 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: alanporter
Date: 2009-04-22 00:12
If Buffet were to make an R13 out of plastic, with exactly the same dimensions in every respect, would it not sound the same as a wooden one ? After all, the tube of the instrument is only a container for the air column.
O.K. guys, shoot me down !
Alan
tiaroa@shaw.ca
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Margaret
Date: 2009-04-22 02:07
I have no idea, but I would guess that there would be subtle differences because the air in a clarinet does cause it to vibrate. It's not as if the air is isolated from the instrument. Wouldn't that affect the sound? Maybe they could find a nice resonant type of plastic.
Margaret
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2009-04-22 02:20
If ALL dimensions were identical to the wood version, the plastic clarinet would sound identical to any listener. It might SEEM to sound different to the player, as the vibrations transmitted to the player directly through the fingers and teeth might differ. The physics of acoustics support this, but there are many disbelievers (because it's counterintuitive), and unfortunately there is no easy way to test the hypothesis reliably with enough samples.
Please don't shoot me. I'm very delicate. Besides, the Buffet Mafia is already out for my head.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Margaret
Date: 2009-04-22 02:37
If it's that simple, then why aren't they making them? They would presumably be more affordable and I think people would like that.
Margaret
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2009-04-22 02:59
David, I suspect that Glenn and the other Buffet hoarders figure if you believe that, then you have nothing between your ears but hot air, so why should they waste the time to lop off your head!! Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-04-22 03:13
Margaret wrote:
> If it's that simple, then why aren't they making them? They
> would presumably be more affordable and I think people would
> like that.
The wood isn't all that significant a cost in a $3000 instrument (the iron & aluminum in your automobile is worth only a fraction of the cost of the automobile, too).
Marketing dollars I'll wager is a much more significant fraction of the money you & I spend on the instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-04-22 03:32
"If Buffet were to make an R13 out of plastic, with exactly the same dimensions in every respect, would it not sound the same as a wooden one?"
They already do - it's called an R13 Greenline.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2009-04-22 14:13
I go along with David's conjecture. However, there is probably no way to make the plastic horn identical to a wood one Here's an anamoly: I have 3 R13 horns and there is no discernable difference...to me...in their sound. I have several plastic Vitos and they don't sound identical.....and a couple of them sound very close to the R13s.....to me. And, as some others have described previously, not all R13s sound the same.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2009-04-22 18:12
So I'll add another thought that isn't exactly original to this post. As players, we develop what could be called a "style" and "sound" to our playing that is only slightly affected by our equipment. Benny Goodman played a total piece of garbage instrument that was given to him when he was young and starting out and look what an amazing sound he created for himself. True, when he got the money he upgraded his equipment, but his real leg up on the clarinet world came from his hours and hours of playing a crummy instrument and making it sound good.
I could give my clarinet prof my instrument and sit back in amazement as he played and sounded fantastic...he also sounded like HIM on every instument he picked up. Slight variances only.
I do believe in good equipment and having every advantage sound-wise possible, but I also know it is best to work at finding an individual sound that will set you apart. That doesn't come from equipment. And everyone knows what a case of GAS I have.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetist04
Date: 2009-04-23 03:18
To be precise, the materials will vibrate at a different frequency. Wood at a different frequency than plastic. But even grenadilla wood at a different freq. than rosewood, etc. The different frequency gives it a different timbre.
Discernible enough to the average listener? I don't know; I doubt it. There have been a few threads about this.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2009-04-23 14:22
As has been stated, the Greenline is essentially that. Many say they play differently. I would tend to believe that as some mention, the vibrational qualities are perhaps a little different. I would think that the weight of the instrument as well as the finish qualities of the bore may have some effect in feel or sound.
There is one school of thought that if one completely duplicates the dimensions perfectly that there will be no difference, as the instrument is not as important as a vibrational material, as say a stringed instrument. Most players I know reject this idea and believe that for example, 3 barrels of the same dimensions in grenadilla, cocobolo and delrin all play and sound different. But then again, 3 in grenadill often feel different as well.
