 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Dan Oberlin ★2017
Date: 2006-11-23 18:03
I recently bought one of Tom Ridenour's Lyrique Custom B flat instruments
and have been playing it exclusively for the last four weeks. The purpose
of this post is just to share my (very high) opinion of that clarinet.
In doing so I'll compare it with two instruments which have passed through
my hands in the last few years and so will begin by describing them. For the last two and a half years I've played a Yamaha which is one of the
prototypes for their CSG. This instrument was sent to me from their USA
headquarters after I tried nine CSG's from various mail order houses and
finally contacted the people at Yamaha about my concerns with those clarinets. My Yamaha is a really nice horn with a beautiful sound and outstanding intonation and has suited me better than any of the R13's I've owned. But about 18 months ago I decided to try one more R13. This instrument was selected for me by one of the top pros in NYC based on input about my personal preferences. It was a fine clarinet but was still inferior to the Yamaha in both intonation and tonal quality. So,
forfeiting the $150 selection fee (and with no ill feelings), I returned that R13 and continued to play the Yamaha. Several months ago, somewhat intrigued by Sherman Friedland's posts and the claims on the Ridenour website, I decided to try one of Tom's hard rubber instruments. (What was to lose in trying one? Exactly the shipping fees for the instrument - a small amount compared to what I'd invested to try a really good R13.) Well before the end of my first hour playing it I knew that the Ridenour clainet would replace my Yamaha.
The intonation is very good, quite the equal of the intonation of the Yamaha and with the addition of an in-tune low F! The instrument has a beautiful tone. For me it has a smooth covered sound in and above the clarion register and a fine rich chalumeau. But what most sets it apart from the really good wooden instruments I've played is the uniformity of the tone
across each register. Each note sounds like its neighbors, and I continue to be amazed at how smoothly certain passages come out. Even my Buffet-loyalist clarinet performance major duet partner and stepdaughter likes it! The setup work on the instrument is as good as Tim Clark's work and therefore the response of the clarinet is remarkable. Additionally, the instrument is really fun to play - it is significantly easier to shape some phrases with it than with my Yamaha. And I really do find myself worrying less about the mechanics of my playing and therefore devoting more attention to the music.
Other remarks:
This clarinet's bore is polished to a level of smoothness probably unattainable with wood. Whatever the acoustic effects, an unintended fringe benefit is that the condensation drains right down the bottom of the bore, and I have not yet had a bubble under a pad.
The keywork is nickel plated, silver being incompatible with hard rubber.
The clarinet, including shipping, set me back under $1000. I was initially skeptical about the possibility of such an inexpensive instrument's outperforming my Yamaha but am now glad that I was open-minded enough to check it out.
Dan Oberlin
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2006-11-23 18:19
TR, when I was selecting my new LeBlanc Concerto Bb in Kenosha (1993), remarked about the (then) new Selmers, "I wish I know how they got their low F & E in tune". I glad to hear that he has finally figured it out.
I am curious regarding the "in tune" F3, how is resulting pitch and clarity of the C5? (and B4, for that matter??)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ianm
Date: 2006-11-24 07:33
Congratulations on your new clarinet which seems excellent. Please let me ask something. I'm intrigued that silver plating should be thought to be incompatible with hard rubber and wonder why this should be the case. I know that Hanson make an ebonite clarinet with silver plated keys. Boosey and Hawkes old imperial clarinet was also made of ebonite and I imagine it also had silver plated keys and some of these are still around and looking good. I would appreciate any comments on this possible silver plating incompatibility with body material. Thank you. ianm
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Oberlin ★2017
Date: 2006-11-24 10:55
William - The F was fixed w/o compromising the clarion B or C.
Ian - I've read that silver tarnish is silver sulfide and that sulfur is used in the vulcanization of rubber.
D.O.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ianm
Date: 2006-11-24 12:50
Thank you Dan. Does anyone know if this sulphur sulphide effect would occur with Delrin also?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-11-24 14:06
Delrin is a plastic that does not contain sulfur and therefore will not promote tarnish on silver.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2006-11-24 19:05
Just a note..a polished bore does not necessarily mean more resonance...this has been argued a good deal. I feel in terms of clarinets a highly polished bore on either plastic or wood or on the mouthpiece does not always make the sound better.
