 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-08-03 22:28
I now own a 2007 Yamaha Custom CSV Bb and Buffet 1986 silver plated R-13. For the record the Buffet has all the upper pads replaced with what looks like cork or some dark grainy synthetic. The Buffet also has slightly loose tenon corks and will get new ones promptly. The Yamaha is top condition.
Eveness of volume and tone over the break - slight edge to R-13
Woodyness and roundness of tone = R-13
Ease and volume for given air flow = R-13
Ease and warmth in altissimo - R-13
centeredness and intonation - Yamaha
projection and brilliance - Yamaha
key action - Yamaha
Lowest E warmth and naturalness without boom - R-13 (Yamaha is overly restrained here)
clarity of sound and cleanliness when tongued or pushed - Yamaha.
beauty of wood = Yamaha
Throat tones - Yamaha
Register jumps without tendency to grunt or hesitate = R-13 only by a smidge.
(funny, I thought this was supposed to be a problem with the Buffet)
This is the third R-13 I tried but I like this one the best. I tried an early 60's (no where near as good in intonation or easy blowing). I tried a new one (also not as full bodied and inspiring. I tried an E 11. (noticeably less of the warmth of the best R-13) I tried a Yamaha 650. (not that different from the Custom but with less projection and less beauty in construction) I tried a 450 Yamaha (strangely I liked it less than a plastic bodied 350 with wooden barrel and bell.
I'm certainly no expert, just a man who loves sound and nuance, and for the record my embrasure and technique are less than the core contributors of this board. But I can hear small differences in sound quality (all my stereo equipment is tube based and the audiologist says that for a man of 58 years I have nearly 100% hearing. (I wear sound protection around all loud conditions). I'm a bit old fashioned in my musical taste, preferring classical and certain jazz big bands like the old Ellington, Lunceford, etc with my favorite sax players being Hodges, Freddy Gardner and Desmond. I hope I did not offend anyone with my bold statements of comparison. I just want to say it as I heard it. The Buffet turned out to be a bargain ... $930 from a music store that barely new what it was.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2012-08-03 22:44
Over the past 12 years I have tried every brand of professional clarinet except for the new Leblanc Backun and without a doubt the R13 is the best. The one that I have now (serial#1097XX produced in 1969) is incredible. That is why 87 out of every 100 Bb clarinets sold are Buffet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-08-03 23:06
Clearly the Buffet R-13 is the most often preferred instrument but it seems like it simply does not do everything better. The horror stories of some bad R-13's could frighten anyone from considering it. The inconsistency of manufacture at the Buffet factory is shocking. The R-13 dimensions are neither secret nor legally exclusive. Buffet needs to keep looking over their shoulder in some regards and needs to do some catching up in others. The fact that one can find a magical R-13 and love it is interesting, but if Buffet was more consistent there wouldn't be a thriving industry of third parties picking out the good ones from the factory and selling them as select.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2012-08-03 23:31
Garth,
That is why I prefer the golden Era R13's over the newer ones. But as you have stated there are great ones and bad ones in every year of manufacture. I have found that during the golden era there are less bad ones but realistically out of all of the R13's out there one can only play a limited number of them no matter how many you play due to the tremendous overall production numbers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-08-03 23:41
Is there any truth to idea that the earlier R-13's were made from heart wood that was slow aged and later the R-13's were made from edge wood kiln aged? I've even heard that kiln aged wood can be better, and I've heard that heart wood has its own special problems of cracking and warping. Whatever a great R-13 has going for it from the golden era, there seems to be only a little bit of agreement of why so many of these instruments are so successful. I'm fairly sure my 1986 R-13 was kiln aged, but the wood does seem to be very tight and clean grained.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2012-08-04 01:05
Wood on golden era clarinets:
Clarinets of this era were made of better wood than the instruments being made today. The wood was cured longer and the bore was finished and sealed with a different polishing technique. Instruments of this era were used by some of the greatest orchestral players of the twentieth century. According to the great legendary repairman Mr. Hans Moennig, clarinets that feature the flat spring on the C#G# key (which this particular instrument has) were finished with a special French polishing technique which extended the instruments playing life and retarded wood cracks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2012-08-10 16:57
How does the intonation at the bottom of the range compare between the Yamaha and the Buffet? Can you lip the F3 into tune?
