 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2008-08-05 16:20
How on earth do you classify a metal clarinet as a single wall vs a double wall construction? i have a selmer metal clarinet that i've been working on that has a tunable barrel which is double walled? but the body itself isn't double. people say that bettoney clarinets are double walled, but i can't confirm
so what exactly does double wall entail?
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
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2008-08-05 17:53
A single wall metal clarinet has a narrow diameter body, only a couple of millimetres wider than the actual bore itself.
A double wall metal clarinet has an outer concentric metal wall encasing the narrower diameter bore tubing to make it appear to be of a similar outer diameter as a wooden one.
http://www.silver-clarinet.com/
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2008-08-05 17:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2008-08-06 00:27
ahhh so selmer metal clarinets were actually single walled with a double walled barrel.
thanks
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
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2008-08-06 14:45
Re Chris:Robert wood clarinets had slip joint barrels, silver lined, which eliminated the need for tuning rings. Worked well on my Robert A.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2008-08-06 18:56
TKS, Chris, for www.silver-clarinet.com , the best, most comprehensive, dissertation on metal and double-walled cls I've seen, its in my Fav. Places. I'd like to add the Haynes US pat # 1,715,162, Thermoclarinet [1926]. View/copy it at GooglePatents, and search for others, I'll try to find/post other #s of interest here. Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris J
Date: 2016-12-27 17:25
Although an old thread, there are a number of connections I can make to it.
I have got back, from restoration, a double walled metal clarinet. It is very pretty!
What is interesting to me, is that it was made in the same year as a single walled Couesnon metal clarinet I had - 1930.
Side by side they look like this
Which is exactly how they are shown in the 1934 catalogue I have.
The double walled two piece body clarinet is model 1206, and my single walled one piece body, brushed finished instrument is model 1203.
The double walled clarinet had three donor keys, all needing modification to make the instrument work. They were expertly worked on by Chris P during his restoration of the clarinet, then silver plated to match the rest of the instrument.
As Chris P had commented with his post in this thread (and last week played my pair of metal Selmers, the FB A one being similar to the one he linked to from the UARK collection), and Vytas mentioned Couesnons (the one he pictured is model 1204 in the catalogue), I thought this would fit, resurrecting an old thread.
Chris
Post Edited (2016-12-27 17:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2016-12-28 03:27
Very interesting. How does the double wall affect the sound? The increased mass should play a role.
I am not too impressed by the sound of the few single wall clarinets I have heard samples of.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2016-12-28 05:08
Johan,
One idea behind the double-wall design was to help stabilize the sound (as temperature changes to single-walled clarinet bores could send them sharp/flat). The Haynes model (of Haynes flute fame) even had a little cover in which the player could blow warm air into (to trap warm air between the walls).
As far as metal clarinets - there were "pro" models and standard run-of-the-mill models. Depending on which ones you've heard, you might be surprised. There are some blind sound tests online (or at least there used to be), and the sound was closer than one might expect.
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2016-12-28 08:15
Really good metal clarinets can have a deep, solid sound. Listen to the jazz clarinetist in this Youtube video. He's having some trouble in the altissimo but his sound has good basic depth and shape that some might even prefer to the typical sound of a wooden clarinet.
"Gabriele Marabassi e Nospro's Master Class Donna Lee Charles Parker":
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Gabriele+Mirabassi+Donna+lee.
The Couesnon Double Wall Clarinet is certainly a beautiful instrument to see. I'd love to hear something played on it.
Post Edited (2016-12-28 23:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris J
Date: 2016-12-28 13:51
I'll see how I might put a recording on this site.
Metal clarinets do not lend themselves to polycyclindrical bores, and are not able to have their tone holes undercut, so care has to be taken when comparing like for like, when comparing with wooden instruments.
I know there are other views, but I share the belief that a bore is a bore, whatever the material, and that there should be no noticeable difference heard between geometrically identicle instruments of different materials. Just as gold plating keys will make no difference to tone.
I could accept that a wooden instrument may 'move' over time with subtle changes which mean some instruments stabilize into great players, and some not so.
With a metal clarinet, I guess you have what you got from day one.
Single walled metal flutes have stood the test of time, so the principle must have merit.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2016-12-28 15:42
I'd be hard pushed to tell if it was a metal or wood clarinet being played on hearing them (but not seeing them).
