 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2008-06-14 09:01
Hi all,
Has anyone been in a situation where their clarinet seems to play fine, but doesn't create a strong vacuum when the test is applied to individual joints?
I play professionally, but have used the same R13 since high school. So I have little to compare it to, apart from my A. They have different characters, but this may be due to the extra length relieving some of the back pressure.
Thanks
Alex
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-06-14 10:56
I don't test vacuum, because IMHO it tells very little about tightness under combat conditions - you simply suck the pads in, and the more you suck, the stronger the seal.
I do the opposite, with a balloon over the tenon, and can much better test where there is more-than-average finger pressure needed for a good seal.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-06-14 11:11
It depends on the type of pad. Some skins have more/bigger pores than others. Some pads have next to no suction.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alexis
Date: 2008-06-14 11:35
Thanks for the early responses. I'd appreciate any other feedback.
Ben, how do you assess the balloon test? Does it only blow up if there are no leaks, or will it still work (with extra breath pressure) for a slight leak?
The guy who serviced it suggested all cork on the top joint, and all leather on the bottom. He thought it was a good idea, and I put my trust in that, so thats my pad situation. There have been a number of problems after service, and now I have the option to keep it as is, or to get him to restore it to its original pad types. My playing has changed considerably since the last service, so I'm not really sure what it feels like at its peak. (And how it compares to my A)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2008-06-14 11:55
If the cork pads have been ground perfectly flat and smooth and have no defects, and the corresponding tonehole bedplaces have been checked for defects and filled where appropriate, then they should seal much better if properly seated than skin or leather pads on imperfect bedplaces (as most production clarinets will have). If they haven't been prepared or even seated well, they will leak and never seal under pressure.
Here's an odd thing:
I compared two pretty much identical Uebel basset horns, one which I repadded with cork pads and was made as airtight as was possible (the top joint held a vacuum for well over 20 seconds), and another with porous leather pads that didn''t hold a vacuum at all.
Now you would have thought the one repadded with cork pads would play and respond better due to it being made as leak-free as possible, and fewer leaks mean it should be more efficient. But the leaky one played and responded much better even though it was the least efficient of the two when vacuum tested.
What gives?
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-06-14 12:19
> Ben, how do you assess the balloon test? Does it only blow up if there are
> no leaks, or will it still work (with extra breath pressure) for a slight leak?
If the air input is bigger than what is lost with leaking pads, the balloon will still blow up. But it will act as a reservoir, and when you stop inflating it, you can actually hear the air hiss past one or the other pad. If you hear no hiss, then the clarinet can be considered reasonably tight. And you'll have plenty of time to play around till the balloon is empty.
(If you completely assemble the clarinet but put on the balloon in lieu of the bell, you have a fine lung trainer, and you can check out how much finger pressure is minimally needed for a good seal.)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2008-06-14 14:24
George Jameson told me that a clarinet--if accoustically designed well--does not have to have a perfect seal in order to play properly. To prove his point, he let me play on his NX clarinet which he said had "many leaks". I recall that it was a heavy instrument--lots of extra keys and rods--but that it did play evenly with exceptional response in all registers, but with a relatively subdued tone quality in comparison to my R13.
I believe that this NX clarinet was co-designed by Jameson and Benade, and that it was the original model--but this was years ago. But what I vividly remember is the "clarinets do not need to seal well in order to play well" statement made by George. Just thought it might be of interest to this thread..........
BTW, in "light" of the new Fobes Eb extension adding a resonance hole at the lower tendon joint position, I do remember that this NX clarinet had a ring of smallf venting holes in a ring completly around the bell, which at the time I thought was curious. Maybe they would also work for our modern clarinet bells, or at least a custom designed one. Just a thought.............
Post Edited (2008-06-14 17:21)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-06-14 15:11
Instead of sucking in to see if the clarinet is sealing adequately blow into the clarinet so you don’t “pull” the pads shut. When you're playing a clarinet you don't have the end opening stopped up and you don't suck in, you blow through the bore. The top joint should be able to take a considerable amount of air pressure before any pad leaks; usually a key will just begin to push up. The lower joint will begin to give in to the pressure sooner because the larger pads and springs will give in to the pressure sooner, especially the Eb-Ab key pad. You should be able to apply some pressure before this happens to tell if the joint has a reasonable seal.
