 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Hy-Dex
Date: 2024-02-29 02:40
I just purchased a new/old stock professional model grenadilla-wood clarinet, which I will break-in extremely slowly in an attempt to avoid both cracking and damage to the bore that might result in poor intonation. Apart from a play-test or two by other people in the past, this instrument has sat un-played since it left the factory, approximately 20-24 years ago.
I have made such a purchase twice before in that my favorite make/model is no longer made. The last time I purchased such an instrument, it had sat on the store shelf for 10-12 years. I broke it in very slowly over a five-year period, played it very little over the next five-year period, and have finally made great use of it the past year. The tone and intonation are excellent, no cracks have occurred, and I have never oiled the bore.
Note: when I do oil the bores of some (not all) of my clarinets, I use organic sweet almond oil per an authority on the matter, not traditional bore oil, which some people believe actually dries out the wood rather than moisturize it. I have used organic sweet almond oil to oil the bores of some of my older instruments, but I have not oiled any of my new and newer clarinets because some people have made a case against doing so. For example, some claim that it dulls the tone over time. Others claim that the oil is not needed anyway because the instrument soaks up enough oil for a lifetime in the early stages of the manufacturing process.
Because my new instrument in question at this time has sat un-played for double the length of time of my previous example, I cannot help but wonder if the bore might actually need some oil. Those with expert knowledge, please weight in. If there is a consensus that the bore needs to be oiled, should I oil it before I ever play the instrument and let it dry out again before playing, or, should I play it some, let it dry out, and then apply the oil? My goal is to break in the instrument successfully with no cracks or damage to the bore. The wood does not appear to be especially dry at this time.
Thank you in advance to all who provide suggestions and insights.
Hy-Dex
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crazyclari
Date: 2024-02-29 03:46
Hy Hydex,
Player's choice.
There is enough research out there to say that bore oil does not change the water absorption rate of wood, nor does it change the amount of water the clarinet will absorb. Some of this research is now from the 60s so a long time.
Nor is the oil 'really' absorbed by the wood.
In fact you could argue if the wood 'did' absorb the oil it would result in the wood being under the same stress as if it had absorbed water.
From my perspective the oil gumms up the pull through and reduces its ability to absorb moisture.
Don't use a silk pull through, highly abrasive and reduce moisture absorption.
If I remember correctly Michael Lowernstien stuck a barrel in oil and leaves it there for a long time and the cuts the part to show how much oil is absorbed. I believe it was on you tube.
IMHO, play for short periods, dry extensively, dont leave the clarinet together and no drastic temperature changes etc...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: m1964
Date: 2024-03-01 10:22
I have bought quite a few clarinets, new and used, in the last few years.
I follow Buffet's recommendation to play no more then 30 min./day, for the 1st month, almost.
I play 15 min. x 2/day for the first 10-12 days, then I slowly increase the time. Have not had anything crack yet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2024-03-01 12:27
I don't know if my experience is in any way typical, but I play frequently, swab frequently, oil very rarely and I've never had a clarinet crack in 70+ years of playing.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Micke Isotalo ★2017
Date: 2024-03-01 13:20
I can't actually see why an old stock but un-played clarinet should differ from a "new stock" one, in this regard. As far as I know, all manufacturers are treating the wood of their clarinets with an impregnation of some kind or other (presumably an oil of their choice, or perhaps a mixture of oil with some other ingredients). I can hardly believe this impregnation degrading to the point of not fulfilling its function, just by aging (at least not in the time scale of this case).
Another thing is that all wooden objects acclimatize to the ambient humidity of their surrounding, thus swelling at high humidity and shrinking at low humidity (that's when rings may become loose, etc) - regardless of oiling or other protective treatments. Also, what basically causes cracks are sudden changes in the humidity level in the wood itself, usually going from dry to wet faster than the wood is capable adapting itself to.
A cautious approach to breaking in clarinets could thus be to either avoid it completely during the dry winter season (thus postponing it to the more humid spring and summer), or at least to do it slower than usual during winter. But as said, at least I can't see any reason doing it slower with an 10-20 year old clarinet that hasn't ever been played, than a new one.
