to imitate.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pappy
Date: 2005-01-01 01:01
As with most things in life.....it's all in how you hold your mouth....;)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2005-01-01 06:26
The original post asks about a brassy trumpet sound versus a "pretty" clarinet sound and I stick to the fact that the "pretty, which I take to mean "woody" sound is because of the grenadilla wood not because of whatever it is Alex was trying to describe (was that english?). The reason for the "prettier"sound is the wood in the clarinet instead of the brass in the trumpet. Also you buzz your lips to produce sound for a trumpet and you blow to make a reed vibrate to produce sound on a clarinet. To put it simply, if you hum a Bb and then buzz your lips while humming the same Bb, you get two different sounds while still maintaining the same note. I guess many layers take effect to make a difference in sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2005-01-01 13:30
I have several metal clarinets and they too sound like clarinets. They sound just like comparable wooden ones.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2005-01-01 18:00
(Disclaimer - I am the maker of the Forte' clarinet and Power Barrel)
Indeed the clarinet sounds like a clarinet because of the basic acoustic principals of the physics of a closed tube which emphasize the enforcement of the odd harmonic series of frequencies of a given note whereas the brass and saxophones have the acoustic properties of a cone. I dare not venture too far into the physics because it is very complicated but also because there are others that are more knowledgeable and can explain it better than myself. I dabble in the acoustics more as an experimenter rather than a trained physicist and just borrow their established equations for my own work. The sites given, in addition to Bonade's classic work will give a better understanding of the physics for those interested.
A primary consideration which has not been given is that the human ear and the brain processing of various frequencies transmitted to the brain are interpreted differently. The human has a greater ability to recognize and process the even harmonic frequencies than the odd harmonic frequencies. There is anthropologic justification for this differentiation which goes back to the environmental conditions of early man - this is a topic of further discussion at a later time. There is also some psychological evidence about the association of certain frequencies with other similar "sounding" natural sound producers e.g. the sound of ocean waves or the frequency signature distribution of the human heart beat. Suffice it to say that humans process even harmonic frequencies more efficiently than odd harmonic frequencies and these appear more "bright and crisp" than equivalent amplitude odd harmonic frequencies which are processed as more "dark and mellow". This perceived difference is the basis for the some of the acoustic properties of the Power Barrel.
One reason that a CSO - using it to explain the PVC clarinet (to borrow GBK's phrase) does not sound like a true clarinet is that the configuration of the bore of the "tube" is different than a normal clarinet. The configuration, placement and size of the tone holes are also less precise and to some extent the mass of the tube body is different. The standing air wave is also modified by the mouthpiece and to some extent the reed and ligature allowing the reed to vibrate.
The clarinet in addition to emphasizing the odd harmonic series of frequencies also has different amplitudes (strengths if you will) of each of the odd harmonic frequencies - each successive of harmonic nodes is not of equal amplitude and each of the odd harmonics is not present to an equal extent. The odd harmonic series is much more prevalent in the low register than in the altissimo. Without getting into "bright" and "dark", which I have characterized for my own acoustic work by the frequency spectrograms and amplitudes of various frequencies, it is safe to say that a "brighter" sounding clarinet has less of the odd harmonic frequencies and the distribution of certain odd harmonic nodes is different from a "dark" sounding clarinet.
Each of the major clarinet makers uses a slightly different placement, and size of tone holes as well as a slightly different configuration of the bore of the clarinet (there must be trade offs in placement of each of the tone holes to produce a given note and each manufacturer handles this a little differently- thus producing a slightly different pattern of note frequencies). This has led me to characterize sound signatures of the various makers and characterize the differences in frequency spectrograms between them - luckily these are not patented characteristics. The obvious application is to make a clarinet which mimics a particular sound signature of a given maker to produce a clarinet which has gained some commercial acceptance for its particular "sound" e.g. Buffet. The caveats to these hardware changes are that a particular player contributes a lot to the sound produced.
The Doctor
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2005-01-01 18:25
It's a "stopped pipe", of untapered cross section for the length.
The flute is similar in the bore taper, but the the pipe is open at both ends.
Saxophones use a reed to generate the impulse wave, but their cross sections are conical.
The magic of the clarinet is it's dynamic and chromatic range - no other instrument has the same "reach" to blend with other instruments.