Back in the old days we used to blow smoke through the bore to see if it escaped from a leaky pad. I don't suggest doing that now because the pads get stained and you shouldn't be smoking in the first place. Most good repairman have a gadget today that will tell them if the clarinet is sealing well by watching a meter indicate how much the clarinet is or is not sealing. If you really want to know for sure and your tech does not have such a machine see if someone else in your area does, it's very enlightening. ESP www.peabody.jhu.edu/457
(Listen to a little Mozart)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2008-06-16 14:56
We've almost hit on an important aspect of the "seal," but I'd like to emphasise it. That is, there is a balancing act between having some keys "too light" (spring tension that is) and "too heavy." I am thinking off hand of the top joint "A" key and the "G#" key, as well as the lower joint "Ab/Eb" key mentioned by Ed.
I do both suction and positive pressure tests for seal. The keys I mention above should not have such a stiff spring tension adjustment so that your technique suffers, and yet if they are too light, the keys subtley blow open while playing causing you to get much less volume and clarity of sound.
This balancing act is truly an art that one learns through trial and error (or a trusted tech who knows the art).
But this is why BOTH tests are important. I have never had a horn that did not sound imeasurably better with a "coke bottle tight seal."
Chris,
Perhaps one basset just plays better than the other.
Just to throw one more thread's info in here: The miracle of Brannen's overhaul is two fold: ONE, the seal is perfected through all cork at the top and custom triple fish-skin pads at the bottom. TWO, the spring tensions are beautifully balanced for the best action versus the necessity for the appropriate counter pressure on the pads (what is appropriate for each individual site, ie. the rings can be whisper light with heavy key oil on the pivots) .
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-06-16 15:51
William wrote:
>> George Jameson told me that a clarinet--if accoustically designed well--does not have to have a perfect seal in order to play properly.>>
In fact, sometimes a slightly leaky clarinet may play better in a sense; and the reason why, as explained by Benade, is interesting:
In order for a note played on the clarinet to sound rich and full, it helps if the resonance peaks of the clarinet airtube coincide with the harmonics of the note. These harmonics are NECESSARILY integer multiples of the frequency of the note; but the resonant peaks often aren't, because of design compromises that the maker has adopted in order to make the instrument better in tune.
What's also true is that a 'tight' instrument has sharper resonance peaks than a leaky one -- like a landscape with mountains that are high but have a small horizontal extent. So if a harmonic and its corresponding sharp peak don't coincide, that harmonic in the resultant sound is very weak. (Roughly, the height of the resonance landscape at the frequency of the harmonic 'multiplies' the presence of the harmonic in the resultant sound; so if it 'misses', no multiplication occurs.)
Now, the effect of 'leaks' is to keep the same landscape, but to flatten it out so that the peaks are lower, but -- crucially -- also WIDER. So in that case, the effect of the mismatch between harmonic and resonance is minimised; that harmonic is now more present in the sound (because the height of the resonance landscape is at least SOMETHING at the frequency of the harmonic. It doesn't completely miss.)
The upshot is that the clarinet is overall less responsive, but more even.
Of course, that may not be what you want, and I agree with the poster who wrote that mostly, we prefer the response of an instrument that covers well.
But I've also had to experiment with altering the pitch of a clarinet by dangling a plastic cable through it -- the dampening effect of doing this is rather similar to the dampening effect of leakiness -- and if the clarinet is very bright in sound to start with, you can wind up with an excellent response overall.
In another thread, someone wrote, apropos Benade:
>> most clarinet players (including myself) find this type of academic gobblygook of little value.>>
...and someone else:
>> ..the scientific specialists get bogged down in pedantry and arcane irrelevance so nothing useful for musicans comes out.>>
The difficulty of course is that you really need to be something of a specialist in both fields, music and science, in order to be able to understand whether or not someone is saying accurately the best that can be said, scientifically; but you need to be a specialist in both fields also to be able to understand WHAT is being said, and whether it may be useful musically.
So the further remark:
>> A prime example is the tiresome "The Art of Clarinetistry.">>
...is absolutely accurate, but for a different reason: Stubbins is not a respectable scientist, so it's not really worthwhile trying to follow his pseudoscientific formulations -- unlike Benade.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2008-06-16 21:42
>"In fact, sometimes a slightly leaky clarinet may play better in a sense; and the reason why, as explained by Benade, is interesting":<
So what's the pseudoscientific formulation for this BS?