When it comes to oiling or not, a simple approach would be to just follow the recommendation from the manufacturer - at the time when this particular clarinet was manufactured. If it's a Buffet, they are at least not currently considering post-factory oiling as necessary - but don't know what they said 20-25 years ago.
If it's a German or Austrian made clarinet, all such makers that I know about are consistently recommending oiling, on a regular basis. So, at least in this case, I would definitely recommend an oiling already before blowing your very first tone. For a completely un-played such instrument I wouldn't actually expect it absorbing any oil at all, but just as a precaution - and by observing how long it would take a thin oil film becoming absorbed (or not at all), I would also get an idea about how long I could wait until the next oiling session.
Post Edited (2024-03-02 11:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2024-03-02 15:55
Mr Lowernsterns experiment to prove that oil didn't penetrate the wood was an effective piece of drama that entirely missed the point.
- at manufacturing stage you are oiling to season and stabilize the wood. They do this by not just immersing the billet, but doing so in a pressurized vacuum that literally sucks the air out and forces oil into the wood. I've watched it being done on a smaller scale and it's quite amazing, you still end up seeing little bubbles of air coming out hours into the process. The wood most definitely absorbs oil in this process.
- for the rest of the instruments lifespan any oiling serves only to reduce the absorption of moisture inside the bore (since the humidity inside the bore during playing is unusual and lingering). No instrument maker imagines that oiling the bore will impregnate the wood deeply, but only that it will reduce/discourage absorption that is not proportionate (ie more on the inside than the outside) and localised. The fact that most manufacturers recommend oiling with some regularity (whether once a year or once a month etc) suggests that they are aware this process has limited effectiveness.
I know people who have never oiled their clarinets, and never had a crack. Another player (in Ireland) bought a boxwood instrument a couple of years back, oiled it exactly as instructed and still had the upper joint split dramatically.
No one believes it is an exact science :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: m1964
Date: 2024-03-02 21:41
donald wrote:
> Mr Lowernsterns experiment to prove that oil didn't penetrate
> the wood was an effective piece of drama that entirely missed
> the point...
> any oiling serves only to reduce the absorption of moisture inside the bore
> (since the humidity inside the bore during playing is unusual
> and lingering). No instrument maker imagines that oiling the
> bore will impregnate the wood deeply, but only that it will
> reduce/discourage absorption that is not proportionate (ie more
> on the inside than the outside) and localised.
Excellent point!
Also, we all use different oils.
Even if it's called "Sweet Almond oil", there are different products being sold.
The sweet almond oil I bought at the local drugstore, was very thin compared to the sweet almond oil I got from Amazon. Yet, both have the same name.
There is no way for a consumer to check what is in the bottle.
I think that a thinner oil would cover surface better, but I am not sure.
In fact, I did not oil a used clarinet I got recently, just started playing it 15 min. x 2 per day, and increased playing time just after one week.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julian ibiza
Date: 2024-03-03 00:28
I agree that although the instrument has been in its box for years, the factory treatment should be as good as new.
As for oiling the bore, I figure that if you apply oil and then find the wood has absorbed the oil after leaving it for a while, then that oil absorption is taking the place of water absorption when you are playing. That the absorption of oil and the absorption of water are the same for the wood is untrue. The latter creates expansion. I'm not advocating bore oiling, as the evidence that it prevents cracking seems to not be very strong.
Best just think of yourself as the trainer of a sportsman. Train it up gradually for the sporting event. Get it well warmed up beforehand and try not to expose it to unfair trials. If it's not cut out for the sport, it will probably crack whatever you do.
Julian Griffiths
Tel. 34 696 798 853
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2024-03-04 01:27
Years ago my longtime repairman told me a funny story. He said that over the years Buffet changed their recommendation a number of times on oiling. He said it because a running joke between him and the Buffet rep. He said whenever he came in to his shop he would smile and ask "so are we oiling these days or not?" He said the answer went back and forth between yes and no.
As far as cracks, I have known players who babied instruments over long periods with a long break in process who ended up having cracks. I know others who just shrugged off the the whole thing and just played the instrument from day 1 with no issues.
