 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: derf5585
Date: 2014-09-16 07:43
If the length of the barrel changes wouldn't that only affect one note. The toneholes are still the same distance apart.
Where there is a trill there is a way
fsbsde@yahoo.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elec
Date: 2014-09-16 09:53
Every single note would be affected because the length of the whole instrument is changed. Perhaps, the difference in pitch between notes would be the same but every note would either be sharper/flatter with a different length barrel. Longer barrel = flatter pitch.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dibbs
Date: 2014-09-16 12:45
It will affect every note. Every hole will be further from the mouthpiece. Worse, it will affect every note by a different amount. The percentage difference in length is greater for holes nearer the mouthpiece so short tube notes will be flattened more than long tube notes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cyclopathic
Date: 2014-09-16 13:06
the effect of longer barrel would be progressive: the shorter distance to tonehole from mouthpiece, more effected it is. BUT it is not the length only, it is the volume of the barrel. The larger diameter same length barrel will lower pitch too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-09-16 14:25
"Cyclopathic" is correct, the notes at the top of the horn are the ones MOST affected, though there is a 'global' affect to the pitch.
Also, once you leave the chalumeau register, it is the length that becomes the important factor. This is true particularly in the altissimo. I found this to be the case in a mouthpiece test. I used a German mouthpiece vs a Boosey 1010 mouthpiece on a standard French clarinet (Buffet R13). The altissimo notes of the German mouthpiece were decidedly flatter - the length was the longest. The Boosey 1010 mouthpiece made the altissimo notes quite sharp - the length was the shortest though it had the largest internal volume (measured with water).
Getting back to purely barrels, it is worth noting that the affect on the shortest tube length notes becomes less severe once that 'short distance' is lengthened. The example to which I am referring is the German clarinet, where the top joint itself is longer and the barrel is that much shorter. Here, the tuning of the upper most notes are not as disproportionate. Note this quote from the Rossi website:
"Pulling out the barrel achieves lower pitch by lengthening the bore of the entire instrument. However, as a side effect, pulling out also creates an air pocket between the barrel and the top of the clarinet body. Since this air pocket has the most influence on the tone holes which are closest to it, pulling out the barrel on most clarinets results in disproportionately flat throat notes. On Rossi clarinets this problem was solved by designing the top of the clarinet body longer and the barrels correspondingly shorter. This moves the air pocket created by pulling out further away from the throat note tone holes. Pulling out therefore tunes the entire instrument proportionately, and the throat notes do not over-react and sag. As a result, Rossi clarinets are extremely versatile, and the different length barrels provided with all Rossi clarinets ensure a remarkably even tuning scale at both American and European pitch levels."
I don't agree that it solves the issue, I only agree that it makes the situation a bit better.
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cyclopathic
Date: 2014-09-16 18:19
@Paul
the impact of air pocket on tuning depends location and mode. Second mode has a pressure node one third of the way down the air column, giving two regions where enlarging the bore will lower the pitch and two regions where it will raise the pitch. Yamaha designed CSG with shorter barrel to move pocket and reduce its impact on tuning.
Also german mouthpieces have longer tenon perhaps the differences you experienced due to that? The impact of air pocket btw MPC socket and tenon is often overlooked. I had seen the difference in length as much as 1.5mm and in some cases installing a tuning ring btw tenon and socket had improved overall tune.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-09-16 21:38
I almost regret the last post. I threw in some mouthpiece stuff to try and give some back up to the oddities of clarinet tuning but I left out a lot of detail and it is admittedly very confusing.
Without a physics background, my guess is that the wave form on the higher octaves is more dependent on the length of the tube since the wave is already compressed (or folded?). My trials with the Boosey mouthpiece and Wurlitzer mouthpiece were quite telling. The Boosey 1010 mouthpiece is cyllindrical (being .6 inches in dia pretty much up to the tone chamber). I would have thought this mouthpiece would play the LOWEST in the altissimo due to the volume, and yet the altissimo was SHARP!!! The only variable that explains this is the fact that it is a short length mouthpiece, though the total volume is greater than any other mouthpiece by far. I further assume that the aspect of the volume makes its impact upon the fundamental notes. At any rate the Boosey and Hawkes 1010 clarinet is built to be played exclusively with these mouthpiece. I wonder what kind of odd tuning one gets with a 'standard' mouthpiece bored out to these specs since that does not address length.
The German mouthpiece design reminds me more of a saxophone mouthpiece (God help us all) in that the bore and tone chamber come together almost seemlessly whereas the French design features a lot more interior space at the top of the bore compared with the that of the tone chamber. The added length comes in at the tone chamber/beak which is noticably longer than the French design.