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-08-10 19:28
Right now, I have to admit that the decision is not yet final on the R-13. As it turns out my Buffet is a late 80's model and probably requires a 65 mm barrel, but the supplied barrel was 66. Until, I obtain a proper barrel for the R13, it is possible that some of the pitch problems I experienced were not due to the instrument per se, but to a confusion over which barrel is proper for the Buffet. (Assuming barrel length can not only affect pitch but intonation). In general, the intonation problems of the R-13 I have (pitch relative to itself and not to a standardized pitch) is not horrible. So many terrible things have been said about the R-13 having unbearable intonation problems that I thought it would be as bad as my 1960's Malerne (truly bad, low, throat, upper clarion, altissimo). My guess is that when I get a 65 mm barrel, the Buffet will have slightly noticeable problems in the bottom two chalameau notes, the mid clarion that you mention and perhaps the worst problems at the top of the clarion. The Yamaha is very good intonation wise in most of the chalemeau, very clear in the throat tones, and there is nothing too badly off until I get to the top of the clarion. The Yamaha lives up to its reputation of being superb in the intonation department. (I believe my pitch problems with anything higher than D above the staff are due to my lack of skill). Now that I cleaned out all the tone holes and the register vent, and adjusted my playing to the instrument I must say the Yamaha is very enjoyable. My tone on it has become even more round and woody than it was the first week I had it. The R-13 is away at the repair shop for minor matters this week. For a few days I've only been playing the Yamaha. Once I got used to the extra resistance of the Yamaha over the Buffet, the CSV appears to be a very disireable horn indeed.
I'm sorry if I offered an opinion about these two instruments Before I worked out all the issues that each instrument demands when we are new owners. I'll keep the board posted about the intonation of the R-13 next week.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JamesOrlandoGarcia
Date: 2012-08-13 21:03
It is my belief that the R-13 is the most preferred instrument because it has been drilled into our heads as such. I had only played the clarinet for six weeks when I first heard about the "Amazing R13." It was ingrained in my mind early on that every real clarinet player plays an R-13.
The R-13 isn't the universal clarinet of choice it once was and I think that is a GOOD thing. We need competition in design and better options. Yes we could get by despite the short comings as most have through out the ages but why do so when better options may be out there?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-08-15 22:06
I finally got the Korg tuner and tested today on the R-13, after it came back from the shop. I have to say I was quite surprised at the results from low E to altissimo D.
When the Buffet was cold the entire clarion was a shade sharp up to the altissimo which was very sharp. The throat tones were sharp especially the Bb. The low E and F were very flat and the rest of the chalameau was uniformly flat up to the throat.
After warm up (a full half hour) ... The altissimo was dead on and the entire clarion was dead on down to break B. The throat was still a little sharp and the entire chalameau was pretty close to being dead on down to low E and F which remained shamefully flat.
Is this normal? Am I more at fault than the instrument? I must also say that even though the Buffet is pretty close to being dead on 440 top to bottom except the throat and the two lowest notes, the pitch wavers much more than my Yamaha unless I exercise careful embrasure and even a mild variance in my pressure results in what sounds to me to be a note that goes annoyingly flat or sharp. The overall effect is that the Buffet is seriously less centered and has much less resistance and is easier to play in some regards but harder to play with tight focus. I'll give a run down on the Yamaha as tested with the Korg soon.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-08-15 22:55
OMG! Everything in the above post was in error. My "assistant" recorded all the information off the Korg tuner incorectly, partially because I told him incorrect information and partially because I misread the dial while explaining to him how the Korg worked. Disregard all the above information about the tuning. Here is what I understand now. Hopefully the board won't kick me off or think that I'm seriously mentally impaired.
