 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: schylarker
Date: 2010-05-06 22:37
on clarinets, what is the difference between rined and ringless barrels/bells?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2010-05-07 00:21
There is the obvious difference in what they look like. Aside from that it depends on the player. One player my find one freer and someone else the opposite. I think the only way to truly measure what difference it makes would be to play a ringless and then put rings on it and see what difference it made, but that's not very practical. It's all personal. ESP http://eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2010-05-07 03:19
>> I think the only way to truly measure what difference it makes would be to play a ringless and then put rings on it and see what difference it made <<
In the couple of times I've tried exactly that, the player couldn't tell a difference at all. Tried it only with very good high level player.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2010-05-07 12:58
I think the only functions of rings on bells and barrels is protective and decorative. On a wood instrument they help prevent chipping of the wood on the sharp edges, on a plastic instrument this function is a bit redundant, but they still have a decorative function.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2010-05-07 14:09
You know, I was just commenting about this with a dealer who was offering two used Backun barrels. Naturally I had to try them. They were oddly enough my first attempt at trying these highly tauted barrels. The result on an R13 Greenline were VERY similar to the results I get with my ringless "fatboy" Alan Segal barrel on my CSGs. That is, there seems to be a little more vibrancy to the sound ("woodier" for lack of a better description).
I can certainly live without this difference, but I just keep gravitating to the Segal barrel on my CSGs. I just like the overall response a little better. Now it is unclear if this difference is picked up from an audience (we've covered this ground a lot) but if it makes me feel that things are going better it's worth it.
The Backuns would only be used on an alternate horn so for me it was not worth the $150 investment. But it was clear that the two different approaches, Dr Alan Segal's ringless "fatboy," and the wooden rings (I'm calling this ringless due to the lack of metal) of the Backund have much the same result.
As for the protective nature of the rings, whether it made a difference or not, there were a number of "cracked barrel complaints" on the Chadash site with reference to his newer ringless barrels for his model clarinets.
.....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2010-05-07 14:32
I really question if metal rings were ever put on clarinet sections for decorative purposes. My opinion is that their purpose was strictly to prevent cracking. Why the elimination has occurred in recent years is questionable. When "plastic" barrels were initially offered some years ago thay were sans metal rings. Why? Because reinforcement was not necessary. Why metal rings have been historically put on the ends of bells.....I don't have a clue.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2010-05-07 15:58
Thanks for the Kudos, Paul.
Those who consider ringless barrels should note that the ends are thicker.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