More importantly in this matter is the accuracy of the cutting and shaping of the bore and tone holes(same for the mouthpiece)...here is where a maker exerts the greatest influence in terms of sound.
David Dow
Post Edited (2006-11-24 19:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2006-11-24 19:28
I'm at a loss to understand how a hard rubber instrument can be far better that a wooden instrument. Please help me understand as having had a 'plastic' instrument in the beginning and then having moved on to the wooden variety there is a massive difference in resonance. Of course mouthpiece etc has a major impact but i not sure how this instrument can be better than say a R13. Personal preferences aside.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2006-11-24 19:32
> *** "Just a note..a polished bore does not necessarily mean more resonance...this has been argued a good deal. I feel in terms of clarinets a highly polished bore on either plastic or wood or on the mouthpiece does not always make the sound better". *** <
Yes, but the best R13s made in the 50s-70s have a highly polished bores....
Vytas Krass
Clarinet Repair
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2006-11-24 19:33
I'm at a loss to understand how a hard rubber instrument can be far better that a wooden instrument. Please help me understand as having had a 'plastic' instrument in the beginning and then having moved on to the wooden variety there is a massive difference in resonance. Of course mouthpiece etc has a major impact but i not sure how this instrument can be better than say a R13. Personal preferences aside.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-11-24 19:45
If the material (ceteris paribus) mattered, then we'd all have wooden mouthpieces, wooden barrels etc - this is not the case, why?
It does feel different under your fingers. It does have a different tuning curve (eg warming-up coefficient) than wood. We play with our fingers as much as we use our ears to listen - I agree they're different, in our hands as well as in our minds.
But I don't buy the "massive difference in resonance" thing. Not even for a minute. (remember that we compare "quality" and "quality", not "CSO" against "quality")
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2006-11-24 19:56
I have to say there is a difference. And i do play on a wooden mouthpiece when playing my period clarinets. I find there is a big difference between playing on a wooden moupiece and then moving back onto a hard rubber mouthpiece. True alot of players play with there fingers, i for one, but i also have a sound concept in my head which playing on a wooden instrument fits into, whether it's blackwood or boxwood. Havig just read an article on the makers website he mentions that blackwood instuments sound harsh and bright well surely this is the player. I'm sure one of his hard rubber instruments can sound bright in the hands of the right player.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2006-11-24 20:06
-- "Please help me understand as having had a 'plastic' instrument in the beginning and then having moved on to the wooden variety there is a massive difference in resonance." --
But I have a number of wooden and plastic clarinets.
The difference in resonance between my old Normandy and old Buffet is quite amazing. Yet they're both made of grenadilla.
My plastic Yamaha sounds better than the wooden Normandy.
The plot thickens.
"Methinks the truth is out there somewhere, but there are forces which will stop at nothing to prevent it being revealed."
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2006-11-24 20:19
(Diclaimer - I sell the Forte' Bb and C clarinets)
I hate to repeat, repeat, repeat myself but the experiment has been done. Buffet has the Greenline series with a plastic (with wooden bits and carbon fiber but with properties more like plastic than wood) and many consider the sound of the brother and sister wood and plastic to be very similar. Much of the tonal qualities of the clarinet have to do with the bore design, placement of the tone holes, treatment of the tone holes i.e. undercutting, and manufacturing quality and finishing. A good plastic clarinet - or hard rubber - can IMO sound as good or better than a less well made and finished wooden clarinet. It so happens that most of the professional level instruments are made from wood but also have better design, manufacturing work, and finishing touches than many plastic clarinets. We have had the "materials" debates ad nausium and bore texture to the same extent with no real resolution - thus far.
