 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: trahansax
Date: 2012-05-03 03:00
Hi, I'm new to getting into accessories. I am a saxophonist and I do play clarinet on occasion. I am working to better my clarinet chops. I am thinking of getting an aftermarket barrel, are they worth it? will it help that much? My clarinet is only in tune if pushed all the way in, do I need a shorter barrel? Sometimes I need to pinch to bring certain notes up.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mvjohnso
Date: 2012-05-03 04:15
Your barrel is the correct size if it is in tune while pushed all the way in (you see, when you pull your barrel out you are creating a gap in the air-stream of the instrument that should be avoided). The pinching for certain notes is probably just an instrument quirk. The difference in barrels is mostly negligible (less you are taking your tone very seriously). I would suggest a good mouthpiece, ton kooiman thumb rest (really is worth it, even the cheap one), or ligature (though, I'd probably be out-voted by this crowd on that one); if you really want some new clarinet toys. New barrels are typically used if you want a better (though, not always possible some stock barrels get it right) voicing. And, the only way to get this is by trying a lot of them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: trahansax
Date: 2012-05-03 04:34
Thanks for the info. I tried to get my former clarinet teacher to explain this to me. I'm sure it's just an instrument quirk, or the fact that I'm a sax player and I spend 99% on my time on sax. I'm ready to put the time in on Clarinet though. I'll probably wait until I can get to a trade show to try out barrels.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2012-05-03 07:29
If you are spending 99% of your time on sax and have no experience on clarinet then it's a fair bet that your intonation problems are a result of your embouchure. As you've no doubt realized by now, sax and clarinet embouchures are very different animals. As your clarinet chops improve so will your intonation. Good luck.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-05-03 09:23
I must STRONGLY disagree with 'mvjohnso.'
There is NOTHING wrong with a gap and in fact where your barrel and clarinet come together ON THE OUTSIDE does not guarantee that is what it looks like on the INSIDE.
If you have to pull out more than 3/16s of an inch to a quarter inch, then things may become a bit untenable. However, NO ensemble will play perfect pitch and certainly not play the SAME pitch all the time either. So one NEEDS flexibility in his set up. Personally I feel much more comfortable with about an 1/8 of an inch than I do with a mere sixteenth because I then know for certain that I have a "good amount of wiggle room."
Just reference an earlier post by Tony Pay in which he proposes a pitch scenario in which his solution would be to yank the barrel out 'TOO FAR' to solve a hairy orchestral match.
If you have a 67mm barrel, I'd try for a 65mm (most barrels these days are 66mm ....... with Buffets anyway).
We ALL need to be flexible people............. this aint Congress !!!!
................Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2012-05-03 09:25)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JHowell
Date: 2012-05-03 11:07
I agree with Paul; better to have a small gap and some flexibility, so if you're pushed in all the way and still biting up, yes, a shorter barrel would be a good idea.
The size of your oral cavity affects pitch on clarinet more than on saxophone. On clarinet you want a very focused airstream and a small oral cavity, which doesn't work on sax except for altissimo. So, in addition to embouchure development you might consider your vowels and see if raising your tongue will improve your sound and raise your pitch.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-05-03 15:44
With clarinets, you blow them UP to pitch which is the opposite to saxes that are blown DOWN to pitch.
