 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Serge L
Date: 2000-08-27 05:09
I'm sure the following question would insult many people and reveal myself to be an utter ignoramus regarding clarinet, but I had to ask
What makes people think that wooden bodied clarinets are tonally superior to plastic ones provided that the mpc/reed set-up is identical and that the player is a virtuoso who knows what s/he's doing? Granted, perhaps there's a slight difference in the playing comfort due to a slight difference in the way the horn vibrates under your finger, but tonally, could the difference be noticeable at all to any third party listening a short distance away?
Assuming there's a slight advantage of wood over plastic in the symphonic environment because wood gives warmer(?)/darker timber, in jazz setting, where clarinetists must cut through other instruments with its piercing higher register sound, I still don't see any significant advantage in using a wood horn over a plastic one.
Any subjective and/or objective responses welcome!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b.
Date: 2000-08-27 06:30
Probocative question? Yes.
In my opinion:
The player makes the difference.
Could a third party tell the difference in material a horn is made of...? I seriously doubt it.
Could one tell the difference in who's playing, regardless of the instrument? You betcha.
ron b.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Joris van den Berg
Date: 2000-08-27 10:35
I would go so far that if the plastic instruments would be made with the same bore and quality. One would not be able to hear any difference. It's just a matter of choosing a plastic that has the same properties as wood. With hobo's it's done allready, but I guess clarinet players are more conservative
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. Butler
Date: 2000-08-27 12:26
This topic is discussed in books. I suggest A. Benade or Gibson. To summarize, a clarinet sounds like a "clarinet" given the bore dimensions no matter if the material is metal, wood, or plastic resin. So why is the wood clarinet preferred over the synthetic material? I think it is the aesthetics of the wood.
J. Butler
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Gardner
Date: 2000-08-27 14:09
This holds true to almost everything we have. My $500 honda will take me to town as well as my $30,000 pickup truck. Is there a differance? It just depends upon what one wants and how you want to get there.
Some one said that a well know player would buy and 80 dollar horn prior to a perforance give a great show, and then give the horn to some kid in the audience.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Sparkman
Date: 2000-08-27 14:37
Hi Serge L -- as a jazz clarinetist I couldn't agree more. Check sound bits at "espressojazztrio.com" which I made with an early Vito resotone clarinet - and I've owned Buffets, Selmers and Leblancs. The Vito is the best, for me, by far. And I think you'll find the sound pretty good. Be intersted in your opinion. Thanks. Best regards. Bob Sparkman.Serge L wrote:-------------------------------I'm sure the following question would insult many people and reveal myself to be an utter ignoramus regarding clarinet, but I had to askWhat makes people think that wooden bodied clarinets are tonally superior to plastic ones provided that the mpc/reed set-up is identical and that the player is a virtuoso who knows what s/he's doing? Granted, perhaps there's a slight difference in the playing comfort due to a slight difference in the way the horn vibrates under your finger, but tonally, could the difference be noticeable at all to any third party listening a short distance away?Assuming there's a slight advantage of wood over plastic in the symphonic environment because wood gives warmer(?)/darker timber, in jazz setting, where clarinetists must cut through other instruments with its piercing higher register sound, I still don't see any significant advantage in using a wood horn over a plastic one.Any subjective and/or objective responses welcome!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: william
Date: 2000-08-27 16:25
IMHO--Accoustically, there should be no difference between identical clarinets--one wood and one plastic. I think that the reason better clarinets are made from wood is,simply, that wood is easier to work with when "fine-tuning" the finished instrument. Same goes for adjusting plastic reeds vs. cane. I had an old Bundy Resonite for one of my first clarinets and it was the clarinet that, over the years, I had the most fun with (wish I still had it). Went to our State Festival two years in Class A while in highschool and received superior ratings both times (one from Himmie Voxmann of Iowa). No one could ever tell that I was playing a plastic clarinet (from just listening) as I used a quality mp and reed setup which produced an acceptable sound and reasonable intonation. So much for my three-cents worth.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2000-08-27 16:34
The is an endlessloop problem here. Almost all professional expect wood clarinets to be better than plastic and find that they are. This is because the manufacturers know professional prefer wood; therefore, they put more effort into making a wooden clarinet in tune and pay less attention to intonation on plastic models. When a professional plays a plastic model he discovers the intonation inferior to that of a wood clarinet.