Vytas Krass
Clarinet Repair
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-06-16 21:50
Vytas wrote:
> >"In fact, sometimes a slightly leaky clarinet may play
> better in a sense; and the reason why, as explained by Benade,
> is interesting":<
>
> So what's the pseudoscientific formulation for this BS?
Maybe that our fingers aren't perfectly sealing either and no one seems to care? ![[wink]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie3.gif)
(I stumbled over that exact sentence, too)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-06-16 22:08
Vytas wrote:
>>So what's the pseudoscientific formulation for this BS?>>
It's as I described it, thickhead.
So learn to read, and then you'll know. (Added later)
Tony
Post Edited (2008-06-16 22:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2008-06-17 00:10
Tony,
Your carefully crafted post is BS. As far as I can see, you're what's called a waste of space.
Here's my enigmatic one-liner for you.
GET LOST!
..and were is that bloody pseudoscientific formulation?
Vytas Krass
Clarinet Repair
Professional clarinet technician
Custom clarinet mouthpiece maker
Former professional clarinet player
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-06-17 14:30
Vytass Krass wrote:
>> Tony,
Your carefully crafted post is BS. As far as I can see, you're what's called a waste of space.
Here's my enigmatic one-liner for you.
GET LOST!>>
:-)
>> ..and were is that bloody pseudoscientific formulation?>>
...too late for you.
But for anyone ELSE interested: I had thought the reference was easily findable in 'Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics' -- but admit I couldn't track it down this morning. (Of course, that book does jump around its subject rather a lot, and I might find it later.)
Anyway, I don't think the science itself is much in doubt -- only the degree to which it might impact an actual playing situation. No one is suggesting that you misalign pads deliberately.
The way it arose for me was in the other direction. Around 15 years ago I was borrowing Nick Shackleton's antique Ottensteiner clarinet to play the Brahms clarinet quintet. Because it still has old pads on it, and is mechanically not particularly sound, I was concerned how much Nick (by the way, that's SIR Nicholas Shackleton FRS, leading geochronologist as well as clarinet historian and collector extraordinaire, now sadly no longer with us) would permit me to adjust it TOWARDS reliable playing condition and therefore AWAY from historical condition. I should say that the instrument as it stood played wonderfully, after much struggle to find a suitable mouthpiece; but I was obviously concerned that it not let me down in a concert situation.
So we discussed renovating the instrument, up to and including repadding, and the argument reproduced in my previous post (you know, the BS one;-) came up. It was a consideration that we thought hinted at the possibility that replacing the pads might affect the instrument's qualities one way or the other; and since I didn't know which, I didn't touch it. (See later relevant remarks about Henry Wood Hall in London.)
In all this, as I said, we're not talking about definite leaks -- obviously they stop the instrument playing properly AT ALL -- we're talking about the 'not absolute tightness' that well-working pads of a slightly more porous nature might produce in a particular instrument.
Anyhow, the performance went off well; and then about 7 years ago I wanted it again to play and then make a recording of the Brahms. And I remember that Nick said that I could do what I wanted this time, because he'd come to think that the effect was probably negligible. But we didn't repad it, because there wasn't time, and what pads would we use anyway, and the instrument was still playing well, and...
In fact, I had some difficulties in the recording, particularly in the slow movement, where fine control of attack is required -- that's one of the first things to go with mechanical misalignment, of course -- and I wished that I HAD had it looked at more closely. Still, we got through.
Now of course the instrument is in the Edinburgh University collection, and I think the likelihood of it ever being repadded is extremely remote.
What I want to tell you about Henry Wood Hall is that when it was being renovated as a recording studio/rehearsal venue in 1975, everyone agreed that its acoustics were exceptional. Then, midway through the work, disaster struck, and it was half burnt down. Reconstruction involved replastering, and it was discovered that the qualities of the original surfaces -- to do with sound absorption and reflection, I suppose -- hadn't been recreated, due to the workers' use of slightly different materials. So it was never as good as it had been before.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2008-06-17 14:44
Viton 'O' rings and Apiezon grease all round for me... ;-D
(ducks for cover)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-06-17 14:55
I have to agree with Tony about a slightly leaky clarinet. This is one of the main things that leather pads (and single skin blatter pads) do for me. Some leather pads that use untreated skins (Glotin, or those used in Germany) are especially different in their response compared with synthetics that can hold a seal for over 1 minute in the "suction test".