I see far too much emphasis on here from people banging on about getting the latest 'must have' aftermarket barrels and fancy ligatures. If you want to chop and change all the time, then by all means get as many aftermarket barrels and trendy ligatures as you like and never settle down - you can only use one barrel or ligature at any given time. Or stick with the stock barrel and get a decent mouthpiece and ligature (such as a Rovner) and also get lessons from the best clarinet specialist teacher you can as they will give you good grounding instead of developing bad habits without any guidance.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2012-05-03 15:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: trahansax
Date: 2012-05-03 15:50
I do have some experience on clarinet, I studied clarinet in school while I was doing my masters in saxophone. I just had a teacher that didn't communicate well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mvjohnso
Date: 2012-05-03 18:00
I never said that one cannot play (well) with a gap, just that one ought to avoid it. I play consistently in tune with my 66mm barrel; and, if I am exceedingly flat I use my 65mm barrel (my solution to flexibility). However, I was lucky enough to get a clarinet with two stock barrels. And, I would have to strongly disagree with you Paul if you think that "where your barrel and clarinet come together ON THE OUTSIDE does not guarantee that is what it looks like on the INSIDE." First I like to clarify that I said "pushed in", nothing about the outside and inside gap; as, pushed in denotes a judgement of both the inside and outside gap. However, it is ridiculous not to see that if your tenons and sockets are the correct sizes (ie the lengths match an seal flushly, as they should (though a longer tenon only causes superficial problems on the outside)) then the gap on the outside would be the same as the one on the inside. That gap will not cause leaks, but it does create an abnormality in the airstream (albeit a minor one). Additionally, the gap will serve as a pooling spot for moisture and possibly cause harm to your instrument if not careful (or just over long periods of time, the tenons and sockets are both most vulnerable and the hardest to repair if they crack). Also, if you do have a barrel too short you can always get tenon rings to fill the gap. Or you can just get a Paulus and Shuler barrel if you dig flexibility.
Post Edited (2012-05-03 18:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-05-03 18:21
Well actually I found myself shaving down a barrel on a Leblanc Concerto because it was far too long. As I continued to make it smaller (only the outside mind you) there was never a point where I placed it completely down and a gap appeared. To me this says that the depth of the socket was already too long and all I did was bring it back to reality.
I'm not one to measure every square mm in the first place but I've found that this has been a plus since playing the clarinet is NOT the same as engineering a turbine engine.............. there are going to be discrepencies. One of which is "the gap." Perhaps in an ideal world a gapless moment may render your instrument at its best (maybe), but I've never experienced this moment and doubt if any of my colleagues have either.
Again, I would emphasise that 'in tune' is a state that one achieves WITH everyone else, not as a solo effort. A needle sitting on zero of the Korg means little by itself.
....................Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2012-05-03 18:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JHowell
Date: 2012-05-03 18:53
Never had a problem with "the gap," either. If one feels it is harmful, there are always tuning rings. For me, the ability to shove in all the way when I pick up the other, now-cold clarinet and pull back out when it warms up vastly outweighs whatever effect -- which is none that I have ever been able to detect -- the gap has.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-03 20:20
mvjohnson,
I normally ignore equipment threads, so Lord knows why I clicked on this one. But....
Where in the world are you getting your information on "gaps"?
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2012-05-03 22:20
Quote:
I am thinking of getting an aftermarket barrel, are they worth it? will it help that much?
I would say that they are worth it if you get the result you want. This brings me to the point I want to make- the first step would be to get a sense of what you would like to change/improve- response, tone, intonation, etc. It makes it easier to find something if you know what you are looking for.
You can save time from just trying countless barrels by going to a custom maker like http://www.clarinetconcepts.com/ and explain what you are after. He can then make something to meet your needs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mvjohnso
Date: 2012-05-04 02:12
Jason, I am not getting my information from anywhere, just from observation and a few commonly accepted norms (and logic). (1) when you pull out on a clarinet (from all the way pushed in, whether or not there is an outside gap is a non-factor) there is a gap; as, the diameter of the socket is wider than the bore, and if it is pulled out then there would naturally be a gap there. And (2), the bore of a horn should be smooth and free from unnecessary imperfections. (3) The bore being wider at a section is an imperfection in the air column. Thus, it should be avoided. This is not to say that it is the end of the world, or even something that is unacceptable. However, I strive for perfection in my equipment and playing. And, as such I will try to avoid it. That is not to say that you cannot deal with it, I will pull out if I need too.
