 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Bob Arney
Date: 2002-11-01 22:31
An e-Bay special! Looks like something made by NASA. Anybody ever try one of these. Obviously may not have done the job as they are no longer made.
Bob A
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: super20dan
Date: 2002-11-01 23:41
another still-born rovner product.they should stick with what they do best....ligatures.there mpcs stink also.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2002-11-02 12:49
Gee Dan,
What product are YOU making for public sale?
[ Racial epithet deleted ... missed it years ago. Mark C.]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2002-11-02 13:18
Hi Bob:
Where is the Rovner barrel on eBay?
He made a few "square" chamber, vented barrels for me in the 70's, as a experiment. I still have one, and it's quite good! The rest of them went to students who loved them. I'd like to find another one, if it's a square chamber.
Phil is a real innovator, and a clever guy. I admire his skill with equipment, and desire to experiment with something new...even if he fails.
JJM
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2002-11-02 14:17
I just checked item #9161 and ebay reported it to be invalid.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: super20dan
Date: 2002-11-02 22:14
dont get me wrong ,i love the rovner ligature but every thing phil has come up with has been a real dud.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald nicholls
Date: 2002-11-04 03:12
i tried one of these (barrels) out ages ago and remember being quite unimpressed, although at the time i didn't have much experience comparing barrels and was by no means playing near the standard i do now (by which i mean to infer only that i've improved).
it was never explained to me quite what the suposed advantage of the "square bore" was suposed to be. does anybody know?
donald
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2002-11-04 13:52
I disagree with super20Dan: I played on metal Rovner tenor and soprano sax mouthpieces (his "Deep-V Laminar Flow" models) for a few years and found them to be rather good.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John J. Moses
Date: 2002-11-04 16:12
Don:
And I quote from the eBay sale,
"This barrel is constructed of a lucite-like material. It was designed and manufactured by the Rovner company, makers of the fine clarinet and sax ligatures. This barrel dates from the late 70's when Rovner experimented with a rectangular bore barrel design. It was supposed to enhance more of the even harmonics in the sound spectrum of the clarinet. Rovner no longer makes the barrel so it is a collector’s item."
I found the barrels to be quite good and a worthwhile experiment. It is unfortunate that Phil did not continue to pursue this product. As I remember, when you rotated the rectangular chamber, the tambre changed, as did the center of the pitch. Very interesting!
JJM
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: soybean
Date: 2013-06-26 01:16
Seems like Rovner have updated this product. Go to www. Rovner products dot com (no spaces) and you can see their new "rectangular bore" clarinet barrel. (or just go to Google and search for "Rovner Barrel".) I'm curious if anyone here has tried this new barrel.
They claim:
Increases Clarity of Throat Tones
Increases Tonal Dimension
Results in More Even Scales
Improves Articulation
Provides More Dynamic, Incisive Response
Improves Altissimo
Play Horizontally, Vertically or at a 45-Degree Angle
Available in Sizes 62-68!
Made in the USA
~Dan
(Leblanc Bliss, Buffet R13 key of A, Yamaha 250 Bb)
Post Edited (2013-06-26 01:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2013-06-26 04:50
The bore cross-section shape is irrelevant. All that matters is the volume and taper. Organ makers almost always make wood pipes with a square cross-section.
Museum clarinets made of boxwood are almost always warped into a curve, and boxwood is (in)famous for warping into an oval cross-section in the bore. That's what makes museum wind instruments so difficult to measure and duplicate.
I've tried several square-bore barrels over the years. They sounded like everything else. Unlike John, I never found one that pleased me.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2013-06-26 16:56
I've got one of the vented barrels with the round chamber - John Coulehan (fmr Navy Band Soloist) hipped me to it back in the 80's.
It is metal - works well, but nothing particularly special, except it looks like the barrel from Mars.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2013-06-27 02:03
I used to work with Phil many years ago. When he first made recagular barrel I geve him one of my regular barresls thet I didn't like. He ground out the bore and filled it in with some material to make it a retacular bore that had the same volume as the orignal one I gave him. It really played very well. Then he made one out of some material that looked like a hand granade and I told him it looked too funny. I used the original one for about a year in the BSO and the Easteern Music Festival and it played well in tune and with a good tone. Then I found something I liked better, always looking. I haven't seen his newest one if he's made it available, but I have to say that he's always looking for improvements in his products. I play his Ligatures of all my clarinets. He makes a quality product.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2014-05-03 04:21
Take a look at sax mouthpeices and see how many of them have a square chamber. Even our mouthpieces, while typically circular in chamber, have different exit shapes.
Overall, I'd say circular bore is probably just a whole WHOLE lot easier to manufacture (still waiting for that rectangular drill bit!!!), and so it makes sense that everything started that way. It's efficient and easy.