L. Omar Henderson
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mags1957
Date: 2006-11-24 20:34
L. Omar Henderson wrote:
> (Diclaimer - I sell the Forte' Bb and C clarinets)
> I hate to repeat, repeat, repeat myself but the experiment has
> been done. Buffet has the Greenline series with a plastic
> (with wooden bits and carbon fiber but with properties more
> like plastic than wood) and many consider the sound of the
> brother and sister wood and plastic to be very similar. Much
> of the tonal qualities of the clarinet have to do with the bore
> design, placement of the tone holes, treatment of the tone
> holes i.e. undercutting, and manufacturing quality and
> finishing. A good plastic clarinet - or hard rubber - can IMO
> sound as good or better than a less well made and finished
> wooden clarinet. It so happens that most of the professional
> level instruments are made from wood but also have better
> design, manufacturing work, and finishing touches than many
> plastic clarinets. We have had the "materials" debates ad
> nausium and bore texture to the same extent with no real
> resolution - thus far.
> L. Omar Henderson
Well said, and I agree. That's the appeal of the Ridenour clarinet for me - not the hard rubber material per se, but the design and finishing by Tom Ridenour. It's just unfortunate that 90% of the clarinet players out there won't even consider the Ridenour because it's not made out of grenadilla. I'm hoping my "A" will arrive today- full report to follow.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: janlynn
Date: 2006-11-24 21:25
even though the cost of Ridenour clarinet is not that expensive - its is for me, but i am so intrigued i just cant pass up a chance to try one. will be ordering one tonight. presently i play on a very expensive selmer signature. am quite anxioius to see how it compares.
thanks for bringing this clarinet to my attention.
jan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2006-11-24 22:23
I would be very happy to try one of these if they come my way. Always interested in new instruments. Like i said before, I have a sound in my head that i feel is achieved by playing on my wooden, wide bore instruments. Each to there own.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2006-11-24 22:25
> *** "If the material (ceteris paribus) mattered, then we'd all have wooden mouthpieces, wooden barrels etc - this is not the case, why?" *** <
Without any doubt wooden (Grenadilla) mouthpieces are the best sounding mouthpieces/material out there. The problem is that wood is dimensionally unstable and doesn't hold facing very well. This was the reason why more stable material like hard-rubber replaced wood. Same thing (partially) applies to barrels. If the wood swells let's say 0.05mm somewhere down the bore it will not create a big problem but if this happens to your mouthpiece facing (or barrel) it will certainly create a problem.
It's not the case if hard rubber and wood sound better or worse. Some people might prefer hard rubber.?... But if someone says that hard rubber and wood sound the SAME then "potatoes in your ears" syndrome is inevitable.
In around 1920 there was unsuccessful attempt to replace wood used for clarinets with metal or hard rubber. "Hard-rubber" was called material of the future etc. Many companies made pro metal and hard rubber clarinets at that time. The rest is history. No other material can produce exciting (edited spelling) overtones in the clarinet tone like Grenadilla.
Vytas Krass
Clarinet Repair
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
Post Edited (2006-11-27 17:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-11-24 23:09
> No other material can produce exiting overtones in the tone like Grenadilla.
I do not mean to argue about potatoes, apples and oranges - just one question:
Why has metal replaced wood in flutes?
Why are bassoons made of maple (I don't mention the metal in the boot joint)?
Why are recorders made of pear and other woods but rarely of Mpingo?
Don't get me wrong - I love wood - it's a fantastic material to touch, to work with, to live in - the touch and feel is great (and long-lasting if you catch a splinter), and even I, having solanaceous bulbs in my ears, can feel, even hear a difference, but mostly when playing, not when hearing.
I agree with everyone who says "it must feel right" or "you must feel at ease" with the instrument you're playing. But does the audience really hear a difference? I probably wouldn't.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2006-11-24 23:33
Metal replaced wood in flutes purely for the projection in the orchestra. That said there ar quite a few players in some of the orchestras in the world that are moving back to wooden flutes, or at least the use of a wooden head joint. All woodwinds were mainly made of boxwood untill the orchestra developed and then new materials were used to make the sound project.
Wood instruments do feel right and i for one can hear the difference. I can also feel it when i've played one of my student's 'plastic' ones and then move back onto my Eaton. There is certainly more vibration.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-11-24 23:59
> There is certainly more vibration.
Maybe you should tighten the screws a bit. ![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jmcgann
Date: 2006-11-25 00:01
Kenny Davern chooses a plastic Conn horn and sounds mighty fine to my ears!
www.johnmcgann.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2006-11-25 00:25
Bassoons are made of wood on the outside, but the entire descending bore is lined with Bakelite plastic and has been for over 100 years. The left-hand finger holes are lined with brass.