There are things about the "sieve" clarinet that can be good and also about the "tupperware" clarinet that can be good. It all depends on your goals.
I have the super sealing clarinet using pads of my own design, but I sometimes want something more leaky.
Sadly... you can't have it both ways.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-06-17 15:26
> I have the super sealing clarinet using pads of my own design, but I
> sometimes want something more leaky.
I have something very similar to the surface and squishiness of finger tips which I use on all pads that are operated by the RH rings.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-06-17 17:14
I took the liberty of inviting Jim Schmidt to give his take on this subject. He has spent considerable time in this field and might have something to add that hasn't been covered.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LesterV
Date: 2008-06-17 20:25
Although it deals primarily with bassoons, a interesting paper on leaky woodwinds can be found at:
http://www.idrs.org/publications/Journal/JNL2/how.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2008-06-18 15:50
"The resonance efficiency of the instrument decreases as the leak factor increases."
.......I couldn't have said it better.
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-06-18 17:48
Paul Aviles wrote:
>> "The resonance efficiency of the instrument decreases as the leak factor increases."
...I couldn't have said it better.>>
What is the 'it' that you couldn't have said better, Paul?
Because the statement is true, obviously -- so you must mean by 'it' something BEYOND just the statement.
Do you mean that the statements:
(1) 'Resonance efficiency' is a GOOD thing;
plus,
(2) INCREASING leakage means DECREASING 'resonance efficiency';
...combine to mean:
(3) We should agree that ANY leakage is a BAD thing?
...or something else?
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2008-06-18 18:14
Tony,
The quote is letter "a)" from just under figure one of the article in question.
What I know from my experience is that a well sealed clarinet resonates (at greater volumes of course) to a degree where the body of the horn literally shudders with the sound and the resulting projection is truly satisfying to say the least.
Leaky clarinets do not provide this experience. Therefore.........
LEAKY CLARINETS ARE A BAD THING
and the converse is also true
THE MORE EFFICIENTLY A CLARINET RESONATES, THE BETTER THE OVERALL MUSICAL PRODUCT.
............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2008-06-18 18:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2008-06-18 18:47
Nice to see everyone so friendly here...we have such lovely discussions on this BB. This is why the entire clarinet sees things as a wild joke at times..
A leaking clarinet will certainly lose resonance at some point in the tube of the instrument..we have all experience a leaking throat A and found the low E and F to be devoid of any resonance whatsoever.
I think Vytas makes a fine point here...a clarinet that has properly seated pads will play better than a leaking clarinet.
I know that when I played Anton Stadler's clarinet in Vienna the sound was much better than the perfectly sealed pads on my Gresner that I use...
Long live the clarinet!!!
David Dow
Post Edited (2008-06-18 22:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-06-18 21:00
Paul Aviles wrote:
>> What I know from my experience is that a well sealed clarinet resonates (at greater volumes of course) to a degree where the body of the horn literally shudders with the sound and the resulting projection is truly satisfying to say the least.
Leaky clarinets do not provide this experience. Therefore...
LEAKY CLARINETS ARE A BAD THING
and the converse is also true
THE MORE EFFICIENTLY A CLARINET RESONATES, THE BETTER THE OVERALL MUSICAL PRODUCT.>>
What I would suggest to you is that the musical contribution that a clarinet makes depends on the context in which it is played. So, it's very difficult to make any judgement about what is 'best' in the absence of that context.
The truth is: sometimes you want to make a full, resonant sound; and sometimes, you want to make a sound that contributes, but in a secondary, supportive, 'not particularly resonant' way. So you need a setup that will allow you to do both.
(If you don't understand that, stop reading NOW.)
On the whole, I support the idea that a resonant setup, controlled by the player, is the way to go. And I have my clarinets set up to be as tight sealing as possible.
