 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2012-05-24 07:29
A while ago I mentioned on this forum that I'd bought a hard rubber B & H 1010 Imperial. I'm having some trouble with getting it to play in tune.
I was advised of the necessity of using a large-bore mouthpiece, so I managed to find a couple of B & H 1010 mouthpieces, a 2 and a 3. Both are in good condition and play well, and I've overhauled and repadded the clarinet.
With either of the B & H mouthpieces it plays well, and is quite free-blowing, but so far it has stubbornly resisted my efforts to get it to play in tune. It is slightly flat across most of the dynamic range, more so the higher it goes, and the very bottom notes are very flat indeed.
I've experimented with a short B & H barrel with the same internal dimensions as the original, with a slight improvement, but not enough. I checked through my mouthpiece drawer and found a no-name hard rubber piece that came with an old large bore conn. The bore was slightly smaller than the B & H pieces, so I reamed it out the the same dimensions. The chamber is hemispherical and smooth.
This was also flat, but less so, so I bit the bullet and turned 1.5 mm off the m/p tenon. This seems to have brought the whole assembly into reasonable tune. Unfortunately, as the instrument has approached correct tuning it has become more stuffy. It still blows freely, but it has lost the characteristic B & H sound. Changing back to the B & H m/p's brings back the original tone, but also the tuning problem.
I'd welcome any thoughts on where to go from here. This is too good an instrument to not use, but as it is it's lamp material.
Thanks,
Tony F.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2012-05-24 11:12
Moderate undercutting of the toneholes has made major improvements in all the B&H models I've worked on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-05-24 14:28
Raymond Wodkowski says that B&H clarinets require the pads to open very wide for proper response and intonation.
Prior to the introduction of the Acton mechanism http://www.clarinetperfection.com/galleryclar/BH/Symphony/03.jpg, the 1010 was notoriously out of tune. Listen to Dennis Brain's recordings of the Strauss Horn Concertos, where some clarinet parts (particularly in the low register) are physically painful to hear. And many English players say the Acton mechanism spoils the response.
Everyone seems to agree that the 1010 is not naturally in tune, but must be played that way.
Peter Eaton makes a 1010 clone that's said to be very well in tune, at least with his (expensive!!) mouthpieces. Also, Pillinger is said to make fine 1010 mouthpieces.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2012-05-24 14:50
Ken,
Peter's clarinets are very well in tune and you don't even need to use his mouthpieces. I have a Hite that was bored out and has worked perfectly for over 10 years.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2012-05-24 20:20
It's puzzling that you find the instrument consistently flat when you use the proper mouthpiece. I've played a few 1010s, both with and without Acton vent, and the tuning is poor by modern standards - but this is more to do with inconsistency from note to note than a general pitch error (except in the altissimo, where normally 1010s play very sharp).
But these things are influenced by the player: there's a much-repeated story told in Jack Brymer's book about relative pitch between him and Roy Jowitt. They played together in the LSO, both on 1010s, and obviously generally could play in tune with each other pretty well. But when they swapped instruments, they were close to a semitone apart. Have you had other players try this instrument, and do they all play flat?
According to Brymer, the flatter of the two had compensated with a very short barrel, so maybe you need a shorter one still. Good instrument technicians should be able to shorten the barrel to any required extent.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hurstfarm
Date: 2012-05-25 08:58
As an owner of both late model 1010s and Eaton Elites, I can vouch for the wayward tuning on a few notes of the former (which you learn to correct through a mix of modified fingerings and embouchure adjustments), and the fact that Peter has rectified this on his own wide bore instruments. Your problem is clearly more fundamental, and the solution sounds like a combination of short barrel and finding the right mouthpiece, as suggested. One slight niggle, however, from the heading to this thread, is whether your instrument is a wide bore 1010 or the narrower bore Imperial, as this could have a bearing on how the mouthpiece affects intonation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2012-05-25 10:52
Hurstfarm wrote
"One slight niggle, however, from the heading to this thread, is whether your instrument is a wide bore 1010 or the narrower bore Imperial, as this could have a bearing on how the mouthpiece affects intonation".
Hi,
Sorry about the confusion. It's not actually labelled as an Imperial, although that is what it was sold as. It just has the B & H logo with London underneath it. The logos on the bell and top joint are the new style B & H logos, whereas on the barrel it is the old-style logo. It has the 1010 bore and the 1010 m/p is a perfect match to the bore of the barrel. Number is 546394. The tone holes do not appear to have been undercut.