Selmer in the late 50's had a professional model plastic clarinet. It never caught on and was dropped. Buffet now has the green line clarinet series (R-13 etc.) that has some wood in it but for all intensive purposes is a plastic clarinet. Many people (including some pros) like the greenline.
The bottom line is that there is about a ten year supply of grenadilla wood for clarnets left. In 20 years are so we all will be buying plastic clarinets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-08-27 17:01
Roger wrote:
-------------------------------
The bottom line is that there is about a ten year supply of grenadilla wood for clarnets left. In 20 years are so we all will be buying plastic clarinets.
------
Roger, I've heard that before and would love to have the reference. Wood is a renewable resource, but the trees that we use for "greadilla" (a generic term - see Lelia's article in the Equipment section) are very slow growing. However, without a good reference, I can't in good conscience repeat the assertion.
The blackwood conservancy project (http://www.blackwoodconservation.org/) states "With the present rate of usage, harvestable wood in Tanzania may not be available within 20 years", which doesn't really say exactly what you said.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Steve Epstein
Date: 2000-08-27 17:12
Plastic clarinets have had a bad connotation, because they have always been associated with student instruments. But, as wood gets more expensive, plastic instruments have gotten and will continue to get better.
You can, in theory, build a "manufactured", i.e., mobile, home as fine in quality as a "stick - built" house. Maybe even better, because you build it in a factory under controlled conditions. Yet many mobile homes are poorly -built tornado magnets. Why? Because until relatively recently, only people who could not afford a "real" house bought mobile homes, so there was no incentive to spend extra for quality. But that has changed. Plastic instruments are the same way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2000-08-27 17:24
Mark:
I base my statement on a tv show on pbs calle the tree of music. (It could be 20 not 10). It dealt with manpingo (sp?) trees---used by Buffet. They stated estimated a 10 year ( maybe 20 year supply) and also complained there was less usable wood due to cracking. It is no coincidence that they came out with the green line.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kontragirl
Date: 2000-08-27 18:09
I've always wondered that myself. I find that I get a darker tone on my wooden clarinet, and I'm a lot better in tune on the altissimo register. Now, is this because the horn is wooden, or because it was made with so much more care? Whose to say a plastic clarinet made to the quality of a wooden clarinet would have more resistance (so it's not easy blowing), a darker tone, everything you look for in a good clarinet. I don't think it's the material itself as much as the way it was made.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-08-27 19:10
Roger wrote:
-------------------------------
Mark:
I base my statement on a tv show on pbs calle the tree of music. (It could be 20 not 10.
--------
The nBlackwood Conservancy is the one which did the background for the PBS show. The quote I used is from their website.
It <b>does</b> make a difference when you quote numbers. If you're wrong on one then people don't believe any of the others even if all the others are correct. We need to be careful when we throw numbers around.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2000-08-27 19:24
Mark,
Just when was that PBS show? Hasn't it been several years ago now? If any one has seen it lately, it's a rerun.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-08-27 19:32
Dee wrote:
-------------------------------
Just when was that PBS show?
---
1992
It is available at http://www.blackwoodconservation.org/videoform.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2000-08-28 00:08
When I was young there was two choices Nikkan ebonite clarinet(Nikkan later became a subsidiary of Yamaha),Buffet or Selmer. My brother owned at first a Nikkan and a Buffet. I tried both. Nikkan was very very heavy but Buffet was light and sounded very easily. Then I became a Grenaddila fun. Plastic meant ebonite thenafter.
I understand that manufacturers have made good quality beginning or intermdiate clarinets since then. I assume their plastic would be made of ingredients of their property knowledge. I have never tried any of these, therefore I do not know the difference.
The difference of material may not speak anything. Late flutist Marcel Moyse disliked gold flute saying its lower tones become unstable and music is not a jewlry matter(he said something like that). He used silver,german silver,even brass.
Therefore,Arthur Benade's experiments may be near true. But at the same time, I recently consider that in his years acoustic measurement devices might not have such a precision our ear/brain set has and this might be so even today. For example a tone is made of a series of great many elements:1st to infinity. A microphone can only get aggregate tone. Our brain/ear can also do the same thing but might recognize much more than a high price microphone.