But that's very different from your statement:
>> THE MORE EFFICIENTLY A CLARINET RESONATES, THE BETTER THE OVERALL MUSICAL PRODUCT.>>
The quality of the overall musical product is obtainable in many different ways. Some players will choose a slightly less resonant setup, and compensate in the direction of positive resonance by their address to the instrument. Other players will do the opposite.
Mostly that doesn't involve using porous pads, but is achieved by different mouthpiece/reed combinations.
But the principle is unaltered:
WHAT COUNTS IS ACHIEVING THE MUSICAL RESULT.
There is no other right or wrong.
So, I didn't judge how Nick's Ottensteiner contributed to my playing of the Brahms Quintet by asking, "IS IT RESONATING AT MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY?"
I judged it rather by, "does it help me to realise the possibilities of the piece?"
...and because the answer was, "Yes," -- I went along with it.
Other people, like Krass, have axes to grind -- probably he HAS to argue for tight sealing, whatever the context of the discussion -- even whatever the scientific evidence is. (It's his livelihood, after all;-)
Looking through his posts, I see that he NEVER, EVER mentions ANY musical considerations.
No surprise there.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2008-06-18 22:44
The quintessential question would then be "does it sound good? Does it sound even?" If it does, who cares about efficiency?
After all, we're here for the music, not the physics behind it, aren't we?
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2008-06-19 03:50
Ben- "The quintessential question would then be "does it sound good? Does it sound even?" If it does, who cares about efficiency?
After all, we're here for the music, not the physics behind it, aren't we?"
Well yes, but the question behind it (and all the threads realted to equipment) is really, "If I use X pad or Y reed or Z mouthpiece, can I do it with LESS EFFORT?"
Although I can get what I (personally) want on many setups and have gone through phases in which I use leather pads and phases in which I use others (like right now), I make the changes in equpment to try and get my desired result in one main way-
- Less physical and mental effort than on the "other equipment"- I want to be able to do it for hours per day without getting physically tired. I want to be able to do it by simply thinking about the sound and not having to "concentrate".
Of course, I do get tired eventually, and there is always an element of concentration, but I try to lower them both as much as I can...
If you all think about it, this is the same reason we want a "good reed", right?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-06-19 13:17
Ben wrote:
>> The quintessential question would then be "does it sound good? Does it sound even?" If it does, who cares about efficiency? After all, we're here for the music, not the physics behind it, aren't we?>>
Skygardener wrote:
>> Well yes, but the question behind it (and all the threads realted to equipment) is really, "If I use X pad or Y reed or Z mouthpiece, can I do it with LESS EFFORT?"
>> Although I can get what I (personally) want on many setups and have gone through phases in which I use leather pads and phases in which I use others (like right now), I make the changes in equpment to try and get my desired result in one main way-
>> - Less physical and mental effort than on the "other equipment"- I want to be able to do it for hours per day without getting physically tired. I want to be able to do it by simply thinking about the sound and not having to "concentrate".>>
Though I go along with this for the most part, I think that there is a subtlety concealed in the notion of 'effort'. You often hear it said -- for example, I've come across it in discussions of the competing virtues of Buffets and Leblancs -- that: "although you may THINK that what you do is effortless, try the other instrument for a month. Then you'll realise, on going back, how much unnecessary work you have been doing WITHOUT REALISING IT. And then you'll be able to use all that energy just to make music!"
Whereas, what is true is rather that we adapt over a period of time to one instrument, and when those adaptations are no longer necessary, we get out of the habit of making them. But that doesn't mean that it was demanding or wearing to make them when they were unconscious.
Further, it may be that the first instrument's character is obtained at the price of accepting the necessity to adapt, and that the 'easier to play' instrument is relatively bland.
Think how implausible it is that a violin, when we first pick it up, could ever effortlessly be played well in tune. (Adding frets would seem to be the way to go -- yet that cripples the instrument, ultimately.) And someone -- I think Robert Frost -- said that writing blank, unrhymed verse was "like playing tennis without the net."
Every task involves constraint:
Solve it now without complaint.
There are magic links and chains
Forged to loose our rigid brains;
Structures, strictures, though they bind
Strangely liberate the mind.