I would imagine that one issue with making a truly plastic R-13 (or other) clarinet would be the prejudice associated with a plastic clarinet (beginner, cheap, junk). Many years ago there were some really high quality silver clarinets made by Selmer and Haynes and I imagine they faced the same issues. A common complaint for any alternative material is that they sound or feel different, not necessarily worse or better, just different. At the same time, I know oboists who have plastic top joints and like them.
It might be interesting to have a really high end clarinet made of plastic with none of the issues that one has with wood. It could prove to be a good addition to one's arsenal.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: reedwizard
Date: 2009-04-23 15:10
"If ALL dimensions were identical to the wood version, the plastic clarinet would sound identical to any listener. It might SEEM to sound different to the player, as the vibrations transmitted to the player directly through the fingers and teeth might differ. The physics of acoustics support this.."
This may be true in regard to the acoustics properties related to stopped pipe but is certainly not true in relation to the properties of plastic versus wood.
"To be precise, the materials will vibrate at a different frequency. Wood at a different frequency than plastic. But even grenadilla wood at a different freq. than rosewood, etc. The different frequency gives it a different timbre."
The above is true.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-04-23 15:12
Based on my understanding of the way waves work (including sound waves), technically speaking, the material *does* make a difference. Whenever an acoustic wave approaches the boundary between two media (e.g., the air in the bore and the clarinet itself) some of the wave is reflected back and some passes across the boundary into the new medium (where it travels at a different speed through the medium).
How much is reflected, how much passes through, and what happens to the velocity of the wave as it passes through the boundary all depend on the materials involved.
This is the principle through which seismographic oil exploration works. You fire off a big sound wave and listen to see how much of it bounces back to you and when. Analyze the data and you can see if there's oil down there or just rock.
The same thing happens with light (and other electromagnetic waves), which is why some materials are more reflective than others.
Most theoretical models used to explain the way woodwinds work (ideal cylindrical tubes, etc.) don't take this phenomenon into account (they do something like assuming surfaces are perfectly reflective), but it doesn't mean that what I am describing is not there. In fact, if the properties of the material really didn't matter, then your clarinet would not go flat in a cold room or sharp in a hot room, either, as the air in the bore is one of the materials whose properties affect the sound. It's like the frictionless surfaces you see in high school physics problems--you disregard the friction to make the physics easier to understand, but you can't accurately model the real world without friction.
In practical terms, the difference might be small--we may be comparing shiny mirrors to slightly shinier mirrors--but to say that the material makes NO theoretical difference is not quite right.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2009-04-23 15:28
I did not say "no theoretical difference", I wrote "the plastic clarinet would sound identical to any listener". In a similar past thread I believe it was our Fearless Leader Mark C who provided the theoretical amplitudes of differences in wall vibration amplitude between two different clarinet body materials and they were at least an order of magnitude (that's a power of ten) less than the threshold of audibility. I believe we could show the same for differences in the frequency composition of the standing waves due to differences in damping or wave reflection. Bottom line is, there could be a theoretical difference, but not one that we can hear.
Empirically, I've played and worked on many dozens of non-wood soprano, alto, bass, and contra clarinets and have plenty of evidence that they sound like 'wood'. I'm still waiting for the National Science Foundation or some generous wealthy Clarinet BB reader to give me a grant to perform statistical testing of my hypothesis!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2009-04-23 15:49
I have 2 R13 Bb clarinets; one from the early '70's and one from the mid '90's.
Although I can use them interchangeably with the same mouthpiece, by the reasoning cited above they ought to sound the same. But when I play them, my wife can tell from a room away which one I'm playing. Is it ESP or do they really sound different?