I bet we could have rectangular tone holes all day, but it'd be a PITA to make.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2014-05-03 04:37
It can be done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gTI8l9Is0G0
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-05-03 18:32
Has anyone run experiments on 3-sided? ...5? ...6? ...7? And who says symmetric is best?
I wonder what kind of computer-based model might reveal the performance differences between the various possibilities of barrel cross-section. The first problem would be quantifying exactly what you're looking (or should I say listening) for. Has anyone made a complete finite element clarinet model able to discern performance differences from dimensional or material changes? (Might settle the grenadilla vs ebonite debate once and for all---- naaaahhhhh).
[Following paragraph edited June 9 2014 to correct something I misstated because I didn't read carefully enough. :-( ]
I did find a paper for cornet and trumpet FEA where the researchers explained analytically the differences in final sound between trumpet, cornet, and flugelhorn, in spite of the essential similarities of these instruments and at least one previous researcher reporting no sound differences.
http://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/AAS2012/papers/p60.pdf
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-06-10 00:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2014-05-04 00:16
My mind is blown watching that youtube video.......cool!!!! I look forward to rectangular bore clarinets!
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: saxlite
Date: 2014-06-09 18:21
Stan in Orlando
Go read the conclusion of the paper you posted a link to: the researchers definitely found a difference between both the measured and observed sound of the trumpet and cornet. Not sure how this bears on the clarinet barrel issue but you are misleading with your quotation regarding brass instruments.
Jerry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2014-06-09 23:38
I was one of the first players to use his barrel. First he made one that looked real funny, like a hand granade with a rectangular bore, and I told him people would not use it because it looked so strange even though it played decently. So he experimented with the rectangular bore with a barrel that looked like a normal barrel made of some hard plastic or whatever. First he used one of my old Buffet barrels I gave him, he drilled out the bore and filled it in with a rectangular bore using some type of hard material. I liked it so much I used it professionally playing chamber music, principal at EMF for several years until I changed mouthpieces and needed a different size barrel. It never caught on because so many people I showed it too where just turned off by the look of the bore. I didn't tell any of my section mates in the BSO until after about a year that I was playing a rectangular bored barrel. They never realized I was using anything different but of course none of them wanted to ever try it. At some point he made several from scratch but as I said, people just would not even try them. He's just always trying to make a better something.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2014-06-10 16:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wanabe
Date: 2014-06-10 00:13
Tell me that I'm seeing things and that the post quoted below doesn't really exist. I respectfully ask the moderators of this forum to delete the quoted post and this one as well as it contains parts of the same disgusting racially denigrating epithet that was slipped into the original post. I would further suggest that the poster not be allowed to spread his hatred and bigotry on this forum ever again. I find it difficult to believe that nobody noticed and protested this abhorent comment.
" RE: Unique Clarinet Barrel Made By Rovner (Item # 9161
Author: Synonymous Botch (---.nycap.rr.com)
Date: 2002-11-02 12:49
Gee Dan,
What product are YOU making for public sale?
[ Racial epithet missed some 11 and a half years back. Edited. The poster no longer posts here but that would have been an automatic ban. Mark C. ]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-06-10 01:04
Jerry- You're right- I had misquoted the paper. The quote was from a previous researcher with an opposite conclusion. Thanks and I'll be more careful to read all of what I post links to, LOL.
So- the trumpet / cornet / flugelhorn computer models WERE able to distinguish the differences in sound.
WRT to the clarinet and barrel discussion, this strengthens my argument that it might make more sense to pursue geometric and other questions about clarinet design by computer simulation.
FIRST, one would need a clarinet design change that we can prove experimentally is an improvement. Perhaps we take a standard (plug in your favorite clarinet model here), played by a "standard" senior performance major on a "standard" phrase from (plug in generic classical piece here) on a standard mouthpiece, ligature, and reed (synthetic for control?). Then we substitute (plug in your favorite heavily marketed item) and repeat the performance. Standard double blind hearing test- we try to correlate that the change is an improvement (or detriment) by a large number of listeners. If the results are inconclusive (I bet they almost always will be!) we keep trying other changes until we get one that we KNOW is a real change.
SECOND, we computer model the clarinets with and without the change, and try to show that we capture the improvement/detriment in the computed resulting sounds.
THIRD, we also computer model the most significant change that we made in step one that DID NOT produce a detectable change in sound, and also verify that our computed resulting sounds are not different either. (In actual engineering, this step is often skipped- with the result that more credence is given to the computer analysis than it might deserve.)
FINALLY, if we get this far, we have a computer model we can experiment on to our heart's content, with low cost and effort. That's why people use FEA. Then, when some oddball geometry or material or other change looks promising on the computer- we can actually build it and see if the prediction holds up in reality. That's progress.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