(James Falen, translator of Eugene Onegin)
It's why some of us think it worthwhile to practise period instruments, because when you've 'practised unconscious' the solutions to their technical defects, some of the advantages of their simple construction become apparent.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2008-06-19 14:12
The Science in this case just doesn't go far enough. It is perhaps well substantiated but doesn't bridge the gap between theory and practice. It stays firmly in text. Tony's et al arguments and references are stated then some anecdotal information is stated. I would like to see more science SPECIFICS. 1. Let's measure seal. Surely there must be an instrument acceptable for this. a) I note J Schmidt's leak indicator measures the seal of each pad b) Hugh Cooper measured the seal of each bassoon joint (in seconds) c) Even as a basic repair person one knows it matters where the leak occurs . For simplicity let's discard a)b)c) and just measure the overall seal. Would it be PSI and a length of time? 2. The next step is to determine a point of diminishing return on the seal. When is it tight. Let's get a number on a scale. Increase the seal and observe how the performance diminishes and when. I realize how subjective music is but all the more reason to apply science in a very tangible and connected way to this art.
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-06-19 18:08
Jack Kissinger wrote:
> Arnold, have at it.
I suppose I think that a quantitative approach won't get us anywhere, much. The 'science' that I outlined is nothing more than the statement that damping a vibrating system both (1) lowers and (2) broadens its resonance peaks.
(1) is obvious, but (2) is a bit surprising. I thought it interesting and pretty when I first learned of it, and it's why I posted it in this thread about leaks -- which can be regarded as a form of damping if they are minimal.
But in playing terms, all (2) means that a very small amount of general leakage may not be all bad, and may even have a desirable effect. (Or not, depending on the situation.)
It all got out of hand because of one post that challenged even this elementary observation.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-06-19 19:10
The problem with this thread is that it has degraded into an argument over whether "leaks" are "bad" or "good," which misses the point completely.
A clarinet is a machine. Consequently, you have to think about it like an engineer to understand it. Let me apply some engineering background to this problem.
From an engineering perspective, a clarinet is a leaky tube. Indeed, if did not "leak" air at all--that is, if it were a perfect closed tube with no holes in it--it would be useless as a musical instrument. What makes the clarinet usable as a musical instrument is that it "leaks" in a controlled fashion. The holes are placed in specific locations and made with specific radii so that the clarinet will leak air in a predictable and controlled fashion.
What happens when the tube leaks? It causes variations to occur in a physical value called "impedance." Impedance is not an easy concept to describe briefly (it involves the use of imaginary/complex numbers), but it is a mathematical value that relates pressure to rate of flow at a given frequency. When you open or close tone holes/keys on a clarinet, you affect the instrument's impedance at different frequencies. Because impedance is a complex number, it has a "real" part and an "imaginary" part.
Without going into too much detail, the real part of impedance relates to energy leaving the system (i.e., sound being emitted), while the imaginary part relates to energy stored or trapped in the system. "Resonance" means that at a particular frequency, the imaginary part of the impedance becomes inconsequential, so the instrument projects sound at that frequency. With any given instrument and fingering, resonance will occur at a number of different frequencies (resonance peaks).
Because impedance varies continually with frequency, if you were to plot the response of a clarinet playing a given note, you would see that these resonance peaks have a width to them (in other words, resonant response occurs over a range of frequencies). How wide or narrow the resonance peaks are depends on the relative degree of the "real" component of impedance (i.e., energy loss). In general, the more energy you bleed off, the less the "imaginary" part of impedance has an effect, and the wider (and flatter looking) your resonance peaks become. As Tony Pay explained, a *slightly* leaky pad might cause a resonance peak to widen/flatten enough to pick up a normally weak harmonic (overtone). (The key word here, though, is "slightly.") As he correctly stated, the resonance characteristics of the clarinet bore (which result from design compromises as well as fingering variations) may not precisely coincide with the harmonics of the reed vibration (which are, by definition, integer multiples of the fundamental frequency).
So if leaks are so great, why are the repair guys still in business? The answer is simple. The clarinet relies on *controlled* leakage to produce tones. Leakage of the wrong amount in the wrong place can have disastrous consequences, and in many cases, it doesn't take much to substantially modify the response of the instrument. And, of course, if you flatten the resonance curves of instrument too much, the reed will vibrate at its own resonant frequency---that's called a squeak!