And Paul, it seems that you had a case of an improperly matched tenon and socket. Thus, it looked like you were pulled out but you were all the way pushed in (in short I agree with you there). Also, I play very well in-tune with other people pushed in. But, I also have spent hours upon hours learning how to do embouchure (via lip and jaw alterations) and air-stream bends in jazz (also I played oboe for quite a while there, can't pull out there); so, minor pitch alterations tend not to phase me as much. Additionally, though the clarinet is not a turbine engine that will have catastrophic failures due to engineering imperfection, that does not mean that one should not strive to eliminate those imperfections.
To JHowwel, I have never had the chance to play with an orchestra (high school didn't have one, and college politics due to me being a non-major), so I have never had to switch without time to blow warm air (less jazz). Though I could see where that would be an advantage; however this was a post by a sax player who is likely not to play A.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2012-05-04 03:26
>> Where in the world are you getting your information on "gaps"? <<
From a local branch...
BTW one clarinet maker says his clarinets are meant to play optimally with the barrel 1mm open.
>> I see far too much emphasis on here from people banging on about getting the latest 'must have' aftermarket barrels and fancy ligatures. <<
In the "regular" world many people constantly buy the latest gadgets because what they have is already not the newest thing for the last five minutes. Especially in some countries/areas. It's not so different for some clarinet players.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gsurosey
Date: 2012-05-04 03:48
I can't use tuning rings because they get stuck. I had a thick one that got stuck because of its size, so I got a couple of tuning rings that were a little smaller in diameter. When I used those, they also got stuck, but for a different reason. Size wasn't the problem; spit was. Moisture got into the gap where the ring was and got the ring stuck. The set of rings I got are the thin, metal Buffet tuning rings that WWBW sells. Now, they just sit in their little plastic bag in my case.
----------
Rachel
Clarinet Stash:
Bb/A: Buffet R13
Eb: Bundy
Bass: Royal Global Max
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-04 05:45
>> Jason, I am not getting my information from anywhere, just from observation and a few commonly accepted norms (and logic). <<
Matt, I should have stopped reading at that point, unfortunately I forgot to.
But let's just say you need to do a bit a research... I can't say that much of what followed was remotely accurate.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JHowell
Date: 2012-05-04 13:41
If it seems that the gap left when you pull the barrel a reasonable amount -- which, as I tried to point out, is pretty much necessary to play in an orchestra or else you'll be flat when you pick up a cold clarinet -- leaves an "imperfection" in the air column, let us consider that the air column is full of imperfections. They're called tone holes. In this case, don't mind the gap. : )
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mvjohnso
Date: 2012-05-04 13:47
Jason, what part of my logic or reasoning is flawed? Would be helpful if you could tell me whether 1, 2, or 3 is wrong. In stead of simply rejecting without reason.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2012-05-04 14:23
For one thing, "(3) The bore being wider at a section is an imperfection in the air column. Thus, it should be avoided." contradicts the idea of a polycylindrical bore.
Or, "(2), the bore of a horn should be smooth ..." - I have seen enough not-so-smooth bores and wouldn't necessarily make a connection between bore shininess and in-tune.
The air column in the bore is a standing wave, and the air molecules don't move all that fast. Besides, the air in the column doesn't flow but rather vibrates (and is disturbed by tone holes all the time), so a shiny bore is of comparably little concern.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mvjohnso
Date: 2012-05-04 16:23
For one the air column for the clarinet by its nature is as you say poly-cylindrical, and wider was perhaps not specific enough. Though, I do think that you are nit-picking unnecessary terms; as, you point out the the clarinet is not a perfect tube as many flutes are, but rather it has a bore that opens up slightly as it goes along. What I meant was wider than the poly-cylindrical shape of the clarinet, which it is. Sense you don't like the term "wider," I will then submit that the shape a clarinets bore: (a) does not happen with sharp edges for the overall path of the air column, and (b) it does not close more after opening (ie. always conical never reverse conical (in rare occasions maybe)). Now clearly having a open section with a 90* edge contradicts this. BUT, do you know what DOES cause changes in amplitude in the bore of a clarinet, the presence of CLOSED tone holes. See this study, see remarks and further remarks on closed tone-hole section. . Now, what does that mean for us. (1) Tone holes cause a change in pitch and amplitude, this is because of the recess that is left by them. (2)There is a recess left by pulling out. (3) By pulling out one causes a change in amplitude and pitch (though pitch is the goal of pulling out). (4)Maximum amplitude is desired. Therefore, if pulling out can be avoided (as there are times when it cannot, just like there are tone-holes that cannot be avoided on clarinet) it should.