The testing of the Buffet R-13 is this ... The entire clarion is within 5 to cents flat up to the altissimo. The altissimo is about 10 cents flat but can be lipped up to pitch with what I consider excessive pressure. The Bb throat is sharp but the chalameau is dead on with the lowest E and F being 5 cents flat. I do not consider these numbers to be horrible (perhaps normal and workable) but what I said before about the Buffet being hard to keep centered is still true. The Yamaha sounds much more centered with much less effort but the Buffet has considerably less resistance and greater ease in any register.
I'm sorry for my previous errors in judgement. I respect the value of this board especially when the posters take effort to be accurate. My inexperience with the Korg partially explains my flub but the rest is from my enthusiasm to share new discoveries.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Eric V
Date: 2012-08-17 04:09
Don't apologize Garth, I am interested in your comparisons. I play Yamaha customs and sometimes wonder if I'm missing something by not playing Buffets. Thanks for posting.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-08-18 01:34
Yes, the Yamaha produces a cleaner, less wobbly, rounder more woody sound. It projects better and the key work is as good or better than the R13. The intonation is better and they are prettier instruments. The Yamaha is also more resistant and one must recognize that it has less ease than the R-13. I was supposed to return one of these instruments considering I bought them less than one month apart. I bought them used so that I fully expected to sell them for about what I paid. (Both were priced under Ebay market price, both were in superb condition, and both were sold by people that didn't know what they had). I wouldn't happily part with either one because although they are different, they represent the best of the sanely priced professional instruments. By the way the Buffet grunt on large interval jumps going down has it's counterpart in that Yamaha as a tinier grunt but still slightly in evidence.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2012-08-18 01:53
Some players really liked the Yamaha's to the point of actually switching from Buffet. I've always played the R-13's so I can't really say much. I did play the Selmer 9 series A clarinet. I couldn't control it.
The new Buffet R-13's are pretty darn good. Iggie Gennusa played the old 1960's horns and when he played my 1975 horns there was a huge difference.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2012-08-18 01:59
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2012-08-18 02:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JamesOrlandoGarcia
Date: 2012-08-18 17:31
I could go on and on about Yamaha clarinets. I firmly believe the clarinets they are making right now are the best they have ever made. They have some of the finest talent money can buy. You get the same evenness and intonation on all custom models. It's really just a matter of choosing which model is your voice. For me the CSGII is what I've always been looking for in a set of clarinets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-08-19 00:33
I think there are clarinets that are better out there than the R-13 and the Yamaha. I was told by Kurt H. one time, never, never, never, never, never, never (8x more repeats) ever buy a Yamaha clarinet...never. never never never. He was pretty strong about it. Didn't have a lot of nice views of Buffet R-13 either. Odd how opinions can be, but he has been a gifted claranetist for many years. Teacher in 1963 and master mouthpiece maker as well as Master repairman. I consider each persons opinions that have more knowledge than me, and his knowledge seems to span a long time.
I have seen, on an independent site, Tom Ridenour's clarinets with reading from the Chromatic Tuners to be near as perfect as one can hope to find. Not saying his are the only ones, but there are others out there, I am sure, that are not Buffet nor Yamaha.
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-08-19 02:36
Even as an inexperienced player I can get a complete chromatic scale in all three registers to light up the chromatic tuner green top to bottom. But that doesn't mean the instrument naturally plays in tune. My Buffet is naturally as much as 15 cents flat on the low E and about 5 cents off on half a dozen other notes, but if I go slowly I can lip up and down and play each note dead on. While playing actual music the Buffet displays its full intonation problems except on sustained notes where I have a moment to change my embrasure and adjust. My understanding is that intonation is a compromise on all clarinets. Mr. Ridenour makes a lot of strong claims. My instinct has always been to trust those who speak with measured reserve. Ridenour may be a genius, but measured reserve just ain't his specialty.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-08-19 02:39
Yep, Kurt Heisig out in Monterey California. Really nice guy, and loves to share info and little tidbits of info and ideas. He was not too overly pleased wtih the outcome from Elkhart Indiana either and felt they don't listen to new ideas.