I suspect that perhaps Mr. Pay's interest in this subject (aside from a his background in mathematics) has much more to do with the characteristics of the period instruments he plays (some of which, as I recall, used rather leaky felt pads) than it does with putting the repair guys out of business. I'll let him respond to that, though... :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2008-06-19 19:13
Spring action if too tight can and is a cause of great dampening effect on resonance...materials used for pads must be guaged carefully to match the effect of the bore as well. a good freind of mine in the Vienna Phil repair department for winds has told me the clarinet has to have carefully graded set of balances between spring tension and pad design. end of quote.
I feel also materials for pads greatly influence dampening effect on clarinet amplitude..yet pads also need to be carefully callibrated to spring tension or else the timbre will be adversely affected.
Ideally tone holes should also be attenuated and shaped to the design of the pad thereby allowing optimal vibration periods without deadening resonance.
David Dow
Post Edited (2008-06-19 19:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bwilber
Date: 2008-06-20 13:10
Hi Everyone. This topic is very interesting to me as I have been teaching myself how to overhaul clarinets over the last 2 years or so. When I first started repadding clarinets, I only used a leak light and the clarinets seemed to play just fine. When I took my clarinets to professional repair persons, they would point out where I was going wrong and it was usually that my seals weren't tight enough and to use a feeler gauge. What I use for a feeler guauge is a 1/2" piece of cassett tape, glued to a popsicle stick. Now I use my feeler gauge and a leak light to get a good seal and I do a suction test and also the balloon test. Sometimes though when I do my suction tests and baloon tests, it seems as though I have a good seal, but yet when I put in my leak light, I can see light escaping on the bottom joint under the bridge key. Either I take the pad out and put more glue in the key cup, or I heat the key up and adjust the pad so that it sits more evenly on the tone hole, so that I can't see any light coming from under the key and then in my mind, I am happy that now I know for sure there is no air escaping. If I use a feeler gauge with each pad that I install and there and the pad is touching all around, then my clarinet almost always sound good and play easily with no squeaking.
There was one time when I had a leak on the top joint and I could not figure out where it was coming from and it was driving me crazy so I took off all the keys and there is this blue sticky stuff that you can buy at the drug store and it is for sticking pictures up on the refrigerator. It's sticky but it comes off clean and I covered up every hole really well and did my leak test and no leak! So, one by one, I put each key back on the clarinet and where my leak was coming from, was one of the plastic inserts in one of the tone holes had a leak coming from underneath it. It was letting air come out as it wasn't glued in properly so I mixed up some epoxy and put it inside, and finally had my leak fixed and even though the clarinet probably played just fine with that little leak, I am the kind of person, that it has to be fixed or I just can't stand it. Some people are fine playing on an instrument that they know has leaks and some people are not. It doesn't really matter how good it sounds, it's just knowing that it's not sealing that makes me crazy. I think what happens is that people can't figure out where a leak is coming from and conclude that it sounds good, just the way it is and so find explanations why this is better. The problem is, it would be very hard for me to fix up a clarinet so that it leaks only a little bit. This to me would be much harder than just trying to fix up a clarinet so that there are no leaks.
Bonnie Wilber
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2008-06-20 15:34
Bonnie wrote:
>> The problem is, it would be very hard for me to fix up a clarinet so that it leaks only a little bit. This to me would be much harder than just trying to fix up a clarinet so that there are no leaks.>>
Well, absolutely. And I hope that nothing I've said suggests that I think you should try to do that!
What Michael wrote:
>> I suspect that perhaps Mr. Pay's interest in this subject (aside from a his background in mathematics) has much more to do with the characteristics of the period instruments he plays (some of which, as I recall, used rather leaky felt pads) than it does with putting the repair guys out of business.>>
...is accurate (see the story about the Ottensteiner); but even on old instruments, I try have the best seal possible. And, if there's a problem with a particular leather pad, I have no compunction in covering it with clingfilm.
Still, I can well believe that the response of an instrument is different according to whether it is fitted with optimally seated leather pads or optimally seated skin/synthetic pads, and others with greater experience than I have confirmed that here.
