 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ben Shaffer
Date: 2021-06-19 19:03
I also belong to an Irish Traditional Music Board
There was a discussion about Smooth and Rough Bores on Wood Irish Flutes
I think the generally agreement was smooth will give you the best sound overall. Then however, someone brought up something I think is very interesting
Several Contemporary Traverso Makers had been copying 18th century Instruments.
So even with their expertise as Woodwind Makers, the Older Instruments just seemed to sound better
And of course there can be many reasons for this.
One difference however that emerged was the Older Instruments had rougher bores than the copy Instruments which had smooth Bores
The rougher Bores on the 18th Century Traversos may had been made like that or perhaps became rough after years of playing
I think this is very intriguing
When I compared the 2 Leblancs Clarinets Ive had, an LL and an L7, the L7 to me clearly sounded better
The L7 as it turned out had a little rougher Bore, where as the LL was pretty smooth
Bore Diameter of course can be a Factor, the LL was 14.8, the L7 15.00
So relative Roughness in the Bore is certainly only one of many variables affecting sound
I find this pretty fascinating
Post Edited (2021-06-19 19:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2021-06-19 22:21
Excellent question! Conventional wisdom would have it that the pressure waves travel better on a an ultra-smooth, polished surface. But there is the "dolphin principle" (my neologism). The water slides off the skin of a dolphin beautifully with least resistance because their skin is rough and actually speeds up the water flowing past them. I see only one solution: try both ways and see what works better. Clarinet manufacturers are too set in their ways to bother! Yet, provided this works, it could make for real improvement.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2021-06-20 00:20
What Ruben is alluding to is the laminar boundary layer which exists very close to the wall in low-speed fluid flow; that layer causes a lot of drag near the wall and out to the "main" flow in the center of the tube. By adding some roughness to the surface, the laminar layer is disrupted and reduced in extent (thickness), which then actually reduces the total drag (counter-intuitively).
That said, sound production in woodwinds is not so much about linear flow through the instrument, it's about the generation of oscillating "standing waves" in the tube, these are what create the pitches and harmonics. The gross motion of air in a standing wave is back-and-forth and only over very short distances, and generally doesn't care much about the surface smoothness (or roughness), as long as the roughness isn't really severe.
Short answer: a bit of bore roughness vs. smooth bore will probably not make a noticeable difference; other factors are more significant.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Steven Ocone
Date: 2021-06-20 02:41
I posed this question to someone at Fox oboes once. He said smooth is better. Buffet polishes the bores of their clarinets.
Steve Ocone
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2021-06-20 03:26
Wurlitzer is another proponent of smoother bores. They coat the bore of there new horns with a layer of shellac. After a year, the shellac begins to ripple and you are supposed to send the horn back to Wurlitzer to have the bore polished out mirror smooth.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: prigault
Date: 2021-06-20 04:58
<pun mode>
A smooth bore also helps to keep the correct tempo, as the friction of flags and stems against a rough bore slows down notes the shorter they are, whereas whole notes roll through unimpeded.
</pun mode>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2021-06-20 15:55
Some mouthpiece makers believe in leaving some "texture" to the inside of the mouthpiece rather than a glass smooth finish, believing it helps the sound and feel. I have also heard it suggested that one of the reasons a wood barrel and plastic, synthetic or rubber barrel of the same dimensions seem to sound or feel different is due to the differences in the smoothness (or lack of) in the bore.
I have no information to back any of this up and it may be all anecdotal, but it would be interesting to learn more about any studies or experiments exploring this topic.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2021-06-20 19:45
David: -an excellent scientific analysis of the issue. The person I work for has three models of clarinets with almost identical bore dimensions. Yet the tone and response of each instrument are very different because of the size and placement of the tone-holes.
If a potential buyer sees that the bore is a bit on the rough side, he will think that a botched job was made of lathing it. The most famous instrument makers aim for a mirror-like smoothness for the sake of reaction to appearance.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2021-06-20 19:53
PS: Can you use your aerospace engineering knowledge to come up with an idea for reducing turbulence in the bore? The more turbulence, the less smoothness in elements like making register breaks. It would seem that the conic bore of an oboe makes the sound of an oboe more homogeneous.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pereira3D
Date: 2021-06-20 21:01
This is a topic I've experimented with for years while experimenting with so many new materials through 3D printing. A major factor is the density of the material. Materials that have a bit less density tend to fare better with a textured bore from my experience. Also, take into account Buffet's Prodige plastic student model clarinet. They've implemented a textured bore inside the Prodige's bell and I feel that it has made a positive difference.
