 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2017-01-23 10:05
Just for my own satisfaction I've just done a fairly laborious tuning comparison of several older Bb instruments that I play regularly against some newer ones that I play less often. The instruments are:
Older instruments:
Circa 1900 Jerome Thibouville Lamy
1946 Pre R13 Buffet
1946 B & H Imperial 926 in hard rubber
1951? Pustophon
1927 Louis of Chelsea
1937 B & H 1010
Newer instruments.
1966 R13
1971 B&H Imperial 926 in wood
1960's Couesnon Monopole
2012 Yamaha 450
Leblanc L7
I won't bore you with a lot of tedious detail, but the results surprised me somewhat. I used a Korg tuner. By far the best tuning was obtained with the Yamaha, with the others in order of best tuning being:
Pustophon
Louis
Pre-R13 Buffet
R13
L7
1946 B & H Imperial
JTL
Couesnon Monopole
B & H 1010
1971 B & H Imperial.
Since I had a captive audience I also asked for their subjective view of which instruments sounded best to them. Mostly I used my usual mouthpiece, a Clark Fobes San Fransisco CF+, but on some I used other mouthpieces. On the 1010 I used a Pillinger 1010. I played the same pieces on all instruments. All instruments have been restored/rebuilt by me and are in excellent playing condition. This result surprised me. It was:
Pustophon
1946 Imperial
Yamaha
Louis
Couesnon
L7
R13
Pre-R13
1971 Imperial
JTL
1010
My observation is that among this selection the fit, finish and wood of the older instruments are mostly far better than the more recent instruments. The Yamaha and Pustophon are outstanding in this regard, but the Louis, Leblanc and Couesnon are close behind.
Tony F.
Post Edited (2017-01-23 12:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2017-01-27 13:26
Tony: I tried a similar exercise, although not entirely with the same results. I agree that the wood on the older instruments is in a different class, and their craftsmanship can be outstanding. But in terms of tuning, it seems to me that really the 1950s polycylindrical design took things into a new league. Let's stick to Buffets, where I've collected examples from 1936, 1946, 1949, 1959. The 1959 instrument tunes pretty much as well as modern ones, but the others are all inferior, with narrow 12ths, especially in the left hand. The 1936 instrument is the best of the bunch and I have performed on it, although it needs care. But the 1946 and 1949 instruments are so far off that I would never play them in public.
These are only individual examples, of course, and doubtless there were good and bad instruments made at any given time. But I also see similar tuning deficiencies in other pre-polycylindrical instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2017-01-27 17:14
Hi John
Interesting result. You'll note that there are only 2 Buffets in my selection. This is because I find that Buffets just don't work for me ergonomically unless I do a lot of blacksmithing on the keywork, so generally I avoid them. I was surprised that the earlier instrument tuned better than the later one but I've been a bit underwhelmed with the quality of R13's in recent years. Some that I've worked on couldn't hold their own in a line-up of E11's.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2017-01-27 18:44
One more slight disagreement: I have a pair of 1010s from 1969. Tuning is harder than on modern Buffets, but probably at the same level as the 1936 Buffet - acceptable if you're prepared to make significant adjustments as you go. But we agree that later Imperials were complete dogs: I had a pair of those that were so far out that no amount of filling of tone holes could get them to the point of being useable, even with the largest possible amount of embouchure adjustments. I was very glad when they found a buyer (although slightly guilty at offloading such substandard specimens).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2017-01-27 21:24
I came across one Imperial 926 from, I think 1979, that had a bore of 15.2mm
Just wonder if it been reamed with a 1010 reamer by mistake
All the old craftsmen had long since departed B&H by then.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2017-01-27 23:46
Analysis of tuning of clarinets is a difficult subject to tackle. Who knows what the history of these clarinets could be, who previously tuned or detuned them, etc. I have three modern R13s which have great tuning, whatever that means.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2017-01-28 01:18
Can you tell us more about the Pustophon clarinet? That's a German instrument with either an Albert or Oehler fingering system, isn't it? Are you especially surprised that it would tune (and sound) so well with a Clark Fobes mouthpiece made for French Boehm instruments? I would be! Have you measured the Pustophon bore? Do you know if Pustophon made any Boehm clarinets as well? I'm not surprised that the Yamaha 450 scored at or near the top in both categories. That company has been doing their homework in clarinet design for a long time, and when you get a good one, it's likely to be very good.
Post Edited (2017-01-28 01:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2017-01-28 03:08
Pustophon clarinets were available in both Boehm and Oehler systems, and I have one of each. I'd been looking out for a Pustophon for years having played a friends some years ago. It impressed me with build quality and even tuning. Two came up on EBay in mid-'16, so I bought them both. The Oehler came from Hawaii and the Boehm from Switzerland, which was odd. They've both been restored and the Boehm has become my regular instrument, using the Clark Fobes mouthpiece. The Oehler required a German mouthpiece, and in my junk box I had a couple of them by Zinner. They both play well on it, one of them very well indeed. The bore of the Boehm is 14.85mm. Build quality of both is absolutely superb and tuning is excellent and very even. My wife says the Boehm sounds like melted dark chocolate.