The single wall Selmers play every bit as well as their equivalent wooden counterparts.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2016-12-28 18:52
Chris J,
Just upload to http://picosong.com/ and post the link. Would be great!
"there should be no noticeable difference heard between geometrically identicle instruments of different materials"
I disagree on that. Each material has a resonance frequency and will interact with the air column. Heavier material like hard rubber will give a colder tone.
I agree on the key plating where there is no backing theory. Unless, of course, the key work vibrates. Which it most probably does... It is a possibility that different platings absorb vibrations differently. The panel of artists behind the Buffet Tradition model decided to use unplated posts. I would not underestimate their intelligence.
Post Edited (2016-12-29 03:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2016-12-28 22:56
Johan,
Try this: http://www.theclarinet.net/History/metal-clarinet-test.html
(No cheating!) ;^)>>>
I listened to each recording, then wrote down my exact guess as to which of the four clarinets was used. I got one correct - I could tell one was a metal, and by chance I even got the make/model right. I think the probability is fair that I could have gotten one out of four by simply guessing and not having listened too, though.
I remember listening to these years ago, and I tricked myself into believing I had done better than I had because I didn't write down my choices before viewing the answer. I'd highly recommend writing down the choices before viewing the answer - it was way more fun this way...even if I didn't do "as well." ;^)>>>
Cheers!
Fuzzy
Post Edited (2016-12-28 23:04)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2016-12-29 03:23
Fuzzy,
Of course, no cheating. I'm a truth seeker. :-)
I listened carefully with a decent set of headphones for about 5 minutes and then had made up my mind. I might have misinterpreted the challenge because I only tried to differentiate between wood and metal.
Result: 2 out of 4. As good as a dice. I was certain about the ones I got wrong and uncertain about the ones I got right...
I won't spoil the test for others by discussing details.
What I can say is that acoustical design apparently matters at least as much as the material. In the test, I think I wrongly associated one aspect of acoustical design, back-pressure, with metal.
This test changed my view on metal clarinets. I must have listened to crappy players before.
My biggest experience with testing many different clarinets is that the importance of the equipment decreases with the distance to the mouth. That principle holds for both sound quality and intonation. This test confirms this view, but it was surprising the difference was that small, if any.
I know from experience that subtle differences between instruments can become apparent in certain passages that exploit the register where there is an audible difference. When time allows I will make a similar blind test with grenadilla vs. rosewood.
Playing in a big room also helps bring out the differences in my experience.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2016-12-29 05:14
@Johan: Thanks for the fun! The "no cheating" was as much an admonition against myself as it was a directive towards you - I hadn't planned on "cheating" the first time I took the "test" years ago, but by not writing down my answers before hand, I convinced myself that, "Yeah, I thought that such-and-such was wood/metal!" Writing it down this time kept me honest! ;^)>>>
I hope others might listen as well. It is all in good fun, and isn't meant as an attack or trick on anyone. Perhaps some will be able to easily hear the difference! I know it opened my eyes/ears a bit the first time I listened to it (and I've always loved metal clarinets!)
I love blind listening tests because it tears down (or proves) a lot of what I've allowed myself to believe about the clarinet as an instrument in general.
I agree with your statements pertaining to which conditions might be telling in blind sound tests. I also realize that a musician can't play each instrument with the exact equal proficiency, or even play the same sample exactly the same twice...but I think the examples provided by the gentleman are well suited for the purpose. I'd love to hear a blind test between grenadilla and rosewood.
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Johan H Nilsson
Date: 2016-12-29 13:59
Thanks, Fuzzy. Blind tests are fun and above all they are fair. A blind test talks, bullshit walks...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris J
Date: 2016-12-29 14:15
Fuzzy - a good test!
I give myself one and a half marks.
I correctly guessed clarinet 1 (guessed probably being the operative word...) and got the material correct in clarinet 2. But that was it.
The least complex and most dull sounding instrument to me, which I had down as the lower grade metal clarinet, was the R13.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2016-12-29 20:37
Chris J:
I find the part about the R13 to be hilarious - as I had a similar thought.
I had labeled the Buffet as the Selmer. To my ears, the Buffet wasn't up in the same category as the others. I was really surprised by that.
Fuzzy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
