 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: janlynn
Date: 2007-05-09 18:21
After reading so much about the Lyrique clarinet here, I placed an order for one last night.
ive read a lot of pros...but what about the cons?
i would like to start this thread for any thoughts on the bad things (big or small) like the thumb rest someone mentioned. what is it with the thumb rest?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2007-05-09 19:01
The case is crap. Very cheap. Mine broke after about a month of use.
The thumbrest doesn't bother me personally, but it does others I guess.
The keywork, perhaps it's better than it used to be, but it still looks a little off. For instance, the adjustment screw on the throat A on mine doesn't line up correctly with the G# key. The screw is offcenter of the small piece of metal it's supposed to push against. Does it affect the playing? Nope. So I don't worry about it. But it was noted in my head as "the keys could still jump up in quality".
That's about all the cons I have noticed.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MichaelR
Date: 2007-05-09 19:27
sfalexi wrote:
> The case is crap. Very cheap. Mine broke after about a month
> of use.
Have you contacted Ridenour about this? If so, what was the response? If not, why not?
My case, which has spent time bouncing around in a bicycle messenger bag, is doing fine after six months.
--
Michael of Portland, OR
Be Appropriate and Follow Your Curiosity
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2007-05-09 20:20
sfalexi, did you get the custom model or the standard?
As far as the quality of keywork, mine is very good--every bit as good as the last Buffet R-13 I owned.
And, you do get a year's warranty. I would certainly tell Tom about the problem with the case. Also, remember that we're talking about a clarinet that is under 1,000.00. It's pretty remarkable as far as I'm concerned.
I like the pads that he's used on these. They are synthetic that look like cork and really can handle long playing and practice sessions. Much better than used on other plastic/rubber clarinets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mags1957
Date: 2007-05-09 20:27
I don't care for the thumbrest, but I ordered one of Tom's thumb rests (it's a rubber thingy that just goes on the end of a regular thumb rest - no "installation" required), I think $9.00. I like it.
Could the keywork be improved? Yes. Does it bother me when I'm actually playing? No - not after I got used to where the C#/G# key is and where the left hand C is. Do I think it's cheaply made and will fall apart in a few years? No, not a concern for me. And if it does, I'll buy another one - odds are it will be an improved model, and I'll still be $ ahead.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2007-05-10 09:36
As per the case, I sent an email to him when it happened (about two weeks ago) with no response as of yet. It could have gotten looked over, and it's dificult for me to call due to where I am and how much it costs to call a US number from here. I'll send another email and see what, if anything, can be done.
As per the keywork, most of it IS very good. But that A adjustment screw IS misaligned. It's not horribly off, and it still works, but you can see that the A key was mismanufactured. Whether they ALL come out like that or whether only the one that I have is molded/forged/created incorrectly I don't know. But I know that mine isn't right. But it works, and it's not so badly out that I would ever have to worry about it NOT working, so I'm not going to worry about it.
But the topic was lyrique downfalls and these are two things that were wrong with my lyrique (however minor, these things did irk me a bit - especially the case).
Alexi
PS - I hope that you're correct Mark in that the cases SHOULD be better than mine and that perhaps mine was a lemon. Cause I definitely need a sturdier case than what I got. Especially being in my field where my instrument gets put in the back of trucks, in helicopters, trunks of HMMWVS, beds of LMTVS, etc. And I'm hoping that a replacement case would be able to withstand this (although it's quite a test for most standard cases anyway)
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: glin
Date: 2007-05-10 11:44
Alexi,
Just for your info, my Lyrique A adjustment key is off center as well. I echo your sentiments about it: functions fine, but flawed manufacturing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2007-05-10 12:52
Maybe I don't know enough about clarinet making but I saw that A key on mine and thought it was aligned that way for some specific reason that probably did not matter to me since it does not hamper my playing at all. I never looked at it as a downfall. Now that it's mentioned, I am curious to know if it is a fault or just different design. But once again, it does not alter my ability to use that key whatsoever. What "wrong" could come of the key being the way it is?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2007-05-10 16:29
The only thing I can think of (which I'll check tomorrow) is that MAYBE when I pop up the A key, the adjustment screw will end up in the middle due to the angle with which it rises (if it IS true, I'll post pictures to further explain . . . )
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: janlynn
Date: 2007-05-11 16:14
well, this is good. looks like there arent too many downfalls - nor anything major.