TO "Or, "(2), the bore of a horn should be smooth ..." - I have seen enough not-so-smooth bores and wouldn't necessarily make a connection between bore shininess and in-tune./ The air column in the bore is a standing wave, and the air molecules don't move all that fast. Besides, the air in the column doesn't flow but rather vibrates (and is disturbed by tone holes all the time), so a shiny bore is of comparably little concern."
Yes, smoothness has nothing to do with being in-tune (intonation is not ones only concern while playing) but it has a lot to do with projection and tonal considerations (ie. the vague term brilliance). You are correct that the air column is disturbed by tone-holes, but we cannot avoid many of them (at least if we want a Boehm). And, we put up with losses in amplitude for having those tone holes, see study. But, we put up with the loss in amplitude in exchange to play those notes. Now what I propose is that one ought not to give up the amplitude cause by the non-smooth area if one doesn't have to (ie. a properly sized barrel pushed in). Just because something is comparably less important does not mean that it is not important.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JHowell
Date: 2012-05-04 17:20
"Jason, what part of my logic or reasoning is flawed? Would be helpful if you could tell me whether 1, 2, or 3 is wrong. In stead of simply rejecting without reason."
I'm not Jason, but it seems to me that you are drawing inferences from unproven premises. Your premise that the barrel gap creates a disturbance is unproven; it is simply something that seems to you like it should be true, so you are stating it.
The existence of the barrel in the first place is a solution to a practical problem: how does one vary pitch slightly to accommodate different ensembles and temperatures, both of the room and the instrument? A barrel that plays in tune pushed all the way in when the instrument is fully warmed up is useful ONLY so long as the ensemble is playing at that pitch and the instrument is fully warmed up. Often that is not the case -- the instrument is cold, or the ensemble pitch goes up.
In making my living playing the clarinet, I use one barrel for B flat and one barrel for A. Sometimes pushed all the way in, sometimes pulled out as much as two or three millimeters. Most of the time it is somewhere in between. Same for the middle joint. For me, there is no difference in the performance of the instrument between the pulled-out and pushed-in states. No decrease in "amplitude." That's right: none, zero, zilch, zip, nada.
But that's just me. And I am being careful since there is this veil of internet anonymity. I would hate to disagree too vociferously with someone whose playing I know and respect.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2012-05-04 18:07
mvjohnso wrote:
> ... the the clarinet is not a
> perfect tube as many flutes are, but rather it has a bore that
> opens up slightly as it goes along ... it does
> not close more after opening (ie. always conical never reverse
> conical (in rare occasions maybe)).
Moennig-style barrels are definitely reverse tapers. And my understanding of the polycylindrical bore designs (at least the one developed by Robert Carre at Buffet) is that they, too, narrow through part of the upper section and then open up again, creating a more or less hourglass bore shape. It's true that the gradations are very small without sharp edges, but it isn't at all true that modern French clarinets are conical tapers from top to bottom.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mvjohnso
Date: 2012-05-04 18:44
To Jason:
https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/documents/Benade-FingerHoleSummary-1960.pdf
tried to make a clickable link as the part that says "see this study" before i guess it doesn't work.
I fail to see how either of your links disprove my point. In fact the second one under the title "Tone Holes" speaks about the presence of acoustic impedance (ie the cause the drop in amplitude). The presence of that in tone holes (due to the recess) necessitates that there is a presence of it in the open socket area (due to a similar and often larger gap).