Persons with 'good ears' might have a better performance organs and brains musically stated.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Willie
Date: 2000-08-28 01:19
The same thing is happening with the oboe crowd, but are accepting the plastic models more easily than the us clarinet bunch. Since even the best oboes tend to crack near the top of the upper section, many oboe folks are gettng kinda reluctant to spend big money for the wood ones. I have a fairly new Kabar with such a crack that has been repaired and so far its fine. My old Conn (30s) and Linton (also old) have held up so far. The man I got the Kabar from plays professionaly and uses a plastic model now. When he first bought it, he was able to use it for almost 6 months without anyone knowing it was plastick since it has a brushed finnish. When he let the cat out of the bag, he said the woodwind section was just flabbergasted.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Meredith H
Date: 2000-08-28 01:30
I can take my mouthpiece and reed and play my pro-grade Buffet clarinet, my old intermediate B&H clarinet and a student model plastic yamaha and I still sound like me. I think the buffet sound warmer in the lower register and the keys are certainly nicer to use but the differnce in the sound isn't that great. I'm sure if the plastic clarinet was manufactured as well as the pro-grade instrument you would never know the difference.
However, if I take my tenor horn mouthpiece and play three different instruments the sound on each is completely different so I guess in the case of brass the instrument you play on is much more important (although a pro once played a 60 year old tenor horn I was using and it still sounded amazing).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gRAHAM
Date: 2000-08-28 03:37
My old plastic clarinet actually some times sounds better than my buffet. Has anyone here tried the Howarth PVC clarinets or oboes? They say it has the same acustic qualities and even costs more becuase it wears down the tools much faster.
Why is it that clarinets are made of plumbing materials. ABS, PVC, metal. What about composite counter top materials like corion. Has anyone ever tried to make a clarinet out of that. You cnald have a clarinet that looks like granite. I dont know how well that would go over but its just a thought.
Or what about pinon. ITs a very hard wood. ITs were you get pine nuts.
What about a ceramic or glass clarinet?
IF you can "ebonize" wood for violin finger boards why cant you ebonize wood for a clarinet?
GRaham
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Eoin McAuley
Date: 2000-08-28 09:20
I saw an interesting comment on a webpage devoted to recorders. Recorders are made in a number of different types of wood, such as pearwood, rosewood, bubinga, etc. It said that recorders made in different woods sound different because of the surface grain. This affects the sound. It said that a plastic recorder made in "simulated wood grain" finish sounds better than a plastic recorder with standard smooth gloss finish.
Could this apply to the bore of clarinets too? Does the B12, Buffet's top of the range student clarinet, have a smooth bore or is it roughened on the inside as well as the outside? Does this affect the sound?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2000-08-28 12:13
If the show was first made in 1992 then there is only a 12 year supply left
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BAC
Date: 2000-08-28 12:44
Correction - the Greenline is NOT a plastic clarinet. It is made of wood, at least 95% wood by the documentation provided by Buffet. What it is is sawdust or wood particals, bonded with resin (5%).
Roger wrote:
-------------------------------
Buffet now has the green line clarinet series (R-13 etc.) that has some wood in it but for all intensive purposes is a plastic clarinet. Many people (including some pros) like the greenline.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Oliver Brillbane
Date: 2000-08-28 15:05
I have found this to be a fascinating discussion. If any of the major manufacturers would make a professional plastic clarinet, not the Buffet Greenline polymer, chipped wood composite, I would very seriously consider buying one because there are days when I would love to swab and leave my clarinet on a stand all day and play when I felt like it. As it is now with a wooden clarinet after each use I must do the following: swab it, take it apart, dry each joint area where the water accumulates, dry the tone holes and put it away. Also we would not have the issue of whether to oil the bore or not. So in general my argument is not really based on sound, because I have been fooled several times by professionals playing on plastic clarinets and I could not tell the difference. I just think overall maintenance and freedom of the worry of having your $3,500 crack, which my Buffet A clarinet did several years ago before I began to dry out every nook and cranny with a cloth. Also we would have less fluctuations during seasonal changes. And, the clarinets "should be cheaper". I don't expect that professional grade clarinets will become cheaper as a result of using wood because we are used to paying a certain amount for a pro instrument and when we see a low price tag we start to wonder. I think easier, and care free maintainance is the key.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-08-28 15:12
Oliver Brillbane wrote:
-------------------------------
And, the clarinets "should be cheaper".