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-08-19 03:00
Well, regarding Rinenour clarinets, I wasn't really getting the info from the source (Tom Ridenour or his site) but rather a fairly large reviews of many mainstream clarinets and info from Phil Fields. Just a quick link to his review of the Selmer Signet 100 showing the cents off and one of the Ridenour C Clarinet reviews as a comparison. I will agree that he is very outspoken and is a genius on some designs and ideas with the clarinet.
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2012-08-19 03:13
Vernon -- have you play tested any Buffet R13's, Yamaha custom series, or Lyrique (Tom Ridenour's) clarinets?
I have a Lyrique Bb -- it's a good instrument. It's not better than the best R13's or Festivals that I've owned, and it doesn't have perfect intonation. Neither does my Rossi Bb.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-08-19 03:36
I haven't, but I am sure Kurt Heisig has.
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-08-19 03:57
vljenewein wrote:
> Yep, Kurt Heisig out in Monterey California.
He is most certainly an opinionated fellow ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2012-08-19 12:38
Hi Clarineteer -- I don't actually recall...I sold two Bb R13's (2000 and a 1967) when I bought the Rossi. The 1967 belongs to a student of mine who comes later in the week.
Hi Vernon, you've just made some pretty strong statements based on someone else's say-so. Since no two instruments/mouthpieces/barrels/etc...work the same for every individual I'd suggest that your assertions are a little over strong.
Feel free to disagree with me!
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-08-19 15:03
All this reminds me of the hoopla that existed 8 years ago about the miracle of newest technology in stereo equipment. Everyone was falling over themselves speaking about how the Chip Amplifiers costing $40 outperformed multi thousand dollar tube or transistor amps in certain special applications. The drum beat defining the end of overpriced vintage tube designs and cutting edge solid state designs was deafening. After the dust settled and people went out and bought these cheap plastic housed chip amps, the stereo industry started catching on. Chip amps started to be sold in attractive housings and made with the finest assembly techniques and components. Within two years new chips amps were being sold at the same high dollar price point or higher than respectable tube amps, hybrid amps and solid state amps. The final conclusion by most of the golden ears was that chip amps have some audible advantages and some definite audible deficiencies over traditional systems.
Mr Ridenour's $800 Lyrique made of hard rubber got an initial enthusiastic reception, because everyone loves an underdog and more than that, everyone loves a bargain. Yeah, if I can get even 90% of the sound quality out of an $800 clarinet that I can get from one of the long recognized professional instruments, you're damned right, I'm going to scream it from the hill tops. When the dust settles I'm sure logic and calmer minds will prevail. How could Ridenour's $800 clarinet be so remarkably better than the clarinets he designed a decade earlier for Leblanc? If I recall his Leblanc's were considered very good but with many of the problems that ALL clarinets suffer from. The Lyrique is not going to sound better just because it costs so little. I'd love to try one and I'm sure it's very good but you can be sure that with time most of us would still find things to criticize about the giant killer Lyriques.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-08-19 15:16
Oh, I won't disagree with you a bit, James. Someone like Kurt Heisig that has been around teaching clarinets for some 48 years as well as a Master Repairman and Master Mouthpiece Maker tells me something I figure I ought to take heed. I'm just a hobby player, while he is a Professional for many years making a living from what he does.
I have 12 clarinets. 2 are Buffet, an assortment of Selmer, a German Schreiber & Sohne(vintage with 1 piece section), a wooden Boosey & Hawke that plays very very nice, and a couple of Leblancs. The very best player I have, bar none with a Vandoren B45 mouthpiece, I salvaged, is the new E.F. Durand that cost me $71.00. The intonation on that clarinet is better and the tone (hard rubber) is very dark and mellow, more so than any of the other clarinets.