Until he switched to a Yamaha, Rick Woodhams, the principal oboist in the Philadelphia Orchestra, played a Lorée with a plastic top joint, and Lorée charges **more** for plastic than for wood.
Alexander Williams played a silver Eb in the New York Philharmonic, and Gaston Hamelin played silver clarinets as principal in Boston.
Robert Spring has played a Greenline (i.e., plastic) Buffet for years. I was in the NYC WW&BW when Jon Manasse was picking out clarinets for his students at Eastman, and all of them were Greenline Festivals.
I hate nickel plating. My fingers keep sliding off the keys. If Tom Ridenour offered German silver keys, I'd probably buy a Lyrique.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cuisleannach
Date: 2006-11-25 02:54
I hope we're not heading for a rehash of the wood v. plastic v. rubber debate, but acoustically they are really not that different as the thick walls prevent the material of the wall from contributing any resonance (see Benade among others). I've never "worked" in plastic or rubber, so I don't know if there's a property of wood that makes it easier to turn out the precise dimensions necessary for excellent instruments, but I do know that in many cases (at least in oboes, clarinets, and recorders) that a good plastic instrument can easily outplay a mediocre wooden one. I played a greenline for years that was a superb instrument. As mentioned before, loree (and fox) produce plastic-topped professional instruments to avoid cracking in the top joint. To avoid damage to my good wooden recorders in transit during cold Minnesota winters I use my yamaha 300-series plastics, which are just as good as wooden instruments that cost 10-15 times as much.
I'm very interested in Mr. Ridenour's product and I think I'll give it a try in the next month or so....I'll keep you informed!
tictactux said:
<<Why are recorders made of pear and other woods but rarely of Mpingo?>>
Mpingo is used occasionally for recorders (you can find them in the high-end Moeck, Coolsma, and others), but rosewood (another dalbergia specimen) is favored. One reason may be weight. Another is that folks have said that mpingo instruments project more and are harsher, and overcome other instruments in a consort. They are also more expensive. Pear, by the way, is one of the more interesting woods to make recorders out of because, as a soft, porous wood it has to be impregnated with wax. Woe betide anyone who leaves a pearwood recorder in a car on a hot day, as the wax exudes out and the cost of fixing your mistake is generally greater than the price of the instrument.......learned the hard way as a high-schooler a long time ago!
-Randy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2006-11-27 05:45
There is one scientific study that hasn't been mentioned (I think).
It has been found that very smooth surfaces 'hold' air more than grainy and
irregular surfaces- eg. dimples on golf balls. Air is very sticky and clings to smooth surfaces; it also clings to grainy surfaces, but only the initial air goes into the grains and then the following air "floats" over the air that is stuck in the grains. Therefore, in the perfect world of science, woodgrain allows faster airspeed than perfect smoothness-
BUT in reality ... that is only for the first few minutes before water cotes the bore and the surface of the rubber and wood is now the same.
FYI- Airplanes have been produced with dimples on high friction areas (like the nose, the seem of the wing and body) for a while now.
**If I am wrong about the folloing historical statement please tell me.**
As far as I have studied about the use of grenadilla wood- Some would be surprised that it was not first used because it had a great sound. It was first used when Europe began colonizing and having more and more exchanges (often, forced exchanges) with north Africa. The choice was quite influencedby the fact that it is a much stronger and longer lasting material than other woods at the time. Boxwood is generally not hard enough to withstand the useage of the modern playing and keywork of the time; and even moreso today. Although all woods change shape due to a number of factors, Grenadilla changes less than most other woods. There are some harder woods, but they are also heaver and, I think, too heavy to be comfortable for most hands. Reciently, some wood treatment methods can produce lighter woods that is hard enough to be used for modern mechanisms.
My question is different- over time, rubber can start to smell, right? I work on mouthpieces all the time and I think I will forever hate the smell of rubber as I am cutting and sanding it. Are these clarinets made of 'non-smell' rubber?
How is the pitch affected by temperture? Is it more stable than wood?