And Dano? I have a hard rubbber clarinet that outplays all but two wooden instruments I have ever played - and accelerometry doesn't attribute any signature to the flexion of materials used in the side walls - compared to the cross section of a larger saxophone, clarinet bodies don't move.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2005-01-01 19:59
Dano wrote "The original post asks about a brassy trumpet sound versus a "pretty" clarinet sound and I stick to the fact that the "pretty, which I take to mean "woody" sound is because of the grenadilla wood not because of whatever ......"
By repeatedly claiming this, Dano, you are saying that it is impossible for a clarinetist, no matter how good a player, to play sweetly on a plastic clarinet.
This is very obviously incorrect. Therefore your claim is incorrect. There are sweet-sounding metal clarinets.
In the context of this discussion even mention of the timber is a red herring, and a confusion for the person who wrote the original question..
Johnny, the difference between the clarinet sound and the sound of other instruments is definitely because of what others have mentioned. It is because of relative volume of the various overtones present (as well as the fundamental frequency) in any given note. The attack of a note has SOME influence on these, especially for the sound at the very beginning of the note. However the MAIN reasons are as already covered, the open-one-end-closed-the-other bore, the mainly cylindrical bore, the bore diameter relative to its length, the manner of shortening the bore, i.e. tone holes. Material does not come into this. Primarily the sound is produced by the vibrating of a column of AIR; the timber is merely a container for this air column, determining its size and shape.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2005-01-01 21:16
Gordon, you obviously have not read my post very well. I am not speaking of ability to play "sweetly". I am speaking of tone. Not whether there can be sweet music coming from any instrument. A trumpet can deliver "sweet music" also. Whether an amature blows a note or a pro does, the sound is different on a plastic or metal clarinet. I am not claiming one can not make sweet music on a plastic clarinet. Therefore Gordon, your claim ends up being incorrect. I tried to put it as simply as possible. Go figure.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2005-01-01 21:39
The material of the clarinet has little to do with the sound-tone emanating from the clarinet - there I've said it! The arrangement, size, placement, and configuration of the tone holes is the important part. The bore of the clarinet - cylindrical, polycylindrical, etc. also plays a part in the wave-air column interfacing with the tone hole. Plastic clarinets and metal clarinets can sound the "same" as a wood clarinet if care and attention is given to the above details of the tone holes and bore. Often plastic clarinets do not sound the same as their wooden cousins because they have less attention paid to the elements in manufacturing and finishing of bore and tone hole configuration. Plastic clarinets of the student variety have also not changed their basic configuration in 25 years while improvements have been made in the professional series horns. The Buffet Greenline is a good example of a non-wood clarinet with good tone. I will also say another heretical thing - the hype of combining Grenadilla wood powder with the plastic resin - and carbon fiber - has little to do with the "sound" of the Greenline (I must add IMHO). In my sound signature acoustic work I have modeled several R-13's and their Greenline brothers/sisters and have come to the conclusion, based on my analytical analysis, that the sound signatures are similar within the individual error of one clarinet to another ("n" is too small for a valid statistical comparison however).
The "Old Doctor" now L. Omar Henderson, PH.D.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2005-01-01 22:54
I have played metal, plastic, and grenadilla clarinets. The sound produced was always very similar - and very different from a trumpet, fortunately.
IMO the material the clarinet is made from is virtually irrelevant and Dr. Henderson's analysis would be confirmed with a larger sample size.
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-01-01 23:22
Yes to most of the above, as Benade and others teach us, the "strange" odd-numbered-harmonic spectral distribution of sound energy is due to our cylindrical pipe as differenciated from the conical bores [oboe, sax families] which "overblow" as octaves rather than "12ths". Then, as I see it, the distribution of energies among the "permitted" harmonics gives the sound character of the particular "horn". IMHO, this is why the sopranos, alto, basset, bass and contra clarinets are all different. I sure wish some woodwind grad student will investigate the "spectra" of all of these insts. I recall having seen spectra of the oboe, where the major energy resides in the octave rather than the fundemental, so that it truly deserves to become the "haut bois" [high wood] sounding an octave above its fundemental. My two bits worth ! Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Stackpole
Date: 2005-01-02 01:27
Check the second reply in this thread -- looks like some grad students are busy at work in Australia...