now i just have to wait for my new Lyrique. atleast a month. i cant stand it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2007-05-11 16:32
And from an email from Mr. Ridenour, he states that those cases are the ones he's used for years and that the problem I have is NOT common at all. So I guess I could've just gotten a lemon of a case.
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2007-05-12 13:32
It bears mentioning that few concerns have been voiced about the playing quality... this family of instruments are winners.
Don't forget the older, TR147s that are floating around. They were built for the rigors of student use with superior tuning character.
Me, I'm selling off everything but my Arioso.
(If I could afford an Lyrique, I would buy one!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2007-05-12 17:09
Synonymous Botch wrote:
> It bears mentioning that few concerns have been voiced about
> the playing quality... this family of instruments are winners.
yeah. Looking for downfalls I came up with a slightly off-center adjustment screw which doesn't affect the playing and a case that the buckles fell off of. Not too shabby if THOSE are the downfalls I found.
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2007-05-17 21:43
TR 147 are of same specs as Lyrique, I believe, and with similar mechanical features. They were set up and adjusted by Ridenour, and sold by Brook Mays. I have two. After playing them and upgrading to cork and white kid pads, I sold my two Concertos. Great intonation, and bargain prices.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: musiciandave
Date: 2007-05-18 11:57
I tried the Arioso and it reminded me more of a bundy than a great instrument. A hard rubber clarinet is just not for me....... Wasn't at all impressed with the keywork and the tone wasn't "wood" like. I play a Selmer Signature and am going to stick with that for now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: janlynn
Date: 2007-05-18 12:00
i also "played" a selmer signature until last night. I rcvd. my new Lyrique clarinet and it IS all that its cracked up to be. I am very pleased. I started this thread - and i must say, i see no downfalls. i even like the thumbrest. if i had to make a downfall - i'm so used to my slender case from my selmer signature, i dont like the bulkiness of the Lyrique case. i have already transferred it into my old case as it is now my primary horn.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: musiciandave
Date: 2007-05-18 18:05
I can't comment on the Lyrique, but have never played a rubber clarinet that I thought could hold a candle to a good wooden clarinet.
Bad dimensions are bad dimensions regardless of material, but good dimensions and high quality wood to me work the best by far. There might be good, great, etc. University Instructors who may like the hard rubber, but I haven't yet seen a top Orchestral player think much of them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2007-05-18 18:16
I still have yet to test my lyrique against my leblanc opus. Give me about a year when I can get to my opus again (it's stored right now until I return to the states), but I have a feeling it'll fall a close second to my opus (which was also custom tuned). I really love that opus. But I won't get rid of my lyrique. It'll be a very fine backup/outdoor clarinet. And I'll probably get an A lyrique to compliment my A opus (and have will have them both tuned and setup by Mr. Ridenour, provided he can fit me in his schedule when I return) Judging by the lyrique, he knows what he's doing. And his mouthpiece . . . . VERY nice. Top quality, along with the other top makers.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2007-05-18 18:40
I have not tried the Lyrique.
One of the reasons that wooden clarinets are held to be so much better than clarinets of "inferior" materials is that the companies that make the clarinets spend more time and money on those wooden clarinets!
The actual "walls" of the clarinet, regardless of material, resonate in such an imperceptible amount that one can argue that they do not impact the sound presented to the audience.
Musicandave said it: "good dimension and good wood"...most of us know what that sounds like: we each own lots of clarinets like that.
But good dimensions and hard rubber? One would have to try.