-S
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2006-11-27 06:00
PS. I didn't mean to say that the grainy surface is acoustically better or worse than the other . The experiment was on air flow, not sound.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2006-11-27 09:14
PPS. Specifically addressed to Peter Cigleris: some things you have said a few times and my personal answer.
1. "i also have a sound concept in my head which playing on a wooden instrument fits into"
2. "I can also feel it when i've played one of my student's 'plastic' [clarinets]"
May I ask when was the last time you played an instrument made of plastic that was given the attention in production of wood instruments?
Plasitic clarinets (except for the one inquestion) are usually made for cheaply for students and are stamped out of a mold- then keys are placed in the predetermined places- then self sealing synthetic pads are shoved into the pad cups. Sometimes I wonder if they are even seen by human eyes before they leave the factory. Wood clarients are given more attention in production; it is no wonder they would play better. Also, the keys are usually made of better material, so the repairs last longer.
-S
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: carrielj
Date: 2006-11-27 10:30
I have a Ridnour 147 and I think it sounds great! It's my favorite non wood instrument. My concern is as it ages, will the color eventually change to tan like all of the hard rubber mouthpieces that I have?
Carrie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-11-27 11:18
"I can also feel it when i've played one of my student's 'plastic' ones and then move back onto my Eaton."
So the plastic clarinets of your students have exactly the same quality and acoustic design as your Eaton clarinet, only made of plastic, correct? If not, how is that a fair comparison? You seem to ignore what clarinet companies spend most of their time and money on (I think?) - acoustic design, and give all the credit only to the material. Why?
I have the same feeling when moving back to my Eaton...... not from a student plastic clarinet, but from my other more expensive (than the Eaton) wood clarinet.
"There is certainly more vibration."
Maybe it is made from a recycled vibrator? Maybe they should start making those from wood also (or are they already? I am not very knowledgable about this!)?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seafaris
Date: 2006-11-27 14:03
IMHO...It is amusing to me that some folks will spend thousands of $$ on a wood clarinet and then spend mucho time and $$ on barrels and mouthpieces to make it sound a certain way and play in tune. Then a highly qualified player and technician comes out with a composite clarinet (that won't crack) and that according to other qualified players sounds great, plays in tune, is made well, comes with a good barrel and mouthpiece yet the whole idea is torn apart by those with the wood clarinets. As in every piece of equipment we use it is a matter of what we feel comfortable with. If you think you will play better with brand X then you will. It really doesn't matter much what anyone else thinks it is a personal decision. I have a Leblanc LL and Dynamic H and love the Dynamic H, I do think I will try the new Ridenour Bb and see how I like it.
.....Jim
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sherman
Date: 2006-11-27 16:05
Yes, Hamelin did play metal clarinets as principal in Boston and they were the Selmer Clarinet, the one with the knurled barrel tuning device at the top of the horn. Those Selmers were widely esteemed by many and were finally taken out of the Selmer catalog, because, and I quote an old old, friend , a truly wonderful repairperson in Milwaukee, "They hurt the prestige of the Selmer Company"
Heresay? I think not, because there also exists a story that Hamelin was was given his notice in Boston. Because he played metal? I think not.
Gaston Hamelin was a great player and the teacher of Ralph Maclane.
If anyone wishes to contradict or add, this is a fascinating subject, and add immeasuarably to the argument that there "are more overtones "exiting " from Grenadilla, an unfortunate spelling error of the poster, however truer than one would think.
From biographical material on Joe Allard, who studies with Hamelin for four years:
"Allard studied with Gaston Hamelin for four years. Hamelin's contract with the Boston Symphony was not renewed after the 1930 season, reportedly because conductor Serge Koussevitzky would not allow Hamelin to play his metal Selmer clarinet in the orchestra. Harmelin returned to his native Paris, leaving his students behind."
I would conclude that we make the sound we like and build in our head and in our teeth and our ears. Blindfold tests be damned for they are mere flukes, smoke and mirrors, the whole magillah for no goood reason.
Rosario Mazzeo, as personell manager of the Boston Symphony Orchestra instituted the screen behind which persons auditioning played.
Believe me, every single one was known to the committee, not by a piece of paper, but by their sound as they played, for the ear of a committee doesn't need a screen.