Flute players, with a much wider choice of materials by the same makers, are adamant in their choice of silver, gold, platinum; not to mention combinations of any two (also wood). I don't think they are all crazy!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2009-04-23 15:59
Larry says "I don't think they are all crazy!"
Well....I do, but for other reasons!
;-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2009-04-23 16:07
Yeah, like their idea of tuning!
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-04-23 16:19
David wrote:
<<I did not say "no theoretical difference", I wrote "the plastic clarinet would sound identical to any listener".>>
That's true, and I did notice that that's what you said. I wasn't really directing my remarks at you, just trying to clear up the apparent misunderstanding between the extreme "yes it makes a difference, and you'll never catch me with a plastic clarinet in my life" and the "no, science says you can make a clarinet out of jello and it will still sound the same" camps.
As you know, the truth is somewhere in the middle. The material does affect the sound, but much less so than dimensional factors, and any material that someone would seriously consider using to build a clarinet out of is going to produce pretty similar results (because the ideal tube approximation is pretty good, given the right materials).
Case in point--my Eb clarinet is plastic (very early Bundy model) and it sounds every bit as good as a wooden one.
I just like to have the whole story out there, because there's some truth to both sides.
The reason why what you're describing seems counter-intuitive to people is that it is so often presented in a way that makes it seem as if what is being argued is that there is no theoretical difference between different materials. I think people can accept it a little more readily when they understand it as a question of degree. It's the "no theoretical difference" myth that is truly counter-intuitive.
Post Edited (2009-04-24 06:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2009-04-23 18:46
Regarding Larry Bocaner's observation about the different sound of his two R13s, I don't see how that supports or counters any of our positions, other than to demonstrate that SOMEHOW his two R-13s are different! I would surmise that no two wood clarinets in the world are absolutely identical to each other in EVERY dimension (not just bore, but tonehole placements/shapes/sizes, etc.), not even two R13s made one right after the other at the factory. Nor probably are any two clarinets made of ANY standard material exactly the same.
My point is that we should be open-minded about material selection for clarinets and not pre-judge them solely by the manufacturer's choice of material. As I've opined before: good, bad, or indifferent clarinets can (and have) been made out of a wide variety of materials (various woods, various plastics, hard rubber, a few different metals, even glass and ceramics --- but not raspberry Jell-O, though!). Furthermore, regardless of material, we should play-test as many models (and samples of any one model) as we can before buying, because they will ALL play differently from each other in some respect.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2009-04-23 18:54
>> just trying to clear up the apparent misunderstanding between
>> the extreme "yes it makes a difference, and you'll never catch me
>> with a plastic clarinet in my life" and the "no, science says you can
>> make a clarinet out of jello and it will still sound the same" camps.
But these are not the two extremes.
The former is a matter of beliefs, by some people, which is nothing but personal intuition (usually distorted, based simply on that most good clarinets are traditionally wood). The latter is compeltely wrong and not scientific. No scientist would make an absurd claim like that, since the body of the clarinet has to be made by a material that is rigid enough, which jello isn't. By giving this supposedly extereme example you are actually misrepresenting the actual claim and facts.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-04-24 07:01
clarnibass wrote:
> >> just trying to clear up the apparent misunderstanding
> between
> >> the extreme "yes it makes a difference, and you'll never
> catch me
> >> with a plastic clarinet in my life" and the "no, science
> says you can
> >> make a clarinet out of jello and it will still sound the
> same" camps.
>
> But these are not the two extremes.
I know. I was exaggerating for humorous effect. I didn't expect you to take the part about jello completely seriously--in fact, that's precisely why I made up the jello example: because it's patently absurd. I was hoping to lighten the mood.
What I was trying to say in my strange little way was that some people are very adamant about their viewpoint on this issue one way or another.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2009-04-24 09:18
"The different frequency gives it a different timbre."
So, what word describes the effect in plastic?! Afraid I don't know what the consensus opinion on "timbre" is, but it means nothing to me because I've encountered its use elsewhere with dubious meaning.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