JDS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2005-01-02 02:40
TKS, John S, yes UNSW appears to be hard at work in this very difficult research , this publication is excellent as far as it goes. I believe I'm asking questions beyond their discussions. I will study the impedance vs frequency spectra in more depth, but I'd like to see actually-measured [not calc'd] Amplitude vs frequency plots of perhaps several notes on each of the horns, where [I believe] the timbre of tones is produced, as I mentioned re: the oboe, that the octave was about twice the amplitude of the fundemental. I KNOW I/we need to think long and hard about this. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robert Moody
Date: 2005-01-02 07:34
OMG! I cannot believe the hoopla that has arisen over such a simple question and the simple answer it calls for!!!!
Man...what is the word for this kind of missing the target and scientific overkill?!
I believe that two people mentioned in passing the real answer to the original question. LMAO! "The mouthpiece and reed" is the simple answer to <<If I play the note A (440) on a clarinet, and someone else playes [sic] the same note on a trumpet, why do they sound different?>>
All this hoopla about odd-harmonics and whatnot are important, but more so in differentiating a clarinet from a saxophone—not so much a clarinet from a trumpet. LOL! And the cause of the prominence of odd partials is important for why a clarinet plays so much lower than other instruments of a similar physical length.
Amazing....truly amazing. Thanks for the chuckle ladies and gents.
[Edit: Also note that some clarinet players can overcome the physics of it all and ~sound~ like a saxophone. ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif) ]
Take Care,
Robert Moody
http://www.musix4me.com
Free Clarinet Lessons and Digital Library!
Post Edited (2005-01-02 07:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Stackpole
Date: 2005-01-02 11:40
In partial (little joke there) response to Bob Moody, his assertion could be tested by (somehow) rigging a trumpet mouthpiece to the front end of a clarinet, and vice versa.
I'm not contending that such a pair of portmanteau instruments would sound "good", but it might be interesting so hear which sounded more like the other or like the originals. Does the unique sound travel with the mouthpiece or is it (mainly) a function of the rest of the instrument?
More seriously, do I understand correctly that a trumpet has a (long) conical bore so that those pesky even harmonics are not supressed at all? Or at least not the same way as in a clarinet? What would a single-reed oboe sound like?
JDS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2005-01-02 12:30
JDS - no, a trumpet has a cylindrical bore. If it has a conical bore, it's a cornet. Played with similar mouthpieces, they will sound very similar; the characteristic cornet sound comes more from using a deep mouthpiece.
A single-reed oboe would sound much like an oboe. People have even made tiny single-reed mouthpieces to fit on oboes. So far as I know, nobody has successfully put a double reed on a cylindrical bore. (Except in so far as the lips of a brass player behave as a double reed.)
It is perhaps misleading to suggest that the bore is suppressing those pesky harmonics. The reason saxes play even harmonics and clarinets don't is not really because the cylindrical bore is suppressing anything. In a conical bore, the air pressure is much higher at the mouthpiece than at the bell; in a cylindrical bore, the pressure is the same. In a sax, this high pressure causes the reed to spend most of its time forced away from the facing, so the instrument behaves as a tube open at both ends. In a clarinet, the relatively low air pressure at the mouthpiece means that the reed spends most of its time shut against the facing, so the instrument behaves as a tube open at the lower end only.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Stackpole
Date: 2005-01-02 14:16
Good points - and there are no doubt a host of other non-linearities involved too in the ultimate sound production. I saw, after posting my note, over on the UNSW website that they have been analysing trumpets, too, and that they are not "purely" cylindrical bores either. They have cones toward the end (more so than clarinet bells) which "strengthens" the otherwise reduced even harmonics, at least at some frequencies.
All the "missing" harmonic arguments and theory are based on purely linear physics analysis of pipes with one end open or closed.
[I wonder how a pipe closed at both ends would sound? Might be hard to play, though.]
;-)
JDS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-01-02 14:23
Robert Moody wrote:
> I believe that two people mentioned in passing the real answer
> to the original question. LMAO! "The mouthpiece and reed" is
> the simple answer to <<If I play the note A (440) on a
> clarinet, and someone else playes [sic] the same note on a
> trumpet, why do they sound different?>>
Actually you're not correct here. What makes a clarinet sound like a clarinet isn't the mouthpice & reed - unless your clarinet sounds like a sax or a sax sounds like a clarinet. A clarinet sounds like a clarinet because it is a cylinder of air closed at one end vibrating, not a cone of air closed at one end or a cylinder or air opened at both ends. they all vibrate in different ways, producing tones charactistic of their shape.