-------
Why? Right now high grade plastic billets of the type to make clarinets by boring/turning (not molded plastics) are about the same price as wood, and the machinery needed to turn and machine them must be bought new (along with having the space for a second line). In Buffet's case it actually cost them more to produce the Greenline than the regular wood clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2000-08-28 15:25
Mark is correct but there is an additonal factor to consider. As I understand it scraps of wood are used. They are ground into a powder. The result is more efficent use of wood. I am sure that there is a certain amount of waste wood left over from making a wood clarinet.
It would seem that eventually the green line would eventually lower the amount of wood being used and thus lower costs. Mark has correctly pointed out that the green line has necessitated the use of additional machinery.
I saw at least one posting in which the author claimed that the green line was essentially a plastic clarinet, hence my characterization. It would seem that it is sort of the middle ground. Maybe the compromise needed for the new millieum.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2000-08-28 16:42
What a "vunderbahr" question and post-comments thereon!! Its taken me more than 1/2 hour to read and try to disgest everyone's experience-opinions. On the "degree of maker-attention to small [but mighty] detailing", yes, the more expensive [woods] are best because they have it!! My LeBlancs, Selmers and a VG Buffet-EV/SCH are much better players than their less-expensives counterparts. And that brings up another thought, there is [for me] a psychological factor that, with the best, I'll play the best, just like [as I tried to do recently] playing alongside REAL pros. "nuff said?" Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Sparkman
Date: 2000-08-28 18:18
Hey Don -- Nicely put -- a case of (rational) self fulfilling expectancy. You are obviously a finesse player, where jazz players tend toward muscularity, in many cases, which stretches the clarinet's vocal characteristics to the limit. I guess that is why so many turn to saxaphone. Jazz clarinet is a conundrum, in many ways, but, jazz or classical, it's still the most beautiful of the woodwind voices! Don Berger wrote:-------------------------------What a "vunderbahr" question and post-comments thereon!! Its taken me more than 1/2 hour to read and try to disgest everyone's experience-opinions. On the "degree of maker-attention to small [but mighty] detailing", yes, the more expensive [woods] are best because they have it!! My LeBlancs, Selmers and a VG Buffet-EV/SCH are much better players than their less-expensives counterparts. And that brings up another thought, there is [for me] a psychological factor that, with the best, I'll play the best, just like [as I tried to do recently] playing alongside REAL pros. "nuff said?" Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2000-08-28 20:38
Multiple TKS, Bob, just expressing my feelings after trying my best in several performances of "The King and I" under a FINE conductor and with pro musicians, where very careful phrasing, volume and chord-tuning were required, even on the Reed 3 cl - bass cl part. A real experience! I'm a bit old for Dixie-jazz playing, but still like it too! Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Oliver Brillbane
Date: 2000-08-28 20:42
Marc,
There is one very good reason why plastic clarinets "should be cheaper" than wooden ones: if given the choice I would prefer to buy a wooden clarinet rather than a more expensive plastic clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kim L.
Date: 2000-08-28 21:54
We complain about the plastic instruments. Suppose when the wood supply begins to get lower they decide NOT to make plastic instruments for professionals, but clarinets of Zinner and hard rubber material? I don't think we'd sound bad. Do you?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Meredith H
Date: 2000-08-28 23:05
If I remember correctly the higher quality (priced) Buffet clarinets used 'premium quality' grenadilla. Now, it the wood had no bearing on the sound of the instrument why would you chose premium quality wood over normal grenadilla. I think the higher quality wood was from the centre of the tree. Would this just make it more resistant to cracking or is it just a marketing ploy?
As for the greenline clarinets, I agree that they are essentially plastic despite being composed of 95% wood pulp. This 'chip board' would hardly have any of the acoustic properties of the original wood and would behave essentially like a plastic clarinet. Chipboard doesn't exactly resonate.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-08-28 23:24
Meredith H wrote:
-------------------------------
If I remember correctly the higher quality (priced) Buffet clarinets used 'premium quality' grenadilla. Now, it the wood had no bearing on the sound of the instrument why would you chose premium quality wood over normal grenadilla.
------
Because it's gorgeous: close grained, and knot free.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jill B.