In passing, I have to say that even though I've been aware of the UNSW website for some time, it's been updated since I last looked, and is now even prettier and more informative. It's at the first URL Michael posted; and that page, together with the link in that page to:
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/flutes.v.clarinets.html
...adds up to a wonderful presentation of what happens at the ENDS of woodwind instruments. I have always found it difficult to explain clearly the idea that an OPEN end can 'reflect' a wave; but this little animation does the job perfectly.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-06-20 17:42
Tony Pay wrote:
> ...adds up to a wonderful presentation of what happens at the
> ENDS of woodwind instruments. I have always found it difficult
> to explain clearly the idea that an OPEN end can 'reflect' a
> wave; but this little animation does the job perfectly.
It's a weird phenomenon. The thing that's always fascinated me is that the mathematics looks the same no matter whether you're talking about sound waves, light, radio waves, or an electrical signal on a telephone line. Any time there is a boundary between two different impedances, some of the wave energy incident on the boundary gets reflected and some passes through.
Here in Texas, of course, they use this sort of thing for oil exploration. They set off explosive charges and record the timing and intensity of the sound waves that reflect back from the ground. At each boundary between different geologic layers, some of the acoustic energy reflects back and some of it travels into the next layer, because the impedance is different.
The really, really fascinating to me, though, is that the people who originally developed the woodwind instruments were able to take advantage of these phenomena in very sophisticated and imaginative ways (like cross fingerings, register keys, etc.), despite the fact that most of the science/mathematics behind them had yet to be discovered. It makes one wonder just how many excellent ideas about instrument design might have been conceived, but then subsequently abandoned for failure to make a working prototype, when, in fact, a little bit of mathematics might have made the idea work.
Post Edited (2008-06-20 18:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2008-06-21 14:51
Horribly off-topic, but Nick Shackleton's name came up. I think it is one of the most bizarre things life has handed me (in an already rather bizarre life) that I sort of (however briefly) "knew" Sir Mr. Shackleton. We had traded a few emails and once he asked me to receive delivery of a Wurlitzer clarinet for him (I think the shipper would not send it directly to him for some reason). Incredibly, I had to decline because I worked 9 to 5 and would not be home when the ultra-expensive instrument was delivered.
That's like Julia Child wanting you to, I dunno, hold the oven door while she bastes the chicken.
Bill Fogle
Ellsworth, Maine
(formerly Washington, DC)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2008-08-03 17:33
I thought I would pass this along because it ties into our previous discussion on the topic of whether small leaks can improve the resonance response of certain notes on the instrument.
I now believe I have witnessed this myself. I had actually posted a while back about a recorder-derived fingering for clarion Ab (x x o | x x o) that I had tried on my Bb instrument with good results--it was fairly resonant, although perhaps somewhat weak in terms of volume. In my post, I had asked why this fingering--which worked remarkably well on my Bb--was barely usable on my A clarinet. At least one person (Ed Palanker, I think) commented the this "2-and-2" fingering for Ab was a "fake fingering" and that it does not ring true on either the A or the Bb. It sounded pretty decent on my Bb instrument--at least as good or better than the notorious throat Bb (which, although bad, is not bad enough to be called "fake").
Now I think I understand why. It turns out I had a very slight leak in my throat A key on my Bb clarinet. I found the leak and fixed it yesterday because I was noticing that it was making my lower chalumeau a bit unstable. Lo and behold--now that I have fixed the leak, the "2 and 2" Ab no longer rings true and sounds like the "fake fingering" it's "supposed" to be.
I think the most logical explanation for what was happening was that with the leak, the resonance peaks of the instrument flattened out, so more harmonics of the reed were being resonated by the instrument--hence, the 2-and-2 Ab was weak in volume, but sounded like a full note because more harmonics were being resonated. Now that the leak is gone, the resonance peaks are narrower, so many of the more musically pleasant (lower) harmonic frequencies produced by the reed on 2 and 2 Ab are being filtered out because they don't coincide with the narrower resonance peaks.
And no, I'm still glad I fixed the leak... :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: awm34
Date: 2008-08-03 18:10
My teacher back in NJ, Jimmy Giacone, dubbed the 2-2 Ab the "emergency" fingering.
Alan Messer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2008-08-04 23:55
can't you just blow less to even out the sound? or adjust the pad heights?
if you really want an even clarinet, but an older leblanc symphonie. they are incredibly even but also incredibly resistant, if that's what the original topic was aimed at. this got pretty lengthy.
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. they are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which was already but too easy to arrive as railroads lead to Boston to New York
-Walden; Henry Thoreau
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