When I first tried to play the German mouthpiece in comparison to the Boosey (and the French) I anticipated a pitch somewhere in between based on the total internal volume, but the actual pitch of the altissimo was the LOWEST of the group. This could only be explained by the length being the longest and the consequent distance the generated wave had to travel.
Oh, and as a note to the German mouthpiece tenon. The difference is really in the diameter of the German tenon which is slightly wider (to allow for more torque when tying on reeds?). I circumvented this by taking a spare barrel and having it reemed to a corresponding diameter since I did not want to modify the mouthpiece.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-09-16 22:13
>> Without a physics background, my guess is that the wave form on the higher octaves is more dependent on the length of the tube since the wave is already compressed (or folded?).>>
If you don't have a physics background, why do you hold forth on physics?
>> My trials with the Boosey mouthpiece and Wurlitzer mouthpiece were quite telling. The Boosey 1010 mouthpiece is cyllindrical (being .6 inches in dia pretty much up to the tone chamber). I would have thought this mouthpiece would play the LOWEST in the altissimo due to the volume, and yet the altissimo was SHARP!!!>>
There are reasons for this; but you do need some understanding of the physics involved.
>> The only variable that explains this is the fact that it is a short length mouthpiece, though the total volume is greater than any other mouthpiece by far.>>
Not so.
>> I further assume that the aspect of the volume makes its impact upon the fundamental notes. At any rate the Boosey and Hawkes 1010 clarinet is built to be played exclusively with these mouthpiece. I wonder what kind of odd tuning one gets with a 'standard' mouthpiece bored out to these specs since that does not address length.>>
The truth is, Paul, that you very often jump into a thread with very little understanding of the issues.
I'm sure you're a very nice guy.
But something – I don't know what – should be done about your dominating threads with nonsense.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cyclopathic
Date: 2014-09-16 22:47
Paul,
here is excerpt from Stephan Fox article on clarinet acoustics:
-------------------------------------
..The effects on tuning of each region are the following:
1.The mouthpiece bore affects both the overall pitch and the balance between the top and bottom of the playing range. It is usually conical (tapering towards the top), more rarely cylindrical.
It is essential to use a mouthpiece with the correct bore size and shape for a given clarinet. A mouthpiece with a bore smaller than ideal will play sharp up to about A in the second register, then flat above that; one with an oversize bore will behave in the opposite way, flat up to the same point and sharp above.
2.The barrel bore affects the tuning of the upper part of the second register and the lower altissimo notes; these are sharpened if the barrel bore is enlarged.The size and shape- cylindrical, reverse taper, compound taper, etc.- of the barrel bore also exert a disproportionally large effect on the playing feel and resistance of the entire range of the instrument.
http://www.sfoxclarinets.com/baclac_art.htm
so assuming that the other variables (barrel bore/size, air pockets, resistance) is out of question, what you experienced is inline with that?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-09-17 02:09
I apologize for misinterpreting what it was that I experienced. I never was "schooled" in the acoustics of the horn and am trying to figure this out for myself - in a haphazard manner. My goal was to attempt to come up with some definitive conclusions on whether a mouthpiece for one particular acoustic could be "tamed," and used for another such as using a German mouthpiece on a French clarinet. I do not believe this is practical or desirable. However, I wanted to be fair about it and find out for myself if it could work.
Sorry for coming up with the wrong "WHYS."
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cyclopathic
Date: 2014-09-18 07:09
@Paul: don't be hard on yourself; I am an engineer by trade but IMHO it is all witchcraft when it comes to musical instrument acoustics. And you are 100% right the increased volume at MPC reduces pitch in 1st mode.
Post Edited (2014-09-18 15:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-09-18 07:34
As an engineer with decades of industrial experience in some very technically challenging specialties--- let me say that when several of us gather to discuss why something is happening a particular way, or how some change will alter how it behaves, only rarely do we all agree. And when we do, even more likely we're wrong.
No, it isn't actually that bad. But it's almost that bad.
It's a darned good thing most such issues can be solved for sure by experimentation. No matter what the computer or back of envelope calculation tells you- you still have to build and test it. That's the way it is whether you're designing a titanium jet engine disk or a plastic deck chair. No reason it should be any different for a clarinet or accessory.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-09-18 18:26
cyclopathic wrote:
>> @Paul: don't be hard on yourself; I am an engineer by trade but IMHO it is all witchcraft when it comes to musical instrument acoustics.>>
...and Stan wrote:
>> As an engineer with decades of industrial experience in some very technically challenging specialties--- let me say that when several of us gather to discuss why something is happening a particular way, or how some change will alter how it behaves, only rarely do we all agree. And when we do, even more likely we're wrong.>>
OF COURSE he should be hard on himself. Isn't that what understanding the world is all about?