Their are professional synthetic clarinets, however: the Buffet greenline. Few argue that this isn't a pro horn and it is essentially a particle board clarinet. (perhaps this is a gross oversimplification...)
As for a list of professional clarinetists that use the Lyrique? Visit Tom's site to find one.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-05-18 22:06
Hi,
Maybe I missed it but has anyone tried multiple Lyriques to see if there are any significant differences in side-by-side trails? Comparing a wooden instrument to the Lyrique seems to be an apples-to-oranges test (and not very good research design).
If there is little variance from one unit to another, that would be a major finding. I believe that have been some hints that variability is slight if any.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2007-05-18 22:35
I believe that Brenda Siewert has told a story suggesting that they are consistent side by side. It is in one of the other recent "Lyrique" threads.
James
PS...if Tom Ridenour proposes that the Lyrique is just as good as a pro horn (and perhaps it is, maybe not) then it would be apples to apples (or clarinets to clarinets).
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-05-19 02:20
James,
IMHO (per your PS) you would then have a co-variance issue due to a variable you can not control that may introduce a Type I or II error.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: musiciandave
Date: 2007-05-19 02:38
The Buffet Greenline to me is not a satisfactory substitute for the Wooden one.
It does feel differently.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mags1957
Date: 2007-05-19 12:21
Of course it's "apples to apples". Anyone who tries a Lyrique is going to judge it based on how it plays as a clarinet - NOT how it plays as a rubber clarinet. When you select a mouthpiece, you select it based on how it plays for you - whether it be hard rubber, wood, crystal, etc. If one were to play a Lyrique and decide it's not for them based on actual musical criteria, then who could argue? Many don't like Buffet, Selmer, Yamaha, etc. for various reasons. But to dismiss the Lyrique out of hand because it's "not wood" or "I don't like the sound of rubber" before you give one a serious play test, well that's just.........absurd, yes?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2007-05-19 13:19
<But to dismiss the Lyrique out of hand because it's "not wood" or "I don't like the sound of rubber" before you give one a serious play test, well that's just.........absurd, yes?>
Yup.
I was thinking about musiciandave's rejection of Green Line clarinets while driving home from a job last night. I enjoy playing my Green Line and I know that many other clarinetists do as well. I was planning a rejoinder of sorts in my head ... until I reread his post again this morning:
<The Buffet Greenline to me is not a satisfactory substitute for the Wooden one.>
I can't argue with that. These opinions are inherently subjective. As of yet, we don't see audiences demanding that woodwind players use cane reeds or the record-buying public insisting that every recording of the Brahms Quintet be played on a Grenadilla clarinet. And as long as we state our individual preferences as personal opinion and resist the temptation to make blanket statements of universal applicability we should be able to tolerate a range of divergent views and maybe even come to appreciate the wealth of different approaches our discipline allows us.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2007-05-19 13:59
Hank...I am happy to report that although I understand the point of what you said I actually don't understand it! (yea! I'm about to learn something!)
Would you explain either here or in an email to me?
Rereading that PS I definitely didn't craft that statement well...I was simply attemtpting to point out that if the horn is actually pro quality then it's material is irrelevant...and it vs. wooden clarinets would be clarinets vs clarinets
Musiciandave: I'm not arguing with your opinion, just your choice of words. You must have meant that the greenline didn't SOUND like a pro horn. How an instrument feels doesn't mean it doesn't sound like a pro instrument. (of course it can sound like a pro horn but not feel good in the hands)
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: musiciandave
Date: 2007-05-19 14:39
I'm not going to say that the Greenline doesn't "sound like a pro horn" as that would be an absurd statement.
I can say that when I tried it, it didn't sound nor feel nearly as good as my Signature, nor other Buffets that I own.
I also would say that if there weren't any wooden clarinets on earth anymore, that to me the Greenline wouldn't be a satisfactory replacement.
Nor would a hard rubber clarinet.