Sherman Friedland
Post Edited (2006-11-27 18:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cuisleannach
Date: 2006-11-27 23:00
Skygardner.....
Regarding your aerodynamics, sort of yes and sort of no. The question here is a matter of turbulent v. laminar airflow. In general, a turbulent airflow creates more drag across a surface, and a laminar airflow doesn't. In a laminar flow (slow speed across a smooth surface), the layers of air (or other fluid) slide across each other in sheets, with the sheet next to the surface sliding almost not at all. This can be good in some cases, bad in others. If you are trying to provide lubrication on a bearing surface laminar flow is good. If you are trying to cool a fluid in a radiator, turbulence (which allows all parts of the fluid to contact the heat exchanger) is better.
Golf balls are an interesting case. Perfectly smooth golf balls would probably have a laminar flow about them. If they are dimpled, and hit fast enough (which I cannot do...I'm terrible) the flow will be turbulent. With laminar flow the spin of the golf ball won't affect its trajectory too much, because the relatively still boundary layer won't influence the air. With turbulent flow, there won't be a stationary boundary layer and the spin of the ball can exert a pretty substantial force on the ball. This makes a dimpled ball longer (and also more prone to slices and hooks...you can't get something for nothing).
In airplanes, most have gone towards having a polished surface because the speeds at which they travel force the flow into turbulence, and a smooth surface will reduce drag. The exceptions are small model airplanes and competition soaring aircraft. They operate at the transition between laminar and turbulent flow, and attempt to force the flow into turbulence because, to simplify, still air doesn't produce lift (there's lots more stuff about this, but would take more room than most would like). Some WWII fighter planes (i.e. P-51 Mustang) had "laminar flow wings", but these didn't produce laminar flow.
How does this apply to clarinets? There's much debate....even on this board (as Mark and Vytas will surely attest!). Clarinets are interesting because the actual flow (once you get past the mp/reed part) is very slow, which would be very favorable to laminar flow, no matter whether the bore is smooth or rough (neglecting tone holes). However, the air in a clarinet acts as a medium for the standing wave that is our sound, and this complicates matters quite a bit.
-Randy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-11-27 23:33
Re the laminar and turbulent air flow - check out why shark skin is not smooth but rough (and has less resistance than if it were smooth). And while we're at it - a penguin's body doesn't appear to be perfectly streamlined, yet it has a lower water resistance (for a given volume) than a mathematically modelled body.
What I mean to say is that things sometimes aren't what they appear to be. The dynamics of gases and fluids are a very complex field and can't be adequately modelled with traditional static methods (like measuring the smoothness of a tube's innards). Plus, in a clarinet we don't want the air to just rush out - we want it to produce, transport and support a sound. The term "resonance fingering" isn't just a buzzword (sic) - resonance is what this is all (or a lot of) about. Ever wondered why manufacturers tossed names like resonite or reso-whatever instead of calling their instruments "smoothie"?
I think that bore smoothness is more a manufacturing result, not necessarily a design decision. But that is just idle musing, I admit.
Now back to producing velvety tones...
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jaysne
Date: 2006-11-28 01:46
I recently bought an Ridenour A clarinet and fell in love with it immediately. I too am partial to wood, but the rubber sounds mighty fine. It has a different kind of full resonance; neither better nor worse than wood, just different. And sweet.
One poster mentioned how he hates nickel keys. I noticed the difference, and was pining away for silver keys like on my Selmer 10S Bb, but you know what? After a few hours I didn't notice the difference any more. Vive Ridenour rubber!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2006-11-28 11:41
Ken Shaw wrote:
"Bassoons are made of wood on the outside, but the entire descending bore is lined with Bakelite plastic and has been for over 100 years."
Not yet it hasn't: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bakelite, also http://www.bakelitmuseum.de/
(Sorry Ken, couldn't resist it: your point is entirely valid, of course.)
-----------
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: David Peacham
Date: 2006-11-28 11:54
tictactux asked:
"Why are recorders made of pear and other woods but rarely of Mpingo?"
Cheap wooden recorders are made of pearwood because it is relatively cheap and easy to work, though often considered inferior to modern plastics.