Sometimes I think that makers like Buffet and Yamaha, Selmer and Leblanc included, put out thousands of instruments that sell based on their name. There are a lot of copycats out there in the world and most of them follow a proven design and that gets them an acceptable product. Then there are those that decide to see if there are other areas of improvement that can make it just a bit better. Technology is a wonderful thing, and newly crafted instruments that are the result of the listening of the clarinet player make it so much better. Jupiter is one that comes to mind. Made in Taiwan with modern machinist tooling, it made a respectable instrument and then "tweaked" it a bit with design ideas from clarinet users that knew when would make it better. Point is they listened and re-designed some points that made a much better instrument. At least they are listening and willing to improve a very old design.
A clarinet design is very straight forward. Two tubes with a certain bore diameter made of a certain material that affects tone and resonance. Thickness of material is also a consideration. Then there are tone holes drilled and sized at specific locations along the cylinder to create the individual notes. Key-work is put in place to hold pads that cover and uncover tone holes and fingers "risers" are created for the other tone holes (notes). Bell on one end, Barrel on the upper joint to create a means of changing pitch slightly (which also can add some tonal qualities) and the mouthpiece, perhaps the MOST important part of the whole of the clarinet. My feeling on mouthpieces is that you could have a very expensive clarinet and the wrong mouthpiece and struggle endlessly to get it to perform right. Kind of like buying an auto designed for performance and with high compression engine that requires Premium gasoline and then putting regular gas in it and complain it is not the car it is made up to be.
Like I said earlier on in the thread, what was told to me, was from someone that "should" have a clear... VERY clear understanding of woodwind instruments, and I'm just repeating his thoughts. Would I buy a Buffet R13 or a Yamaha at a garage sale....yes if it was the right price, but I know it would be easier to sell later on with those names than something, well, unknown. People buy known names in branding, and will pay well for that name. Wine industry is full of it. I, know that since I am a Winemaker for many years at a winery/vineyard.
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-08-19 16:51
vljenewein wrote:
> Oh, I won't disagree with you a bit, James. Someone like Kurt
> Heisig that has been around teaching clarinets for some 48
> years as well as a Master Repairman and Master Mouthpiece Maker
> tells me something I figure I ought to take heed. I'm just a
> hobby player, while he is a Professional for many years making
> a living from what he does.
Be careful of basing anything on one very biased opinion. Get many opinions, and things just might even out.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-08-19 16:55
vljenewein wrote:
> A clarinet design is very straight forward. Two tubes with a
> certain bore diameter made of a certain material that affects
> tone and resonance. Thickness of material is also a
> consideration. Then there are tone holes drilled and sized at
> specific locations along the cylinder to create the individual
> notes. Key-work is put in place to hold pads that cover and
> uncover tone holes and fingers "risers" are created for the
> other tone holes (notes). Bell on one end, Barrel on the upper
> joint to create a means of changing pitch slightly (which also
> can add some tonal qualities) and the mouthpiece, perhaps the
> MOST important part of the whole of the clarinet.
Take my opinion for what you think it's worth, but I think you're not cognizant of many things in clarinet design, and some of the assumptions and simplifications you've just stated show that you have a lot more to learn than you imagine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2012-08-19 17:39
There are many individuals with 48 years of clarinet expertise that will tell you that Buffet is the only way to go -- if you wish to rely solely on Kurt Heisig's opinion you are more than welcome to -- just don't expect everyone else to take it as fact, when it his Heisig's opinion...and not even yours.
So take it from me, someone who has purchased and performed Buffet's, Rossi's, and Lyrique's...they're all great instruments, some better than others, and not a one plays perfectly in tune.
It's not the clarinet that plays in tune anyway, it's the person who's playing the clarinet!