An awesome test would be if Tom was able to make a Wooden Lyrique or Arioso and put it side by side to the Hard Rubber. Even various types of Clarinet wood.
I think that they would play significantly different.
Post Edited (2007-05-19 18:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mags1957
Date: 2007-05-19 18:40
"An awesome test would be if Tom was able to make a Wooden Lyrique or Arioso and put it side by side to the Hard Rubber. Even various types of Clarinet wood.
I think that they would play significantly different."
Yes, Tom Ridenour himself did conduct those type of experiments. His conclusion was that hard rubber played as good as or better than wood, given the same dimensions. He prefers hard rubber to wood, plain and simple. Agree with him or not, he feels he is making the best clarinets possible using the best material possible. I tend to agree, having played Buffet R-13, Buffet Prestige, Yahama CS, and now Lyrique. The Lyrique is the best clarinet I have played to date.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-05-19 18:59
Hi James & Mags,
Have you had a research and statistics course (preferably at the graduate level)? If so, go back and review inferential hypothesis testing and the effect of uncontrolled variables (rubber versus wooden clarinets) on statistical results. You must select a representative sample that is large enough to be able to generalize to the population.
If you have not had such a course, you are in for a treat (but what some have come to call a treatment).
HRL
PS James, do a search for co-variance and you'll understand better.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2007-05-19 21:17
Thanks Hank...I'll give that a whirl.
Musiciandave: I very much like that idea. Ridenour seems to have thought along the same lines (although I have no firsthand knowledge of it) and, as Mags said, he just prefers hard rubber.
I will get out of the way of the discussion, since I haven't tried his horns yet.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-05-20 01:14
That's good, James. The language on co-variance may be pretty dry but I'm sure you can see my statistical concerns.
As far as my discussions with TR, his contentions seem to be that hard rubber is as good as wood for a clarinet body (BTW I use Delrin barrels with my clarinets and have a Lyrique on order).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mags1957
Date: 2007-05-20 03:12
"Hi James & Mags,
Have you had a research and statistics course (preferably at the graduate level)? If so, go back and review inferential hypothesis testing and the effect of uncontrolled variables (rubber versus wooden clarinets) on statistical results. You must select a representative sample that is large enough to be able to generalize to the population.
If you have not had such a course, you are in for a treat (but what some have come to call a treatment)."
Huh??? Was that meant to be funny, or an insult? I'll answer anyway:
Um......No, actually I have not had a research and statistics course. I didn't realize that was a prerequisite for commenting on a clarinet. Are you trying to imply that grenadilla clarinets compare to other grenadilla clarinets in a way that a hard rubber clarinet can't compare? If so, I strongly disagree. I think anyone who has play tested a number of different brands of grenadilla clarinets can attest that they are NOTHING at all alike. So I guess we're still not comparing apples to apples if we have different bore dimensions and different tone hole placements, etc., even among grenadilla clarinets.
A hard rubber Lyrique doesn't play anything like a grenadilla R-13. But guess what - a grenadilla Selmer Recital doesn't play anything like a grenadilla R-13 either - so what ultimately is your point? Try a Lyrique - you might like it, you might not. But someone not having an open mind about trying one simply because it is not made of grenadilla is still absurd to me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-05-20 13:20
Hi Mags,
Never an insult and not meant to be funny. A research and stats background is not required to make a comment but you have some reasoning errors above which I tried to point out.
HRL
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-05-20 15:46
Sorry, the old college professor believes that we need a short statistics lesson to separate opinion from proven result. I will not go into advanced techniques but just accept that Type 1 and Type 2 errors are erroneous conclusions.
If ever it would be so simple to make a one to one comparison. As Hank points out the wonderful world of truth, especially in science, is constrained by the laws of statistics which are generally accepted as the ultimate test and validity of test results. There are some areas of hypothesis or opinion that statistics are just not applicable - perhaps some will argue that this is one, but the field of statistics was greatly enhanced by investigators in the field of psychology when they needed to show or prove to other scientists that their theories or hypothesis’s were valid about results that were often subjective on initial observation.