Expensive recorders are rarely made of mpingo, I believe, simply because most recorder makers seek some degree of historical authenticity, and mpingo was not used in the baroque - not commonly, at least.
And, as skygardener points out, a major reason that wooden clarinets and oboes (and wooden Boehm flutes for that matter) are commonly made of mpingo has little to do with the superior acoustic performance of mpingo. It is because mpingo can be machined accurately, and does not crumble under the stresses imposed by keywork. Recorders have little or no keywork, so this is not a consideration.
And one further point on the subject of recorders. Recorders are surprisingly fragile. Many serious players will tell you never to play an expensive recorder for more than an hour at a time. To a professional clarinet or oboe player, spending long hours in orchestra or band, such a restriction would be highly inconvenient. But no recorder player, professional or otherwise, needs or wants to play one instrument for hours on end. In a recital, a recorder player will often change instruments almost for every piece, for musical reasons alone. The wood can be chosen for its acoustic advantages alone; durability is much less of an issue.
-----------
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: Cuisleannach
Date: 2006-11-28 19:00
Actually, tictactux, that was the point I was trying to make.....just because something tends to laminar flow doesn't mean it exhibits better qualities than something exhibiting turbulent flow.....the golf ball is a case in point. Dimpled balls travel much farther (if you know how to hit them....dimples don't make much difference if the product of your swing does more to catch gophers than air....like mine) than smooth balls. Interestingly, nature has produced two types of creatures that go fast in water, sharks and dolphins. One's sandpapery rough and one's smooth as polished glass....go figure!
In my opinion, blind tests of identical instruments should be made of precisely the same dimensions and manufacture, half with smooth bore and half with rough bore, and graded by blinded players and blinded listeners. It's the only way to be sure. I haven't had any takers from instrument manufacturers, though.
-Randy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-11-28 19:31
Randy,
When I hear that one should try a whole bunch of (identical) instruments to find the "good one", then maybe the manufacturing tolerances cater for more differences than a slightly rough bore...
Interestingly, all my wooden barrels have a rather rough bore compared to the joints.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TheCheeseMaker
Date: 2006-11-28 20:36
Hi,
I was wondering abouth the Ridenour bass clarinet? Has anyone tried one?
They look great, double register key, adjustable neck, left hand Eb/Ab key and such a good price. Does anyone know if they will be available to low C?
Can anyone compare them to other professional bass clarinets?
Peter.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2006-11-28 23:23
Most ABS, rubber or vulcanized rubber does tend to age to a fairly nice green color with time..
.however, keeping the instrument from direct sunlight will alleviate much of the problem with a plastic or rubber clarinet from fading in time.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SFroehlich
Date: 2006-11-29 04:25
I'd like to hear impressions of his Bass - once I'm in the market (or better yet, have something passable to compare one against), I'll probably make the drive down to Houston to try a couple.
His last effort (the bundy-based one) was not impressive - the one I saw couldn't keep its keywork in adjustment for more than two weeks (hence the copy about the keys being strong this time around).
This one looks like its being manufactured by Amati (like Dr. Henderson's horns) and then tweaked by TR.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Cuisleannach
Date: 2006-11-29 06:07
I would have to agree, tic.....my experiment would be for settling the question once and for all.....imagine, a hundred top-notch clarinetists (listened to by knowledgeable juries) trying a bunch of different clarinets (each identical save for a modification in a single parameter) to test such contentious issues as bore smoothness, undercutting, materials, not to mention the majors like bore design. It'll never happen but I'd love to see it! I volunteer my services to analyze the data......
-Randy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2006-11-29 07:02
Randy,
I'll predict that the knowledgeable jury will rather rate the top-notch clarinetists than their horns or the sound they produce with them. Unless we have Asimo to demonstrate the clarinets, we have too many imponderabilities in our test environment...
I'll settle for the "it's the player who makes all the difference" theory...
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2006-11-29 12:08
Tom Ridenour is a truly great technician so I suspect his Bass is pretty nice...his mouthpieces are super too but I don't hear too much about them on the Bulletin Board. I also agree with Ben above...the player makes a difference more than one would suspect.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
