 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: jacobhardy25
Date: 2013-01-29 20:58
I feel like a lot of clarinetists that i know dont agree that barrels dont affect your sound very much but after this week, i definitely believe they do. I just got a new barrel (a GAO royal cohler grenadilla) and it really helped out my sound. specifically, it opened it up more and really darkened my sound compared to my stock buffet barrel. i felt like in my upper register, a lot of the notes were really thin and bright and the barrel really helped those notes become more full and dark. i am a firm believer that there is such thing as "too dark" but thebarrel i bought really darkened the sound but not too much where its too dark. what do you guys think on the affect the barrel has on a clarinet?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2013-01-29 21:54
It has definitely been done time and time again, but I'm a believer that barrel does affect my tone and the ease with which I play. So I do have certain barrels I prefer over others.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-01-29 22:02
The argument is generally over whether the material the barrel is made of affects the sound. That a barrel could affect tone because its dimensions are different isn't normally a disputed issue.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TJTG
Date: 2013-01-30 01:33
I'm pretty darn sure my barrel affects my sound. I have a set of Chadash barrels which I switch out for my originals every so often. The originals feel wonky and unfocused. If 'blow out' is a real thing, and I have an inkling it is, barrels are the first to ware. If I put my finger inside my stock barrel it is rough and the grain is certainly protruding. The original smoothness is all but a memory.
When I posted on the Sherman article I meant to say people are overpaying for their accessories without questioning that which they receive in return.
Personally I think people are all too excited about the magic new equipment does for them. Work with what you have because every clarinet out there is only an obstacle. What you purchase should only ease a problem, but will never eliminate it. Buy a barrel to help tuning issues, change resistance, or help a certain range of a clarinet, but there is no fix-all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2013-01-30 04:15
Now that is an interesting concept clarinetguy, I must say; I'd be very curious to try it.
If Prof. Helmholtz is reading us I hope he can chime in as the acoustic properties are well beyond my understanding
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2013-01-30 18:09
I got an email on Rovner's newsletter announcing the rectangular barrel. I'm skeptical, but I'm certainly willing to give things a try before making my mind on them.
As for my personal barrel thoughts, first the usual disclaimer of "different strokes for different folks" (what works for me and my mouthpiece may not work for you and your mouthpiece.) Also, I have not tried every barrel out there.
I was very impressed at clarinetfest by the Taplin Weir barrels. Once I found the correct taper and style bore (which was their recommendation), every barrel of that taper and bore worked great.
I was extremely impressed with Dr. Segal's barrels. I tried some by someone else's Segal barrels and even though they weren't made for my clarinet, they played beautifuly. For a custom job, they'd be my #1 of the ones I've tried.
I was NOT impressed by the backun protege barrels, however their regular barrels were fine for me. They weren't as consistent as Tapin Weir, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, and every show or place they go to they bring HUNDREDS of barrels so there' sa good chance you'll find one for you.
All in all, I do believe a barrel can make a difference. I've come to a personal conclusion of the only thing the clarinet does is affect tuning and resistance between registers from note to note. Sound/tone is mouthpiece and barrel. Therefore, I feel I can take my mouthpiece/barrel combo and transfer it to any clarinet and get a good tone, and the clarinet design will affect tuning.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Steven Ocone
Date: 2013-01-31 12:05
Of course the barrel makes a difference, as does the mouthpiece bore. The higher harmonics have more nodes and antinodes in the upper section of the clarinet.
Steve Ocone
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2013-01-31 13:39
Just out of curiosity:
I have the impression that the majority of us accept that a hard rubber mouthpiece produces a "better" sound than a plastic mouthpiece. Perhaps I'm incorrect on the assumption that most of this accept that idea -- please correct me if I'm wrong.
If you believe the hard rubber/plastic assertion -- why wouldn't you believe that the type of wood the barrel is made out of has an impact?
Caveat: I agree that many people buy these products expecting them to do much more than the product is capable of providing. I also fundamentally believe that the majority of my sound is determined by me, not the instrument.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2013-01-31 13:45
Steven Ocone wrote:
> Of course the barrel makes a difference, as does the mouthpiece
> bore.
As Karl mentioned earlier I don't think anyone is disputing that barrels with differing bore configurations have an effect. The thing that generally causes a big argument are the claims from some people that the use of exotic wood is what makes the barrel play better rather than the bore configuration.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2013-01-31 14:40
An astute person suggested that the barrel should be thought of as part of the mouthpiece. The two function together as an adjunct to the reed, oral cavity, brain, etc.
Just my 2 cents....or, in this economy, two dollars minus $1.98 in tax and bureaucratic waste.
Disclaimer: I have a vested interest in selling barrels.
.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2013-01-31 17:08
Tobin wrote:
> Just out of curiosity:
>
> I have the impression that the majority of us accept that a
> hard rubber mouthpiece produces a "better" sound than a plastic
> mouthpiece. Perhaps I'm incorrect on the assumption that most
> of this accept that idea -- please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> If you believe the hard rubber/plastic assertion -- why
> wouldn't you believe that the type of wood the barrel is made
> out of has an impact?
I can tell you from experience that you can make some truly excellent mouhtpieces from materials other than hard rubber. I have a plastic mouthpiece for my contra-alto clarinet that began life as a cheap student model but after a refacing now plays as well or better than any hard rubber mouthpiece I have tried for the instrument. Similarly, I have a vintage crystal mouthpiece for my soprano clarinets that also plays very well and that I prefer to most of the hard rubber mouthpieces I have tried.