The quality of the tone has a lot to do with that mouthpiece & reed, but not the essense of the sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2005-01-02 15:49
I guess that's why, if you have two people play different instruments in PERFECT unison, there's no difference in pitch, but it just sounds like some instrument that you've NEVER heard before. And I guess why composers are always looking for those different combinations and seeing what compliments what (thinking of a bass clarinet/piccolo unison that I heard on a certain TV show.)
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robert Moody
Date: 2005-01-02 16:21
Mark said, <<The quality of the tone has a lot to do with that mouthpiece & reed, but not the essense of the sound.>>
I wonder, would you suggest that if I took the body of a clarinet and changed the method of creating the sound (i.e. brass mouthpiece, oboe or bassoon reeds, flute head-joint, singing, etc.) that "in essence" it would continue to sound like a clarinet? My question is concerning the ear's interpretation, not an oscilloscope.
Since I know you are very web savvy and aware, are there any web published results from any like-study that you know of?
David mentioned, <<In a clarinet,...means that the reed spends most of its time shut against the facing....>>
Heh. I have bad reed days that felt like that. ![[right]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie8.gif)
Again, Mark said (others commented on), <<unless your clarinet sounds like a sax or a sax sounds like a clarinet.>>
Interestingly enough, I have heard on more than one occassion someone ask of a recording/passage, "Is that a clarinet or a saxophone?!" Now, admittedly, I have not heard too many saxophone players convince the listener that they were playing clarinet (not denying its plausability though).
I stick with my plain and simple answer to Johnny's plain and simple question: It is the reed and mouthpiece that make the clarinet sound different from the trumpet. [I do recognize the upper registers can imitate a piccolo trumpet, hence the name of early clarinet predecessors and their role in music at he time.]
I do not deny the role of harmonics in all of this. I argue that the quality to the ear that distinguishes a trumpet from a clarinet or a flute comes as much or more fundamentally from the origin of the sound (i.e. material and manipulation of air pressure at the mouthpiece) than from the manipulation of the sound through the body of the instrument.
Again, I would be curious to see experimentation in this area.
Take Care,
Robert Moody
http://www.musix4me.com
Free Clarinet Lessons and Digital Library!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-01-02 16:36
Robert Moody wrote:
> Mark said, <<The quality of the tone has a lot to do with that
> mouthpiece & reed, but not the essense of the sound.>>
>
> I wonder, would you suggest that if I took the body of a
> clarinet and changed the method of creating the sound (i.e.
> brass mouthpiece, oboe or bassoon reeds, flute head-joint,
> singing, etc.) that "in essence" it would continue to sound
> like a clarinet? My question is concerning the ear's
> interpretation, not an oscilloscope.
>
> Since I know you are very web savvy and aware, are there any
> web published results from any like-study that you know of?
Rather than listening to me or reading anyone else's experimental data, a cork with a hole in it and a trumpet mouthpiece would satisfy your curiosity, I believe. I've done it - it cost me about 50 cents at my local hardware store for the cork and I used a trumpet mouthpiece one of my son's had.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Stackpole
Date: 2005-01-02 20:20
Mark C:
Don't hold us in suspense... what did it sould like?
WAV file? Spectrogram?
JDS
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-01-02 20:25
John Stackpole wrote:
> Mark C:
>
> Don't hold us in suspense... what did it sould like?
Ugly. I should have the trumpet playing kid try it; I can't play a trumpet.
But it sounded (to me) like a clarinet. But since I was the one playing, and it met my expectations, my opinion really can't be trusted.
Post Edited (2005-01-02 20:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2005-01-02 22:02
David Peacham wrote:
" ..... The reason saxes play even harmonics and clarinets don't is not really because the cylindrical bore is suppressing anything. In a conical bore, the air pressure is much higher at the mouthpiece than at the bell; in a cylindrical bore, the pressure is the same. In a sax, this high pressure causes the reed to spend most of its time forced away from the facing, so the instrument behaves as a tube open at both ends. In a clarinet, the relatively low air pressure at the mouthpiece means that the reed spends most of its time shut against the facing, so the instrument behaves as a tube open at the lower end only."
To me, that makes not sense at all, because it suggests that if I play the clarinet with a very wide mouthpiece tip opening, or a very slack embouchure, the harmonic series of overtones would change to that of a sax (or violin or flute). Likewise playing a sax with a very closed reed opening would change it's harmonic series to that of a clarinet.