To Karl:
I understand that not all poly-cylindrical bores behave in the same manner; However most do, and I allowed for that with my statement of "rare occasions." Thank you for the information though
To JHowwel:
Sorry about the name/topic mix up, it was late. First off, I love the design of the clarinet with its joints so you CAN pull out. Also, just because you cannot sense the change (or any human for that matter) does not mean that it doesn't exist. As, that coupled with other minute changes can start to have effects. I am trying for theoretical perfection, though I understand that there are limitations.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-04 20:38
Matt,
Given the rapidity of your reply, I highly doubt you gave more than a brief glance to the links I posted, yet.....
You seem to be reading papers merely looking for something to support your earlier statements, however wrongly applied it may be.
i.e. The simple appearance of the word impedance seems to validate whatever skewed picture of the clarinet you have formed.
(In fact, if impedance were not a factor in how the clarinet functions, we would be unable to play it; but I fear that may be beyond your realm of understanding as it currently stands.)
Conversely, do you actually understand the Benade paper you posted? I have read it thrice, and would need much time to actually decipher the complex geometrical and differential equations listed. Let alone state the aural/technical implications inherent in all of it.
As you wrote:
Quote:
And (2), the bore of a horn should be smooth and free from unnecessary imperfections. (3) The bore being wider at a section is an imperfection in the air column. Thus, it should be avoided. This is not to say that it is the end of the world, or even something that is unacceptable. However, I strive for perfection in my equipment and playing. And, as such I will try to avoid it. That is not to say that you cannot deal with it, I will pull out if I need too.
(Leaving out that whole perfection, or theoretical perfection, thing- Gimme a break.) Really?!?!? Smarten up a bit son. Or at the very least leave incorrect surmising out of public circulation.
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-05-04 21:43)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mvjohnso
Date: 2012-05-04 22:43
Nope I have no idea how the math works, but that doesn't stop me from know the implications of simple concepts stated within them (But apparently it does prevent you). And apparently you do not understand impedance as it only matter at the origin of the sound (the mouthpiece) the rest is just pipe. And, we are talking about the pipe part.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mvjohnso
Date: 2012-05-04 22:51
From your second link:
"Wall losses
We assumed a perfect rigid and smooth and thermally insulated wall in the previous discussions. The bore of a clarinet is of course not that ideal in the real case, so the losses due to viscous drag and thermal exchange must be taken into account. The full physical detail of thermal-viscous losses is complex and tedious and is beyond the scope of this article."
This shows that a smooth wall is the ideal; as wood has more grain than metal (we use wood for its harmonic effects). It also shows that opinion of the article is that imperfection in the bore are not ideal. as, it is logic that tells us that a gap and edges causes some more impedance than ideal.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2012-05-04 23:09
mvjohnso wrote:
> From your second link:
> "Wall losses
> We assumed a perfect rigid and smooth and thermally insulated
> wall in the previous discussions. The bore of a clarinet is of
> course not that ideal in the real case, so the losses due to
> viscous drag and thermal exchange must be taken into account.
> The full physical detail of thermal-viscous losses is complex
> and tedious and is beyond the scope of this article."
>
> This shows that a smooth wall is the ideal; as wood has more
> grain than metal (we use wood for its harmonic effects). It
> also shows that opinion of the article is that imperfection in
> the bore are not ideal. as, it is logic that tells us that a
> gap and edges causes some more impedance than ideal.
I don't think you understand how the term "ideal" is used in scientific papers. Typically "ideal" refers to a set of conditions which allows the most simplified algorithms to be used to describe the behavior of a system. In this instance if "real world" parameters such as heat transfer, wall deflections, and draft loss were taken into account the problem would become exponentially more difficult to explain as corrections for all of these effect would need to be applied to the empirical equation being discussed.
In this instance you are confusing an idealized system (simplest) with an optimal system (best performing).