It should be noted that many saxophone players have taken to playing on metal mouthpieces and there are often debates on whether the metal or hard rubber versions play better. In the clarinet world the argument is usually about whether or not vintage hard rubber (i.e. old Chedeville blanks) sounds better than modern rubber. Ocassionally there will be a discussion regarding crystal mouthpieces (Pomarico's vs. vintage O'Brien's usually) but like the mouthpieces themselves these conversations are relatively few and far between.
Ultimately due to the fact that the vast majority of clarinet mouthpieces are made from hard rubber and most player have only played such mouthpieces, there really isn't enough of an experience base regarding the "alternative" materials to definitively declare that hard rubber is necessarily "better".
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2013-01-31 18:22
Hi Steve,
I think that you missed the point of my thoughts. This thread was started upon Sherman's thoughts that differing woods don't lend any difference or improvement to the sound. That is a thought that is supported by some and refuted by others.
I'm wondering how many clarinetists who believe that the type of wood makes no difference to the barrel simultaneously believe that hard rubber is inherently better than plastic.
I'm familiar with crystal mouthpieces, I have an O'brien in a drawer someplace. I'm happy to accept your assertion on the contra-alto mouthpiece.
In the case of the contra-alto mouthpiece you take length to describe that the facing has been adjusted heavily -- this would support the argument that the material in inconsequential in comparison to how well it's been fashioned to it's task.
Do you believe your vintage crystal mouthpiece is above-grade because of it's design or because of it's material?
Quote:
Ultimately...there really isn't enough of an experience base regarding the "alternative" materials to definitively declare that hard rubber is necessarily "better".
That's why I put "better" in quotations in my post. I haven't asserted that hard rubber is better by necessity.
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2013-01-31 18:27
"Believing the hard rubber/plastic assertion" doesn't necessarily mean that you are convinced the difference is caused by their acoustical properties. If a plastic mouthpiece were made with internal and external dimensions identical to a high quality hard rubber mouthpiece, would it sound the same? I don't think any of us knows, because the materials tool differently, and makers who make both don't usually put the hand finishing work into their plastic versions, which are always marketed to be less expensive.
Someone like Clark Fobes, whose Debut mouthpiece I think may be plastic, could write more authoritatively about this. But, as with barrels and even instruments, the differences can always at least conjecturally be attributed to mechanical (manufacturing) differences until someone can make identical prototypes that eliminate any possible explanation other than the acoustics of the material itself.
But again, this is a different issue from the one Jacob seemed originally to be addressing. I have a drawer full of barrels, some grenadilla, some made of other kinds of wood. They all sound different from each other, at least when I first change from one to the other. But a simple bore gauge shows that no two of them are exactly the same internally, not even ones from the same maker.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2013-01-31 18:51
Hi Karl,
I'm pretty certain Clark's Debut is plastic, and I agree it's a great mouthpiece. I agree as well with your thoughts as to whether it is the material or the investment of time/expertise that results in a quality product.
The original poster seems to be asking what everyone's opinions are on what a barrel provides someone. That has split into two different thoughts (as presented in this thread): does the material make a difference? Does the workmanship/design?
My questions are pointed to those who insist (as Sherman and others allude to above) that the material is inconsequential.
Now I do like your comment: "They all sound different from each other, at least when I first change from one to the other". This lies in agreement with my thoughts about above.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2013-01-31 18:57
Tobin wrote:
> I think that you missed the point of my thoughts. This thread
> was started upon Sherman's thoughts that differing woods don't
> lend any difference or improvement to the sound. That is a
> thought that is supported by some and refuted by others.
I understood what you were asking but I wil acknowledge that I explained my position in a rather round-about way. I believe that it is the design and geometry of a mouthpiece that dictate how well a mouthpiece plays rather than the material. Karl makes a good point regarding the workability and machineability of materials being one of the most important properties that makes them suitable for use in mouthpieces (i.e. it is easier to work a bore/facing to precise dimensions on some materials than on others). I agree with this argument as well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2013-01-31 19:02
Fair enough Steve -- thanks for the clarification. I'm sorry that I didn't pick that up right away, and I agree wholeheartedly that the quality of workmanship is pivotal to how the product operates.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jacobhardy25
Date: 2013-01-31 19:36
I guess before this week, i just seemed to hear a lot of people that dont think that a barrel really affects the sound. i mean sure i am in high school but im very dedicated in clarinet and do my researching. after the last concert i did (with the seattle symphony/the seattle youth symphony), Chris sereque the principle player started talking about barrels and the effects that they have on clarinet. We talked for quite a while and he made me believe that it could make my sound better. i was really looking to darken my sound because notes were thin and didnt sound as "even" or full as other notes and it wasnt really that good. I mean i did just get it repaired too. and he is a very trusted repair man. But, i did buy a barrel (a royal GAO Cohler barrel) and it really made a big difference on my sound. Overall, I feel like it made a huge impact on how even the notes were as far as tone goes and the overall fullness of the sound. I have been using my R13 stock barrel for a while. But anyways thank you guys. I have only been using grenadilla and really havent used cocobolo at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CarolinaClarinet
Date: 2013-02-04 00:30
You might find the following interesting ...
http://carolinaclarinet.org/mpc_matl.pdf
The same applies to barrel materials, I think.
- Brent Smith for CarolinaClairnet in Raleigh NC -
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Le9669
Date: 2013-02-04 01:44
best way to find out is to do a blind test with someone who has good ears, preferably a professional.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