There is good reason for the use of statistics because they predict the overall probability of an event being true or false from all the known events possible. Unfortunately when you are testing a hypothesis (a statement which you wish to show is true) comparing any two things you are subject to the "power" (a statistical term which estimates the number of samples needed to give you an answer with a certain truth factor - typically the probability of the event being true 5 times out of 100, 1 time out of a hundred, or 1 time out of a thousand) calculation. Statistics gets even more obtuse because we typically test the "null" hypothesis which indicates that there is no difference between the two or more items being tested. We often refer to a statistically valid test using the above criteria - e.g. valid at the .01 level (which means that 1 time out of a hundred the null hypothesis - no difference between the two is true which is sort of a backward way of explaining the truth of a hypothesis)
The make up of the elements to estimate the "power" of a statistical test is the number of variables which can affect the end result and any covariables which modify or influence variables. Unfortunately the number of distinct (independent or individual samples) observations necessary goes up exponentially (by a factor of 10 times) with each variable. When dealing with a subjective (one that has no measurement units or scale - e.g. tone and timbre of a note played on an instrument) outcome the number of samples required goes up even faster because of the lack of measurement estimation accuracy of the outcome observation.
So, if you have two different instruments - one made of material X and one Y the physical measurement variables are numerous, you also must have a player or number of players to produce the measurable outcome - sound -and then you must have an observer or number of observers who can only give a subjective and non-measurable outcome variable ( single yes or no opinion, or various estimates of other subjective and non-standardized terms e.g. bright, dark - results either yes or no or some arbitrary scale for each). The power calculation for this number of variables and covariables is huge for our "simple" two clarinet X & Y comparison and practically unobtainable in the real world or possible only with a cost of millions of dollars.
Therefore (which also has roots in statistics) there will probably only remain opinions from individual observers, probably never a statistically valid answer, and ongoing debate among individual observers ad infinitum.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
Post Edited (2007-05-20 15:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2007-05-20 18:11
Quote:
Therefore (which also has roots in statistics) there will probably only remain opinions from individual observers, probably never a statistically valid answer, and ongoing debate among individual observers ad infinitum. And that's where marketing and promoting comes in. If you can make someone BELIEVE that product X is superior to product Y through the use of commercials, ads, and especially people who used to use product Y and now switched to X, that'll help swing things in your favor.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-05-20 18:48
Ah, Alexi you have hit on the power of advertising. Advertising is geared to the emotional and not the logical part of our brain. Advertisers can say anything and statistically we cannot prove or disprove their claims. We almost accept that what they say may be true because of the advertising claims, reputation of the advertiser or the company but rarely put it through the truth filter of - can this be proven.
A buying decision is rarely pure logic or proof but part emotion and part our own level of truth testing (which is another field of psychology statistics) which varies greatly in the population. It probably shows our naiveté that it is a statistically proven fact that advertising geared to the 8th grade intelligence level works best for advertising most any product. We obviously believe well know individuals more that the average person or "star" endorsements would not be used so much. The logic filter would/should dismiss the words of an individual paid to make the statements as no more credible than the average person on the street but obviously this is not true.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2007-05-20 19:46
LOH,
From one old college professor to another, "nicely put!"
HRL
Post Edited (2007-05-21 11:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: justme
Date: 2009-05-18 07:20
Mags1957 said:
Of course it's "apples to apples". Anyone who tries a Lyrique is going to judge it based on how it plays as a clarinet - NOT how it plays as a rubber clarinet. When you select a mouthpiece, you select it based on how it plays for you - whether it be hard rubber, wood, crystal, etc. If one were to play a Lyrique and decide it's not for them based on actual musical criteria, then who could argue? Many don't like Buffet, Selmer, Yamaha, etc. for various reasons. But to dismiss the Lyrique out of hand because it's "not wood" or "I don't like the sound of rubber" before you give one a serious play test, well that's just.........absurd, yes?