Thanks to all who have responded, more food for thought and much appreciated.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2012-05-25 19:04
From the serial no that must have been one of the very last 1010s made (c1982/83).
I have just checked a couple of instruments from the late 1970s and the one is clearly marked "Imperial 926" and the other Symphony 1010"
A 1010 would be obvious as it would have the Acton vent and no crowsfoot on the lower joint and on the upper it would have a rounded/smooth top to the long Bb keycup (the 926 has a typical French style key cup).
I have come across some late 926s with bores virtually same as the 1010 e.g. one measured 15.15mm and the 1010 was 15.25 so easily confused if you don't have accurate bore guages. Whether this was faulty workmanship i.e. over enthusiastic use of the reamer I can't say but neither instrument appeared to have been heavily used.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2012-05-26 01:43
This particular instrument doesn't have the Acton vent, has a normal crows foot arrangement and does not have the smooth Bb keycup. The tenon rings are the same as on my Emperor. As this was originally ex-military, might it have been made to a non-standard specification, do you think?
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2012-05-26 12:49
John Peacock wrote:
>> But these things are influenced by the player: there's a much-repeated story told in Jack Brymer's book about relative pitch between him and Roy Jowitt. They played together in the LSO, both on 1010s, and obviously generally could play in tune with each other pretty well. But when they swapped instruments, they were close to a semitone apart.>>
The phrase was 'almost a quarter of a tone apart'; and one should also take into account the laxity of expression that that 'almost' embodies.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2012-05-26 12:57
Hi Peter,
Everything I find out about this seems to point that way, doesn't it. I'm having some serious misgivings about the accuracy of my bore measuring tool (Digital caliper). The only thing standing in the way is the fact that the barrel is a precise match with the bore of both of the B & H 1010 mouthpieces. The no-name m/p I reamed out to fit was originally noticeably smaller.
Could be a 926 like the one Norman mentioned, with the overlarge bore. I'm going to follow up the shorter barrel path and experiment with pad heights. I'm starting to think of this instrument as expendable, so if it eventually seems that I'm not getting anywhere I may consider undercutting some of the tone holes and see where that gets me.
Anyway, thank you for your thoughts.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2012-05-26 13:51
Hi Tony,
The other option is that the bore is blown out, hence the inaccurate measurements.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2012-05-26 15:18
Hi Peter,
I thought of that as a possibility, but in general the keywork is in very good condition, with few signs of wear, very tight with no slop anywhere. I've checked the bore for ovality and there's none that I can measure. I think I'll take up needlework.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2012-05-26 15:21
Sounds like it may well be an Emperor not an Imperial.
Both models were made for the military in ebonite but every ebonite Imperial I have seen has had the flat profile body rings similar to the 1010 (although the 1010s were normally solid silver rings on their wood instruments).
One check is that an Imperial of this period should be fitted with tapered pivot screws and a matching recess in the rod whereas the Emperor would have the parallel type screw fitted to all later student/intermediate instruments.
Acoustically the Emperor is a direct copy from the 926, just not built to the same standards, though sadly by the 80s "standards" was not a word so readily associated with B&H clarinets!!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2012-05-26 16:21
Hi Norman,
I've just checked it against my Emperor. The pivot screws are indeed the parallel design. The keywork is not identical to that on my Emperor, the soldering is much neater and the fillets where a key is soldered to its tube are mostly smaller. The finish before plating seems to be better as well, with smoother, more rounded pad cup tops. Looking more like a large bore Emperor with a better finish than my wood instrument. Thanks for your help in this.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2012-07-09 03:36
Just a follow-up to this thread. I'd put this one in the "too hard" bin while I got on with other things. Returning to it last night, the tuning problem hadn't gone away. On another thread I've been inquiring about undercutting, and this was the instrument I had planned to try it on. Looking it over last night, I noticed that the centre tenon cork appeared to have a blister, although the cork is not all that old. As I bought the instrument, all the corks were in good order so I left them alone on the principle of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
I poked at the cork and it peeled off fairly easily. The adhesive appeared to have become crystalline, not sure what it was. I re-corked the whole instrument, sanded the corks to fit this morning and, wonder of wonders, it is now in tune with the tuner and with itself, with no major flat notes anywhere. I can only presume that the joint cork was porous and that this was affecting the tuning.
A new lesson every day.
Tony F.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