Post Edited (2012-05-04 23:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-05 02:36
Matt,
In lieu of your refusal to actually try and digest what I sent you, and your seeming desire to imply that I am an idiot, I have no idea why I am responding.
Quote:
Nope I have no idea how the math works, but that doesn't stop me from know[sic] the implications of simple concepts stated within them (But apparently it does prevent you). And apparently you do not understand impedance as it only matter [sic] at the origin of the sound (the mouthpiece) the rest is just pipe. And, we are talking about the pipe part.
You could not be more incorrect, about the whole lot in fact, but I'll just stick to one word- impedance- to keep everything neat and tidy for now.
"Impedance" as you seem to have defined it does not only matter at the reed-mouthpiece interface.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/clarinetacoustics.html (Scroll down to "Frequency response and acoustic impedance")
Matters go beyond this, but a basic grasp is necessary. And when reading about issues in the scientific realm, it can be useful to read.
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-05-05 02:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mvjohnso
Date: 2012-05-05 02:52
Sorry I meant to say that it was only necessary instead of matter. As I was addressing this "(In fact, if impedance were not a factor in how the clarinet functions, we would be unable to play it; but I fear that may be beyond your realm of understanding as it currently stands.)"
Stating (perhaps poorly (I'll take poorly stated over poor concepts any day)) that impedance does not matter (ie. is necessary to sound happening) less it's impedance at the origin. And, you have been insulting my intelligence sense the start so don't even start (see the quote I have from before); in fact you spend more time doing that then making points. So, do not even get started on that issue.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mvjohnso
Date: 2012-05-05 03:02
Actually lets break down your last to posts:
2nd to last:
Insults:
"Given the rapidity of your reply, I highly doubt you gave more than a brief glance to the links I posted, yet....."
"You seem to be reading papers merely looking for something to support your earlier statements, however wrongly applied it may be. "
"i.e. The simple appearance of the word impedance seems to validate whatever skewed picture of the clarinet you have formed."
"but I fear that may be beyond your realm of understanding as it currently stands.)"
"Conversely, do you actually understand the Benade paper you posted? I have read it thrice, and would need much time to actually decipher the complex geometrical and differential equations listed. Let alone state the aural/technical implications inherent in all of it."
Really?!?!? Smarten up a bit son. Or at the very least leave incorrect surmising out of public circulation.
Stuff I wrote:
"As you wrote:
Quote:
And (2), the bore of a horn should be smooth and free from unnecessary imperfections. (3) The bore being wider at a section is an imperfection in the air column. Thus, it should be avoided. This is not to say that it is the end of the world, or even something that is unacceptable. However, I strive for perfection in my equipment and playing. And, as such I will try to avoid it. That is not to say that you cannot deal with it, I will pull out if I need too."
Arguments:
"(In fact, if impedance were not a factor in how the clarinet functions, we would be unable to play it; "
"(Leaving out that whole perfection, or theoretical perfection, thing- Gimme a break.)"
last one:
insults:
"In lieu of your lack of ability to comprehend what I sent you, and your seeming desire to imply that I am an idiot, I have no idea why I am responding."
"You could not be more incorrect, about the whole lot in fact, but I'll just stick to one word- impedance- to keep everything neat and tidy for now."
"Matters go beyond this, but a basic grasp is necessary. And when reading about issues in the scientific realm, it can be useful to read."
Stuff i wrote:
Quote:
Nope I have no idea how the math works, but that doesn't stop me from know[sic] the implications of simple concepts stated within them (But apparently it does prevent you). And apparently you do not understand impedance as it only matter [sic] at the origin of the sound (the mouthpiece) the rest is just pipe. And, we are talking about the pipe part.
Argument:
"Impedance" as you seem to have defined it does not only matter at the reed-mouthpiece interface.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/clarinetacoustics.html (Scroll down to "Frequency response and acoustic impedance")
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-05-05 03:09
Though I do enjoy reading your writing a great deal---- its punctuation and rhythm remind me of e.e. cummings work---- perhaps we can remedy this quite easily.