Yes, Tom Ridenour himself did conduct those type of experiments. His conclusion was that hard rubber played as good as or better than wood, given the same dimensions. He prefers hard rubber to wood, plain and simple. Agree with him or not, he feels he is making the best clarinets possible using the best material possible. I tend to agree, having played Buffet R-13, Buffet Prestige, Yahama CS, and now Lyrique. The Lyrique is the best clarinet I have played to date.
I was going through these forums and I'm still learning many things.
I've found that many people have had the same experience as you did and felt that the Lyrique was what worked for them.
Others have also gotten these particular instruments and put another bell or used a different mouthpiece ( including Tom's pro series mouthpieces)
and also have achieved what they were seeking.
It just goes to show you that price and/or status symbol doesn't necessary mean the best instrument as shown by the statements of many pros...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pappy
Date: 2009-05-18 12:21
I am intrigued by the Lyrique A with basset extension and hope to try it one day. I have long been dissatisfied with my Selmer CT A.
I am not a professor, but I have graduate degrees that did include the study of statistics on that level. While Hank's and L. Omar's description of the problem and process are dead on, it is still vaguely unnerving. Applying statistics or other rigid, ostensibly objective, analysis to the production of art (music) seems off-kilter to me. It seems to be that it ought to be subjective - and almost entirely so.
I believe that I and my friends, family and fellow musicians can judge how the Lyrique SOUNDS relative to other clarinets. I believe that I can judge how the Lyrique FEELS to me relative to other clarinets. What I am most interested in for this discussion are thoughts about the fit and finish, the durability of the key work, whether it "stays put" if you will or whether it needs constant attention from a tech, that sort of thing.
I have played a Greenline and I agree that it feels different and I didn't like it. But it SOUNDED as good or better than the wooden horns I had to compare it to. In the end, I can't see that any other test matters - even if it plots very nicely with interesting clumps of data points.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Claire Annette
Date: 2009-05-18 16:46
For me, the major drawback is that no repair person I know of will touch the Lyrique. The person I go to most frequently with my Buffet told me she won't repair a brand the store doesn't sell.
Also, I got mine off of the popular auction site and not from Ridenour himself. The horn was brand new but flawed in workmanship. Apparently, it was not a horn that Ridenour had put his finishing touches on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: soybean
Date: 2009-05-18 20:40
It's fun reading this older thread again, most of which was written in 2007.
Quote: "has anyone tried multiple Lyriques to see if there are any significant differences in side-by-side trails?"
Yes, i have owned the standard Lyrique model and the custom model. I prefered the standard and sold the custom. Why? The intonation was superior on the standard model. The custom model does have a bit nicer keywork, especially that register key.
~Dan
(Leblanc Bliss, Buffet R13 key of A, Yamaha 250 Bb)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2009-05-18 20:43
>>>"For me, the major drawback is that no repair person I know of will touch the Lyrique. The person I go to most frequently with my Buffet told me she won't repair a brand the store doesn't sell."<<<
My regular tech went over my Lyrique with a fine tooth comb after I experienced a very minor issue with one key, which turned out to be a problem with a cork. He had nothing whatsoever to say in a negative way about the instrument. Outside of that one minor issue, it has played flawlessly. I feel that it plays as well as the three R13 models, the Leblanc L300 and the Leblanc/Backun Cadenza I have owned, all of which were made of rather nice grenadilla. I have received numerous comments on the nice tone I have with the Lyrique, with only one person preferring the sound I had on the last R13 to the Lyrique.
True, my judgment is based on anecdotal evidence (and of too small a sample size for statistical validity), but I am satisfied, and the instrument was a great value. Furthermore, I don't have to worry about the wood cracking.
Jeff
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hank Lehrer
Date: 2009-05-18 21:09
Hi Jeff,
You statement "True, my judgment is based on anecdotal evidence (and of too small a sample size for statistical validity), but I am satisfied, and the instrument was a great value" is an excellent way to add a subjective spin to the issue. Nicely expressed.
