 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Franklin Liao
Date: 2011-04-09 07:07
It goes without saying that the reed is vital for that the frequency that the reed buzzes at sets the scene for everything regarding the horn. However, why such variation in barrel, mouthpiece, reed, the horn itself and the bell has grappled me, hence the musing. Correct this layperson for any lapse in reasoning.
To quote Stephen Fox verbatim, "a mouthpiece with a bore smaller than ideal will play sharp up to about A in the second register, then flat above that; one with an oversize bore will behave in the opposite way, flat up to the same point and sharp above". This is something that I was able to feel firsthand by plugging a Boehm mouthpiece into a Turkish clarinet.
Where the barrel and the instrument comes in is when the bore resonance is calculated in anticipation of the mouthpiece/reed resonance so as to allow better approximation of odd harmonic at higher frequencies.
The pressure node moves up to the location of the barrel as you go up the scale. The intervals would be too narrow for the length of the instrument and the spacing of the toneholes to fare well if it were a perfect cylinder as said in the introductionary UNSW article.
Combining with Fox's account in that "localized enlargement of the bore lowers the frequency of vibration of modes which have high pressure in the region of enlargement, and raises the frequency of modes having low pressure in that region," along with "that the difference in bore size between the central section and the speaker hole region that controls the tuning of the middle twelfths," it would seem that having a large bore barrel for no good reason will lead to intonation problem with the throat notes, namely flatness, while too narrow and the horn will be acutely sharp close to the break.
Throat correction key may be justified if one factors in that tone holes are doubling as register holes, and they are by nature a bit too large, causing that change in pitch when one gets to the second register, as if the instrument literally changed its length by a little. Some form of separate register key for the altissimo register becomes sensible then. The length of the barrel also plays to this as it upsets the strategic placement of the throat key relative to that of the mouthpiece/reed.
The bell serves as a high-pass filter, allowing the higher frequencies to better travel down the bottom. I am starting to feel that the bell's flare might be crucial in accounting for a need for the bell E correction, although I don't nearly understand well enough at this point.
A preliminary notion thus far is that an instrument would ideally be made with very specific demands on all the components that would be used for it, so as to avoid having to do this gear mix and match for the sake of better approximation of harmonics. Subsequently, it is almost natural for a professional player to do just that, mix and match, in order to seek the least compromised form of setup.
Post Edited (2011-04-09 07:13)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2011-04-09 14:12
Just use a synthesizer and fahgeddabouhtitt.
Disclaimer. I make specialty QCB's (quantum computerized barrels*) that correct all of the problems mentioned. They feature ion-trapping technology that acts as nano-switch modules. Available after Dec. 21 2012
*QCB is a trademark of Clarinetconcepts which is solely responsible for its nonexistence, but is not responsible for any fractures in spacetime noted as a result of their use.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2011-04-09 14:28
WOW, Dr A--gottagetmesomeofthose (asap, if possible). G.A.S. attack........
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davetrow
Date: 2011-04-09 15:06
I want a tachyonic retrochronous bell, which transmits sound from the player's future so that you get the benefits of 20 years of practice without waiting for the results.
The only problem is, when the bell stops working, you know you have less than twenty years to live.
Dave Trowbridge
Boulder Creek, CA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2011-04-09 17:26
That is quite an expenditure, as it takes the total energy of one star to make a tachyonic bubble that can transport one person synchronously across the galaxy.
Of course, if you can harness an xray laser powered by a nuke (greater than 50 Kilotons) you can rift spacetime by focusing on the omega point when the nuke explodes. With the resultant disruption, you can avoid time altogether when rearranging the laws of physics.
(Ref: Omega Theory, by Alpert, which I quoted above in another post on this thread when dealing with ion trapping in quantum computing).
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2011-04-09 17:32
This, of course, assumes that the player's primary concern is a precise micromanagement of the spectral characteristics of the instrument. Some may consider that a worthwhile pursuit, others may consider it vanity. I think it's a matter of bang for the buck, where the buck isn't as much money as it is effort expended on such a pursuit.
Then again, lately I'm spending most of my time on a paperclip contra, where the reed, mpc, and lig are the only reasonably interchangeable parts and I'm aiming for the crunchiest, grittiest sound possible.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: charla
Date: 2011-04-09 17:40
Sign me up for one of each. Especially the 20 year deal...might extend my lifespan by a few.
Thanks for the chuckles.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Franklin Liao
Date: 2011-04-09 21:18
Oh jeez, so this be as bad as technobabble...
although now that Dr.Segal has mentioned synth, a mental image of a full Boehm EWI just went past my mind.
On a semi-serious note, Robert Carree, Arther Benade and Rosario Mazzeo all worked with the Klose-Buffet keywork layout. If you deviate from what people are trained on, then the work will simply fall to the dustbin of history.
Post Edited (2011-04-09 23:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2011-04-10 15:38
Carree's work certainly hasn't landed in any such dustbin. I don't know what practical applications Benade developed or with which manufacturer, so I can't react to that suggestion. As to Mazzeo, the system was only implemented by one company on one model, which, FWIW, was not the ascendant choice among symphonic clarinetists of the time. Had Selmer offered it as an option on other models, it might have gained more traction, although there were technical sacrifices the player had to make to have the benefits of Mazzeo's system.
As a matter of fact, thinking only of the register key problem, there is one solution available, which is installed on the Patricola clarinets, that in my opinion is practical and effective, and it doesn't require any re-learning of fingering technique. But Patricola isn't a widely used brand. If the mechanism they use is limited to their instruments and none of the bigger manufacturers is permitted or is interested in licensing it, it won't catch on either. Players already have ways of dealing with the problems of the mis-placed, mis-sized register/Bb vent and don't make their buying decisions based on it.
Karl
Post Edited (2011-04-10 16:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Franklin Liao
Date: 2011-04-10 16:21
It is true that none of us are living in the times of Anton Stadler and as such we haven't the woes of those little rods of misery, made of Boxwood to contend with. Those advances ushered forth with the age of reasoning are very much with us and are time-proven.
The bell E correction mechanism though to me is becoming more commonplace on the Bb and A. A return to full Boehm is not happening in force, but at least the niche for this alive and well. Vent or register mechanism though is much less common.
(time to hunt down Benade's book and read it come to think of it... Dileep Gangolli's comment in 2008 about how academic approach doesn't translate into real world reminds me of the case of ornithology for birds.)
Post Edited (2011-04-10 16:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Robert Moody
Date: 2011-04-13 12:43
I wonder if people like Stanley Drucker, Larry Combs and Martin Frost spent their career obsessing about equipment and "set up".
I know it's important, but I don't think it needs to be obsessed about to be successful.
Man, if I could play like those guys. Whew.
Robert Moody
http://www.musix4me.com
Free Clarinet Lessons and Digital Library!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