Simply say, "I was incorrect." Then you can demolish what you think you comprehend, do some research, and rebuild your knowledge. There is no harm in saying "I was incorrect."
In ceasing to speak up at people, you may actually learn something.
-Jason
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: concertmaster3
Date: 2012-05-05 05:51
to the OP...
I'd focus on the mouthpiece/reed/ligature combo first, then seeing what else can be done with the instrument through trials of barrels/bells from various makers. See if any of the clarinetists in your area will let you try any of their equipment to see if it gives you any different results.
In the meantime, just focus on your embouchure and get a consistent sound on the instrument. If your clarinet tone/intonation is inconsistent with itself, you'll find that the equipment you like now may not be the best for you later once all of that matures!
Good luck!
Ron Ford
Woodwind Specialist
Performer/Teacher/Arranger
http://www.RonFordMusic.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2012-05-05 15:31
You can learn a lot about barrels by trying to make one......and by paying attention to what successful barrel makers have to say. Like Vytas, for one.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2012-05-05 15:39
In the same spirit as Ron's post above, I want to go back to the original question.
First, have you been "into accessories" as a saxophonist? As an only occasional clarinetist, there are a thousand things you can do in terms of your own approach to embouchure and technique on the clarinet that will probably do far more to improve your comfort level than any accessory, including after-market barrels. Have you ever tried swapping in after-market necks? If so, you know it can be a daunting experience even for an experienced player. Even a mouthpiece search can be time- and resource-consuming, requiring a lot of trial and error (and probably a good deal of expense).
Are after-market barrels "worth it?" Only if they make a problem easier to solve or make it easier to get the musical result you're trying to achieve, which makes the answer very subjective. But the result, whatever it is, of replacing a barrel is a fairly subtle one (other than the obvious influence on pitch of different lengths), and to find the "best" barrel solution, if it exists, for a particular player's problems means trying and choosing from among a lot of different ones. It can be frustrating for someone who really knows what he's looking for - it can be pointlessly confusing for someone not as secure in his own playing.
You don't say enough when you write that your "clarinet is only in tune if pushed all the way in." Do you mean when it's warmed up, when it's cold out of the case, in tune to a meter or in tune in an ensemble context you play in regularly? If you need to be able to get your general pitch higher than what your current barrel can produce, the easiest change is to a shorter barrel. *This assumes that your embouchure, use of air and reeds are not contributing factors in any flatness.* Since barrels are mostly sold in 1 mm increments, you'd have to go a little shorter than your optimal barrel length and then pull out slightly to reach the desired pitch. The gap that has generated so much heat in this thread really has no practical significance, whatever its theoretical disadvantage - pitch is too variable from one environment, one reed or even one part of a rehearsal or performance to another, and some flexibility is vital. You can only pull out - you can't force a barrel in any farther than all the way. Pinching to get up to pitch is rarely a good solution on a clarinet.
As for specific notes that are flat, it depends a little on what notes are involved. Too long a barrel can cause the whole throat register to be flat. Individual notes in the scale can sometimes be sharpened (and freed) by undercutting the first open tone hole, but the corresponding twelfth needs to be considered - raising a lower clarion note (say, E5 or D5) may make its analogous chalumeau fingering too sharp. Raising a flat E4 or F4 may make the higher twelfths (B5 and C6) unmanageably sharp.
Of course you could experiment with barrel length by finding a qualified tech and having your existing barrel shortened in small increments to see what the effect is on your pitch.
Karl
Post Edited (2012-05-05 16:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2012-05-05 19:52
Patrick,
I don't have much (if any) advice to add to what others have already said. A shorter barrel may be indicated in your situation but it's probably too early to tell if you haven't sorted out your clarinet embouchure completely, yet. I would work on developing my clarinet chops (perhaps with the aid of a teacher for at least a few lessons) and then determine if the barrel you have gives you adequate flexibility to adjust your tuning for different circumstances. If you still have difficulty coming up to pitch once you have an embouchure, then you should explore whether a shorter barrel will solve the problem or whether you need to have work done on the instrument, itself, to correct a few specific notes.