Is your explanation the same as that provided by the real experts, such as Benade?
I think not. Take a look at the following:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/pipes.html
Post Edited (2005-01-02 22:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2005-01-02 22:29
Somebody wrote that the trumpet has a cylindrical bore. If it were strictly cylindrical then the harmonic series would be similar to that of a clarinet, with odd numbered overtones.
In reality, only approx 2/3 of the bore is cylindrical, and the combined effect of the mouthpiece bore, and the large flare at the other end, distort this harmonic series so much that it behaves like that of the conical bore of the sax, i.e. like that of a flute or violin. See:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/brassacoustics.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rachel
Date: 2005-01-03 06:29
I once went through a stage when I was putting different mouthpieces on my clarinet to see what they sounded like. One of the ones I tried was from a recorder. It sounded like a very deep recorder.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Eric T
Date: 2005-01-03 16:02
I concur with those who say that the sound depends primarily on the shape of the bore, coupled with the "closed pipe" acoustics. I made a chalumeau using a piece of 1/2 " pvc, fitted to my mouthpiece, and it had a great tone....
et
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2005-01-03 19:11
Mark and the others' replies involving overtones is certainly correct in the context of the original post. Johnny did not ask why one clarinetist can sound different from another clarinetist.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robert Moody
Date: 2005-01-03 22:15
Well, I am waiting for my new debit card (or checks) to arrive and I will venture out and put Mark's experiment to the test. In fact, I will record my attempts for prosperity's sake.
It will probably be a couple/few days before they/it arrive(s). Meanwhile, in order to be consistent about the experiment, are there any stipulations for attaching the various mouthpieces/reeds to the clarinet to make the test valid. Or how about connecting a clarinet mouthpiece to the other instruments? I mean, I assume that simply sealing the mouthpiece with my hand against the instrument would not be satisfactory.
Eager to see for myself!
Robert Moody
http://www.musix4me.com
Free Clarinet Lessons and Digital Library!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Burt
Date: 2005-01-03 22:44
Gordon, it's quite possible to have a cylindrical instrument playing all the harmonics. The trumpet, trombone, flute, violin, etc. Granted, trumpet and trombone are not perfectly cylindrical (due to the bell), and this changes the pitch from what it would be if you measured and predicted. But the clarinet is not a perfect cylinder either. The departures from cylindrical on the clarinet are to make minor (except to musicians) improvements in intonation.
Wind instruments playing only the odd harmonics have a fundamental wavelength four times the length, while those playing all the harmonics have a fundamental wavelength twice the length. So for a clarinet, the wavelengths are: 4l, 4l/3, 4l/5, etc., while for a flute, it's 4l/2, 4l/4, 4l/6, etc.
For a stringed instrument, the wavelength is related to the string diameter, density and tension as well as the length.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2005-01-04 17:39
I was thinking of an old post by Ken Shaw:
<quote>
The clarinet always vibrates as a closed tube. I have read (in Benade, I believe) that the clarinet reed spends more time sealed against the lay than it does open. This longer time spent closed promotes the closed-tube mode, which is why the clarinet sounds and overblows as it does. During the time the reed is open, the vibration remains in closed-tube mode, since any open-tube vibration is overpowered by the longer-lasting closed tube vibration.
An instrument can produce a stable tone only when it reliably acts as a closed or open pipe. The clarinet is designed to stay firmly in the closed-tube mode, just as the saxophone is designed to stay in open-tube mode, even though its reed seals completely against the mouthpiece just as it does on the clarinet, but for a shorter time.
<unquote>
I shall dig out my copy of Benade in a couple of days and see whether he is indeed responsible for this explanation. I'd hate to be guilty of propagating old wives' tales.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2005-01-06 04:54
Burt wrote "...Gordon, it's quite possible to have a cylindrical instrument playing all the harmonics..."
Yes, a flute, because it acts as a tube open at both ends. A brass instrument is effectively a tube CLOSED at one end, like a clarinet. If a brass instrument were fairly strictly cylindrical in its bore, it would behave like a clarinet, blowing predominantly odd overtones.
Yes, a clarinet bore varies from the perfectly cylindrical, for various reasons, but it still behaves basically as a cylindrical tube closed at one end. The "cylindrical" brass instruments have both ends of the air column so severely distorted from cylindrical, that the overtones are a long way from what they would otherwise have been.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/brassacoustics.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