Anecdotal evidence is certainly valuable in your case. I play a $15 Rico MP on tenor for all my legitimate sax jobs while others are very horrified it works for me just as the Lyrique works for you.
My guess is that Omar, myself, and other academics on the BB can be easily convinced that such an evaluation is certainly valid in your case. However, the thing that causes me to get up on the "top rope" of the boxing ring is when someone makes grandiose and inflamed claims that are not supported by a reasonable hypothesis accompanied by valid data. Such leaps of logic really do not usually hold much water. Graduate students can get into much trouble with their professors this way.
HRL
BTW, I play an L200 but have two TR 147s as backup. So I am not a snob about instrument selection.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clari
Date: 2009-05-19 00:20
I think the A key design is probably intentional to make reaching the throat A more ergonomic.
I bought a Lyrique A from Tom directly. Acoustically it is an excellent horn, it is definitely more in tune than other pro horns I own. But you might not like the sound as this is very personal choice. The sound is not as colorful as clarinets like R13 but more stable and has more hold.
Not to digress from the thread topic, here is my observation of some of the downfalls. The keys are poorly manufactured. rough edges and easily go out of adjustment which costed me several adjustments already in about 1 year. Never happened to my R13 nor my student Yamaha horn. I think the metal is just not strong enough and can be bent quite easily. Tone holes are surrounded by over application of glues everywhere. It doesn't look pleasant to my eyes though it doesn't affect how it plays if that is all matter to you. I was surprised to see some comments to say the lyrique craftmanship is on par with other pro horns. In my experience, it is certainly not and it looks exactly like those Chinese made clarinet except that it is acoustically excellent. You get what you pay for.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: soybean
Date: 2009-05-19 05:57
Clari, are you referring to the keywork on the latest Lyriques? I have heard some similar comments on the older Ridenour clarinets (147, etc), but not on the latest Lyrique. tom has stated that he fixed or changed some of those problems. Also, if you buy the Lyrique from him directly, he goes over all the whole clarinet to make sure there are no issues.
~Dan
(Leblanc Bliss, Buffet R13 key of A, Yamaha 250 Bb)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clari
Date: 2009-05-19 07:04
Dan, the Lyrique I have is only 1 year old and I assume it is the latest unless he make some changes to the keywork this year.
I am sure he went over the clarinet to do excellent acoustic tuning before sending it out but I doubt that he will uncover or fix all the issues in key works or cosmetics from my experience. After all Tom is a salesman isn['t he?
For the price, it is still a decent purchase.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HBO
Date: 2009-05-19 08:23
I had a Lyrique for about half a year now. I am VERY satisfied with it; the feel, the resistance, the tone and the sound... about everything. There was the smell in the beginning the filled up my small crummy room, but after a week or so, it was gone.
However, I do find some problems in the tuning of several keys. One of it would be the low F, which is a little bit flat. Also, the middle C tends to be a little bit sharp, and lastly, all high notes sound perfect... EXCEPT for that high F#, which is horribly flat compared to the other altissimo notes.
I have been wondering if I am the only one with the problem... am I really the only one?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: buedsma
Date: 2009-05-19 08:50
i have a lyrique for 3 months .
Keywork is not really oke, but good enough.
High F# is really a problem ( much too low ) , you need to use alternate fingerings. I noticed that different reeds make for a remarkable difference for that note.
Are there poeple playing the ridenour mouthpieces and what is the effect on tuning ?? I suppose open/closed mouthpieces with their different reed strenghts and also single/double lip embouchure can change the tuning to soeme degree what would account for certain tunung choices by the maker .
Comments on this one ??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2009-05-19 15:02
Hank, I just finished my first statistics class, so I wanted to bevery specific about the language I was using regarding my experiences, in light of your earlier comments. 
Jeff
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