Re: The impedence "discussion:"
Steve wrote:
"I don't think you understand how the term "ideal" is used in scientific papers. Typically "ideal" refers to a set of conditions which allows the most simplified algorithms to be used to describe the behavior of a system. "
I think this is really the crux of the flaw in your analysis, Matt, though I would put it differently. Benade created a mathematical model of a wind instrument. His objective was not to specify the characteristics of an "ideal" clarinet. His objective was to create a model that he could manipulate in the hope that it would enable him to make predictions about how the "real thing" he was modeling (i.e., the clarinet) would behave, e.g.,where to drill tone holes to achieve a certain objective. In other words, his goal was to create a descriptive model, not to specify a normative one. When Benade writes:
"We assumed a perfect rigid and smooth and thermally insulated wall in the previous discussions. The bore of a clarinet is of course not that ideal in the real case, so the losses due to viscous drag and thermal exchange must be taken into account. The full physical detail of thermal-viscous losses is complex and tedious and is beyond the scope of this article."
he is not identifying limitations of the clarinet. Quite to the contrary, he is describing limitations of his model to explain the clarinet's behavior.
Any model is, by its very nature, an abstraction from reality. The modeler attempts to choose those attributes that are most important for the predictions s/he wants to make. But no model can include every possible attribute. Benade is simply pointing out that he recognizes that, in leaving out some variables (many, actually) so that his mathematics will be tractable, he is limiting his model's usefulness. To infer that he was trying to define the "ideal" clarinet in his model is to misunderstand completely the whole point of his work.
I think that your inference that creating a gap in the bore may have an impact on an instrument's sound is entirely valid. To jump from that inference to a conclusion that the gap should therefore be avoided is, however, IMO unwarranted. The effect may be so small that it goes unnoticed by the player and the audience. Or, in some cases, the effect might actually be beneficial. By Benade's own admission, predicting the effect is outside the scope of his model so there is nothing in his paper to support your conclusion. The issue is, rather, an empirical one and the overwhelming empirical evidence is apparently that the effect is negligible. Otherwise we'd all be carrying around a case full of barrels of different lengths. (OK, I'll fess up. I usually have a couple different lengths in my case. And there is one barrel maker who goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid the creation of a gap in its adjustable barrel. But I don't personally know anyone who uses the barrel so it apparently hasn't caught on ... yet.) On the other hand, it's possible that deviating from the norm of a perfectly smooth surface may have positive benefits. As one example (though I don't entirely agree with you), you suggest that using wood instead of metal or plastic to construct the tube results in a more desirable sound. (I must admit, simply as a point of logic, I don't understand how you can make this claim in one sentence and then condemn all bore imperfections in the next. The two statements seem self-contradictory.) Another example might be the "voicing groove" Morrie Backun puts into many of his bells.
IMO, if you strive for perfection in your playing and equipment, there are many, many more important things to be concerned with than the gap in your bore caused by pulling your barrel out a millimeter.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mvjohnso
Date: 2012-05-06 04:00
To most, sorry that discussion got a little out of hand.
To Jack:
First, thank you for actually supplying reasoning. I agree with you that the effect is minute (even stated that it could be unnoticeable), and furthermore that it is not even of paramount concern. I wanted to simply make the claim that all other things equal a pushed in barrel was acoustically more perfect than one that is not. And, that when possible one should strive to play pushed in (like you do with one of your barrels). Also, I understand that the model is not one that is perfectly ideal (and that ideal is used scientifically in very specific ways) . What I wanted to express is smooth is simply more ideal than not smooth (which is implied in the text (whether explicit or not)).
And, though I have not seen one, it seems that quite a few people are using the Paulus and Shuler barrel.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