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-08-19 18:57
I'm a little more coginant of the design of the clarinet that what really might show in that simplistic approacy I stated. Undercut tone holes, bore diameter, etc etc. But, consider this, all one that is an engineer has to do is literally take one particular clarinet apart, measure and record dimenionsal considerations and once put into play, that instrument can be duplictated. Even Buffet and Leblanc "duplicate" daily each instrument to a know set of instructions set out by the CNC machinery and finally assembled and hand fitted. There should be room for new fresh ideas, new techniques. Grenadillia wood is not the best for tone, not the idea of the clarinet players, but for the manufacturer stand point of ease of machinability. Rosewood would be much better but with problems arising in the producitons and turning of this wood, it is not worth it to the makers.
I never said the tones and quality of Yamah and Buffet were not good. It is just that there may be equal or better instruments out there, easier to play, and easier to get the kind of sound you are looking for. Mouthpiece & reed combination will go far to make what you try to achieve even easier.
I like "It's not the clarinet that plays in tune anyway, it's the person who is playing the clarinet", which is very true. Each person's mouth, playing style, combined with just the right mouthpiece and with it the right clarinet will bring it all together. I just don't think falling into the idea that the only and best maker is Buffet or Yamaha will completely live up to everyone's expectation nowadays. Ridenour's Lyrique was made in China to his specs. sent back and then finalized in his shop. He had certain ideas he wanted to see made into a clarinet and they were willing to listen and do it. Heisig gave suggestions to the design team of Jupiter, made in Taiwan, and they listened. Sometimes listening and trying is what it's all about.
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Garth Libre
Date: 2012-08-19 19:21
If it really is just a matter of CNC machinery duplicating the same specifications, clarinet after clarinet, then why is there a thriving business selecting ideal ones from the factory? People pay substantial premiums just to have "golden-ears" go and pick the perfect horn for them from Buffet's big warehouse. There's got to more to this than logic would dictate. It works the same way for pianos too.
Garth, 305-981-4705. garthlibre@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vljenewein
Date: 2012-08-19 22:39
You are very right, Garth. Even among Duduk makers there are variance, and sometimes quite a bit. A friend of mine in Denmark had his friend, Gevorg Dabaghyan, a world renowned Duduk player hand pick him a Duduk of Karen Mukayelyan (Armenia). Even though Karen's Duduks have a reputation of the finest made, Gevorg went through about 100 Duduks made by him and selected 2, one he kept and one he sent to Steen in Denmark. Supposedly he kept the very best one for himself. Still, the one sent to Steen is regarded by him as his "Stradivarius" Duduk made by Master Karen Mukayelyan. What about the other 98? Probably pretty good to very good. Just Gevorg had an "ear" about picking up slight subtleties with the instrument.
Now, for the CNC, yes they are pretty closely made, but even "pretty close" don't count exactly. A slight variance in the cutter that day, a different positioning of the pad being put in, a post tightened up a little tighter..... all these might make the instrument sound "different" not bad not at all just different. Also, keep in mind a Computer Numerical Control machine has it's absolutes from a reference point on what it is working. And that is how well the operator (human) squared up the part to be machined and set the zero datum. They had these at Boeing Airplane Company in 1977 when I worked there in Seattle. Temperature controlled rooms to keep machining variances to a minimum. Same as anything made on a CNC machine if a tool gets dull or is not quite aligned exactly it will cut ever so slightly off a few thousandths. And that is what makes each one different. By the time it got done cutting one clarinet, it has worn down ever so slightly and the next piece has to be had zeroed into the machine before the start button is turned on. Idea is to get maximum amount of cuts before changing the cutters as that is a part of the overall cost. Let's say some guy is thinking about his date last night, or the date he is going to have, or is just "blanK" He'll get it in to zero pretty close, but the next guy might get it in there even better. Everything machined has several axis to work from and one datum plane that sets everything in motion.
None of my Duduk I make sound exactly alike, even though I have the drilling set to a template and the boring also set to the same each time. That is the wonder of working with instruments. Get as very close as you can and you might not have to tweak as much after the final cuts.
Vernon
Jenewein Duduks Manufacturing & Research
www.duduk.us American made Duduks
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