Date: 2000-08-29 01:11
Okay,
I have been playing for almost 7 years now, and I still have a plastic clarinet. I personally think that the wooden clarinet has a better, fuller sound to it. I can tell this only because I sit right next to a wooden clarinet player in my band. I am thinking of purchasing a wooden clarinet, but I am having second thoughts.
-Jill
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2000-08-29 01:35
I still say that 95% of the "sound" is a result of the quality of the reed/mp set-up and not the material from which the clarinet is made. Great discussion, however.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Meredith H
Date: 2000-08-29 01:36
Don't rely on the sound of one wooden clarinet. I played next to a girl when I was a high school who played flat and out of tune on her plastic clarinet and after buying a wooden one still played flat and out of tune. It was the player not the instrument. If you want a better clarinet it will most likely be made of wood.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dee
Date: 2000-08-29 02:18
Jill B. wrote:
-------------------------------
Okay,
I have been playing for almost 7 years now, and I still have a plastic clarinet. I personally think that the wooden clarinet has a better, fuller sound to it. I can tell this only because I sit right next to a wooden clarinet player in my band. I am thinking of purchasing a wooden clarinet, but I am having second thoughts.
-Jill
-------------------------------
But once again you are most likely comparing a beginner grade instrument to an intermediate or higher grade instrument. Thus the comparison is not valid as there is more than one variable in the situation. You may very well want to and benefit from an upgrade to a better instrument but as it stands right now the difference should not be attributed to material.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-08-29 11:41
William wrote:
-------------------------------
I still say that 95% of the "sound" is a result of the quality of the reed/mp set-up and not the material from which the clarinet is made.
-------
Why 95%? Where did you get the numbers?
I know I might be irritating, but numbers end up being used for the furtherance of "urban legends".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-08-29 11:47
Bob Gardner wrote:
-------------------------------
anyone want to trade a vito for an opus. I don't!
------
What's that got to do with the price of tomatoes?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2000-08-29 12:58
Mark raised an interesting (to me) point. He suggests that plastic clarinets are moulded not drilled, etc. from plastic billets. It would seem that given technology it would be possible with molds (given the consistency of plastic) to make many clarinets that were identical. If the mold was well made an excellent clarinet would be made.
I know that this is not what is done with silver flutes. The silver is machined and not moulded. (By the way, clarinet players have it cheap. My wife's Haynes flute cost almost $5000 and was the least expensive model from Haynes. Compare that to the cost of an R-13. Good flutes apparently cannot be made as fast as a good clarinet.)
Anyone have any thoughts why moulding plastic would not produce an excellant clarinet. (My ignorance of industrial practices shows in this posting.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2000-08-29 15:12
Mark--The 95% is a number (my math is worse than my spelling--that is why I became a musician) that I estimated to be true for my experiance with tone production on the "tomatoes" that we work with. I am not pretending to be an "urban legend" but simply trying to add my opinion to the on-going (and lively) discussion of wood versus artificial. If Vito could build and Vito as well as he builds his Opus and make it play better than my old R-13s, I would trade. (Still wish I had my old 1955 Bundy Resonite to "kick around." I remember having to go to high school band right after dropping it down a flight of cemment steps [not reccomended] and playing a solo. It survived my imature care and worked just fine. My Buffet would probably have been like Humpty D.) So, if someone could build a plastic (durable) clarinet with the same care that our current professional wooden clarinets are made, I, for one, would make the switch--and, because of my reed and mp set-up, I would still sound and play the same. The same goes for plastic vs cane reeds. So far, IMHO, Legere is good, but does not surpass cane for consistancy of response and tone quality throughout the entire range of the clarinet. (See Jill B's topic for more) Enough!!! Good luck.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gRAHAM
Date: 2000-08-29 20:31
Hi,
Why are some instruments half wood and half plastic?
for instance the yamaha yob 411p oboe has a plastic upper joint and a wood everthing else.
Graham
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robin
Date: 2000-08-30 01:28
I'm sorry if I'm treading over old ground here, but I haven't had time to read every post.
This debate calls to mind something I read a few months ago. It was a report from some fluteplayers convention where delegates were asked to listen to two flutes without looking and asked to spot the difference in tone quality. No-one could.
It turned out the first was made of rose wood, and the second was made of.......concrete. Yes! a concrete flute.