The fact that engineers disagree interimly is just part of the process. THE TRUTH is what needs to be respected. Engineers disagree in the process of respecting engineering.
Clarinet acoustics is a part of the real world. If it doesn't seem to make sense to you, you're modelling it wrongly. Engineering itself is not thereby mocked.
For example, all the guff about 'fast air', 'cold air', 'warm air', 'concentrated air' and so on might be pedagogically useful in a particular case. But when ceaselessly and vigorously promoted here by Paul as the TRUTH, I think it does more harm than good. It's certainly bad science.
Paul turns up saying the first thing that comes into his head in almost every thread here.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cyclopathic
Date: 2014-09-18 22:01
Ugh.. can't we just all get alone?
this isn't a simple and straight forward subject as it may look. Conventional physics (Helmholtz resonator) tell us that increasing volume will reduce pitch.
The reason that the 12th widen and altissimo sharpens it isn't due to increased volume; higher modes are just getting lowered less then 1st mode. And as we use 1st mode to tune instrument it may create illusion of sharpening.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-09-18 22:09
I'll give you acoustics, but I get my use of air from Marcellus, Brody, Wollwage, Combs, Yeh, and others who were/are all pretty successful with it. This is, again, what seems to me to be a miscommunication caused by National traditions and cultural differences.
I don't pretend to know how the paridigm of the British School of clarinet playing Gervase DePeyer produces his sound. I guess we should ask him.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-09-18 22:52
Cyclopathic wrote:
>> ...this isn't a simple and straight forward subject as it may look. Conventional physics (Helmholtz resonator) tell us that increasing volume will reduce pitch.
>> The reason that the 12th widen and altissimo sharpens it isn't due to increased volume; higher modes are just getting lowered less then 1st mode. And as we use 1st mode to tune instrument it may create illusion of sharpening.>>
Thank you; that's a contribution. Notice that I say that, not to get along, but because it is.
>> Ugh.. can't we just all get alone?>>
That isn't.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2014-09-18 23:14
Paul Aviles wrote:
>> I'll give you acoustics, but I get my use of air from Marcellus, Brody, Wollwage, Combs, Yeh, and others who were/are all pretty successful with it. This is, again, what seems to me to be a miscommunication caused by National traditions and cultural differences. >>
Not at all.
What you repeat, copied from the teaching metaphors used (perhaps) by those people, comes across here as dogmatic assertion of fact.
As I keep on pointing out, what 'legendary teachers' may have said in particular circumstances tends to get written in stone by their acolytes, and turned into hectoring and scientifically inaccurate representations of the actual situation.
>> I don't pretend to know how the paridigm of the British School of clarinet playing Gervase DePeyer produces his sound. I guess we should ask him.>>
Absolutely we shouldn't.
It's stupid to think of our enquiry in terms of, 'following paradigms'. And anyway, Gervase, though I much admired his 'heroic' attitude to much of the clarinet repertoire, never represented anything like a national school.
If you think that you are doing anyone a service by parroting what you take to be 'the American paradigm' with the degree of understanding that you currently demonstrate, then as my mother might have said, "You've got another think coming."
If on the other hand you have anything to say that comes from your own experience and understanding – note the 'understanding' bit – then you're worth engaging with.
Otherwise, not.
I don't repeat here 'what my teachers have told me'. I say what I've learnt about the situation from investigating the actual facts, including the scientific literature, and then suggest various (note that word) ways in which we might take advantage of those facts.
In my view, whatever value this BBoard might have lies in that attitude.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-09-19 15:30
Funny you should say that because I recently found out (personally) what it was like to play the clarion notes without the octave key (and all the pitch ramifications of the octave key both on and off) after 40 years of playing. I wanted to share this personal experience with the world........and then looked like an idiot.
I do feel that everyone of us has a sphere of knowledge that we use to measure our own new experiences. We also use it to be judgmental of others' spheres of knowledge. This is what makes this Board challenging, fun and educational. Perhaps we say similar things in a different way, and just in that turn of a phrase the communication may get through to a person that might have missed the point initially. Or someone totally misses the mark (I might have to volunteer to be "that guy") and then another will shed a great light upon the subject, and in this way many can learn from another's lack of experience.
The many different levels of experience and many different personality types can be daunting to wade through at times but we are all a community of clarinet players willing to learn..........and that's a good thing.
So what I've learned today is that I really don't know anything about barrels.
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