Ryan Pereira
Pereira 3D Clarinet Services
www.Pereira3D.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2021-06-20 22:45
Hi Ryan! What exactly is "a textured bore"? How does it compensate for lack of density? If it does, we could use lighter wood like maple.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Pereira3D
Date: 2021-06-20 23:40
Hi, Ruben, hope you're well! I use the term "textured" as another way of saying "slightly rough." Too much roughness or an inconsistent amount of roughness can definitely deaden the sound and make the response wonky, so finding the right amount of "texture" is important. I'm only speaking for lighter 3D materials that I've worked with because that's what I've used for manufacturing (at least for barrels and bells, but am prototyping clarinet bodies at the moment). Mirror-smooth bores on 3D materials can lead to a brighter or even a brittle tone color for some materials. Leaving the bore with a slight texture can balance the sound nicely and offer the player more control in terms of response and focus.
Ryan Pereira
Pereira 3D Clarinet Services
www.Pereira3D.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2021-06-20 23:54
Theo Wanne's "Mantra" saxophone had a similar feature:
Quote:
The reticulated finish, which is also inside the saxophone, creates a boundary layer of air like the dimpled surface of a golf ball or like sharkskin does with water. As a result, the airstream travels freer through the saxophone!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2021-06-21 06:49
Golf balls! Golf balls have dimples because it makes them go further. They are more aerodynamic. Mythbusters did a show where they gave a car dimples and it had better gas mileage (or went faster, I forget). They couldn’t believe it, but it worked.
This may be the same boundary layer effect that is supposed to affect acoustics in rough bores.
I had a saxophone teacher who thought a horn played better with a little “build-up” in the neck. I’m not sure about that one, they’re kind of rough anyhow, and crud might get in the octave pip - but of course that *might* help.
I wonder if a rough bore with a boundary layer is less defined in its effective dimensions. In other words, maybe the effective bore is somewhat flexible, and can conform a little to the wave pattern, rather than forcing the wave to fit the bore. This would make the horn more responsive, and more resonant.
- Matthew Simington
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2021-06-21 09:38
kilo: Very interesting! The only trouble is that several people with more scientific knowledge than I have, have stated that the travelling of the air stream isn't a major factor. On the other hand, pressure waves have to travel and they do travel through air. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Let's try something like the dimpled surface of a golf . Maybe in the throat of the bell, which ultimately sends the pressure waves back to the reed.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2021-06-21 09:44
Mathew: Thank you for your insights. It is undeniable that if the pressure waves travel more freely from reed to bell and back to reed, response is smother and better. This is why clarinets with one body for the upper and bottom joint respond better (but warp!): there isn't the damping effect of cork on the tenons.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Micke Isotalo ★2017
Date: 2021-06-25 12:42
Here are just some of my personal experiences.
First, as I've told also in another post here a few years ago, a friend of mine was convinced that a bore still wet from oil (not absorbed in the wood) improved his tone. I suppose that was since the oil made the bore even smoother than just polished wood itself.
I noticed the same on my clarinets, BUT only in a very special setting. That was when my Wurlitzer clarinets were still quite new and when the protective lacquer coating that Paul told about above was only partly worn off. My guess is that the oil smoothed out the roughness of the bore created by the bits of lacquer still remaining. Later, when all lacquer was polished away at an overhaul, I didn't notice any difference in the sound with an oil wetted bore compared to a dry one.
Then more recently I tried out a new Wurlitzer clarinet set, where to my surprise the bore of one of the barrels had a rough finish (thus either polished or lacquered). Initially I thought that perhaps was on purpose, for a possible improvement of tone. However, trying it out it clearly wasn't the case - it didn't sound at all as good as the other, polished and lacquered ones. The build quality of Wurlitzer clarinets is absolute top notch, but here I believe that a non-finished barrel had just mistakenly been sent to me.
I wouldn't go as far as claiming that all clarinets would benefit tonally from a smooth (or even polished) rather than rough bore, but I'm convinced that this is the case at least with Wurlitzer clarinets. After all, the tone a certain clarinet is producing is a mix of all kind of parameters - and then of course also the players tastes varies a lot, so what may suit one may not suit another.
Also Irish Flutes could be a totally different story.
Post Edited (2021-06-25 12:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2021-06-26 15:48
Ruben: I know someone who test-played a Mantra sax and said, while being a well-made horn, there was nothing remarkable about the sound quality, response, or ease of blowing. Test-playing isn't the same as owning an instrument and playing it everyday, of course.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