I support the theory that if a plastic clarinet were to be produced, with the same bore dimensions and tone hole rendering as on a high quality wooden instrument, the sound would be the same. I do not believe this has happened yet, however. Thus I think the superior sound of wooden instruments (and most here have agreed they are superior in sound) is to do with the attention put into tone holes and bore.
Of course a $10,000 instrument is going to be better than a $500 instrument. The craftmanship is naturally going to be better.
Robin
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Willie
Date: 2000-08-30 04:50
The upper sections of Oboes are notorious for cracking because of the alignment of the tone holes and the wood grain. They have lots of little holes up there with with not much wood in between. Also its easier for water to soak in through the exposed end grains at the tone holes and tenon joints.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ginny
Date: 2000-08-30 06:36
Of course 47.6% of all statistics are made up.
---------------------------------------------------
Mark Charette wrote:
-------------------------------
William wrote:
-------------------------------
I still say that 95% of the "sound" is a result of the quality of the reed/mp set-up and not the material from which the clarinet is made.
-------
Why 95%? Where did you get the numbers?
I know I might be irritating, but numbers end up being used for the furtherance of "urban legends".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2000-08-30 11:03
In reply to Roger (I'm the other Roger that Mark gets into on occasions).I'm a Toolmaker and what you suggest re- diecasting of plastic is correct to the point of getting a consistent product but consistency is also achieved by machining once the machines are set--also a Tradesperson machinest for a one off will machine to the required dimensions per the dimensioned drawing to very close tolerances,I am talking about two thousandths of an inch on most applications and even closer on some operations,eg. hole size. The dimensions to reproduce an instrument from what is deemed to be a quality instrument are easily measured and used to replicate the instrument measured.So where does this leave us with this discussion? I point out it is just as easy for a tradsperson to get it right as to get it wrong and it is a matter of pride that it be right.Either there are some very poor craftpeople making Clarinets that can't hold to the tolerances or the material used does make a difference.--the other Roger.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gRAHAM
Date: 2000-08-30 21:13
IT seams every one has over looked Howarths PVC clarinet. Theirs is a hand made plastic clarinet made form a plastic billet carved to the same specifications as a wood clarinet.
Now if some one of us could play test that then there would be no further questions. We would know if a plastic clarinet built to the same specs as a wood one was as good.
GRaham
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2000-08-30 22:37
Yet another point to ponder. If plastic makes the sound a little different could not redesigned mouthpieces and reeds eliminate this difference? If deforestation continues (don't get me wrong I am not a raving environmentalist) we may have to go to plastic or something like the R13 greenline so that redesign might be necessary.
I certainly hope not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2000-09-01 13:09
The discussion line seems to lean towards the material not to be very relevant to the sound -- the next time you are near a Piano showroom go in and try every Piano in the store--every one will sound different,I wonder why? As my Piano Tuner friend suggests,it has everything to do with the wood--why should a Clarinet be any different? I believe in my earlier post I ruled out the matter of inconsistency in manufacture. The other Roger.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-09-02 00:03
Roger wrote:
-------------------------------
As my Piano Tuner friend suggests,it has everything to do with the wood--why should a Clarinet be any different?
------
Because it produces sound in a completely different physical manner, that's why. A piano, violin, guitar, etc. all vibrate a piece of wood to couple the vibrarion to air. In wind instruments we dispense with this nicety and vibrate the air directly.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Roger
Date: 2000-09-03 07:08
Mark I accept your argument with the Flute etc. but we vibrate a piece of wood in the Clarinet. I may be getting out of my depth here but I feel the material of the container from where the sound is produced plays some part in the resulting sound. Roger --the other one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2000-09-03 16:47
Roger wrote:
-------------------------------
Mark I accept your argument with the Flute etc. but we vibrate a piece of wood in the Clarinet. I may be getting out of my depth here but I feel the material of the container from where the sound is produced plays some part in the resulting sound
------
Roger,
Read up on your acoustics & come on back into the fray :^) We do vibrate (in general) a piece of wood - a reed - but not the body of the clarinet - it's been measured at at least -60db (one millionth) the amplitude of the air - and couldn't be heard a few feet away.
"Feeling" that something should be is a very long way from the reality of things. If materials play a part in the sound, it's not from contributory vibrations of the clarinet body. That part can be measured relatively easy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