Edit. I got the places where I bought them from the wrong way round. I think my brain is turning into soup!
Tony F.
Post Edited (2017-01-28 08:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2017-01-28 09:48
Ok, not so surprising then that it sounded good with a Boehm mouthpiece since it was a Boehm with a medium-large bore. Hans Kreul was another German artisan who made fine-sounding clarinets in both Oehler and Boehm systems.
Post Edited (2017-01-28 09:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomS
Date: 2017-01-28 19:31
Doesn't surprise me about the tuning/timbre of the Yamaha 450 ... allegedly the acoustical design was used in one of Yamaha's professional clarinets, at one time.
Wonder if the 450 shares some design similarity with current Yamaha pro instruments? If not, maybe they need to resurrect the 450 basic design in a pro clarinet?
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2020-03-16 10:51
Seabreeze wrote:
"Ok, not so surprising then that it sounded good with a Boehm mouthpiece since it was a Boehm with a medium-large bore. Hans Kreul was another German artisan who made fine-sounding clarinets in both Oehler and Boehm systems."
Resurrecting an old post, further research reveals that both Stovasser and Puchner were employed in Hans Kreul's workshop before they joined forces and produced the Pustophon instruments, which were based on Kreul's designs.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JohnP
Date: 2020-03-16 12:24
Dave James at the B&H factory once told me that a batch of 926’s had the holes on one joint in the wrong places. I can’t remember the exact details but it was due to a workman taking a shortcut in some way.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2020-03-16 18:13
Tony, this is a very informative post. Really well done and thank you for the time it took to write and play all of the horns.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2020-03-16 19:00
By the way, I can measure your Yamaha bore and give you pretty darn accurate results so we can figure out if Yamaha is using the same bore as its pro line horns compared to the student line. I really don't know at this point.
I'd also like to measure the barrels. I just finished a new bore concept and I'm waiting for the patent to come through. As we all know Fobes makes really nice mouthpieces and I feel the bore size and taper have to match the barrel, or better yet, the bore of the barrels should match the mouthpiece, then to the the instruments bore. This is not really being done and I feel tuning this way is critical.
Knowing the dimensions of the mouthpiece and barrel tapers to the instrument of choice, final adjustments to actually tuning the whole clarinet can be done accurately. This can result with fixing holes on the horn, to adjustments to the bell, and even minor bore work to the horn, if there might be a warped inner bore. A complete overhaul of the clarinet from the mouthpiece on down. Yes it's a bit complicated to figure out, however that's my problem not the players problem.
Please sent me an email if you'd like to maybe see if we can make a complete instrument play in tune yet sound beautiful.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Djudy
Date: 2020-03-16 19:39
This is a very interesting thread which I had not yet seen. If I tried to do that with some of mine I'd go bananas !
I love my 'vintage' instruments but it disappoints me that their many tuning and intonation problems mean that I can only enjoy them at home. The only recent clarinet I owned was a very good E13 from 2016 but I sold it despite having good tuning, to finance yet another vintage (1928 Pedler!) mostly because I found it too 'tame', too bland, plus the keywork was obviously non-pro.
So now I only have really old stuff, all pre-1980s, several that I love to play but none are perfect. I would like to have just one recent instrument that really does the job and is beyond reproach for ensemble playing, so I keep trying more recent pro level instruments in the hopes of finding one with better tuning as well as the punch and the 'communication' that appeals to me. But no luck so far (looking in the under €3000 range, new & used).
Have I given up too soon on my old instruments (need to find the right repair person to check setup) and on developing my own work-arounds for the rough spots (I need to work harder !)?
And (sorry , OT) in passing, what is considered a 'modern' instument, one made in the last 10 years? 20 years? or one with a certain bore architecture regardless of age? or is vintage a more useful concept and how is it defined?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bennett ★2017
Date: 2020-03-17 04:27
Really interesting but I've a question about methodology. Did you test them as is or had you worked on them in the past, adjusting key heights, perhaps adding bits of tape to tone holes, etc. In other words, were all of them playing at their very best?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2020-03-17 09:44
Good question.
All of the instruments had been restored by me and were in excellent playing condition. As the object of the exercise was to compare the tuning of the instruments as they were manufactured I did no tweaking with tape in toneholes, undercutting or such. Key heights were adjusted for me and the instruments were as good as I could get them. I don't say that they couldn't have been better, but I do good work and I was satisfied with their condition.
Since this exercise I have refined the tuning on several of them for my own satisfaction, and some of them would now perform at a higher level than they did at the time of the testing. I no longer own some of them. Because I have hands like shovels Buffet keywork does not work well for me, so they have gone as have the Couesnon and the Yamaha.
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}