So, maybe the definitive answer is do what works best for you and are most comfortable doing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crazyclari
Date: 2024-03-06 11:56
Hi, If anyone wants a copy of a well researched factual study that pretty much covers all of the things discussed feel free to let me know.
I tried up loading it but...
While I love a good opinion...
Cheers Glen
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julian ibiza
Date: 2024-03-06 16:17
Hi Glen,
If you could send the study to my email, I would like to read it. The bore oiling issue seems to always provoke controversy with no real resolution among forum members. It's like a discussion over whether Atlantis exists or not. LOL
Julian Griffiths
Tel. 34 696 798 853
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crazyclari
Date: 2024-03-08 08:03
Hi Julian,
Not a problem/done.
More like whether Atlantis exists or not with no research or facts, from the comfort of one's lounge room chair.
As far as I can see I have gone away when an idea has been raised and researched that idea to prove/disprove it. Having gathered the facts in certain circumstances I have challenged opinion that appear to have no factual basis.
The real problem I have seen with many of these discussions is that opinions get bounced around, but very often very little in the way of facts are researched, read and/or assessed and utilised.
Previously noted
> Mr Lowernsterns experiment to prove that oil didn't penetrate
> the wood was an effective piece of drama that entirely missed
> the point...
> any oiling serves only to reduce the absorption of moisture inside the bore
> (since the humidity inside the bore during playing is unusual
> and lingering). No instrument maker imagines that oiling the
> bore will impregnate the wood deeply, but only that it will
> reduce/discourage absorption that is not proportionate (ie more
> on the inside than the outside) and localised.
The facts on this are reaaaaaallly old and quite clear. 1967...
I was using them probably 40+ years ago as the basis for my opinions on this matter. I was not making up what I opinioned. Likely there may be more current research.
Simply a direct quote
"It is evident that very little water was absorbed in all cases" Treated and untreated wood.
"the different treatments did not produce differences that are experimentally significant"
Showed "a water layer of only 0.001 centimeter thick" was absorbed
Unfortunately/fortunately Mr Lowerstern's showy demonstration is much closer to someone/a repairer oiling a clarinet than what the factory initially does and as a consequence closer to reality, although not ideal. Personally I love his you tube stuff:)
On one of the other threads I noticed the concept of "high tongue" the facts are clear on this. Another one is open throat. It is all well researched with a strong repository of facts available, if only people looked....
Regarding Buffet, I have had a hard enough time ordering a case cover from them as they can't sort out the part number for that....
When i was working in a repair shop 25 years ago, buffet (as far as I know) just started recommending not oiling. Since then who knows...
Cheers
Post Edited (2024-03-08 15:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2024-03-08 16:56
There's a video on YouTube which shows a major clarinet manufacturer treating wood with oil under pressure/vacuum. In vacuum, oil evaporates at lower temperature. So the wood is actually exposed to oil vapour. Vapour will penetrate the wood more than liquid.
If wood moves with the climactic conditions then it's the moisture in the air that's entering the wood. Similarly, the moisture in one's breath will penetrate the wood, though some condenses in the bore as well. I believe this to be the case because I see signs of moisture on small and limited external areas of my instruments (following pattern of the grain), presumably where the wood is less dense. So, I suspect is it the moisture as vapour that's worse for the wood than the condensed stuff we can swab away? If that is the case, I would imagine oiling the bore helps prevent moisture in the form of either liquid or vapour from entering the wood, at least from the inside. Has any of the research looked at the effect on instruments of moisture as vapour?
However, oiling or not oiling could be immaterial, depending on the particular instrument (those pieces of wood and their structure), how that wood was treated, how the instrument was manufactured, how it's been played/stored/treated/serviced (and the frequency of those), where it's been played (indoors, outside), local climate conditions and their variability, and the speed at which climate changes over days, weeks, months, maybe even hours. With all the variables, is it any wonder there's mixed experience with oiling or not oiling?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Micke Isotalo ★2017
Date: 2024-03-08 23:31
At about 1 minute into this video from the Schreiber clarinet factory, several huge pressure tanks can be seen, where large baskets full of angular but drilled out pieces of wood for later machining into clarinet body parts are sunk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZQprUXwFs8&ab_channel=OmegaMusicUK
At least to me, those tanks looks as pressure tanks, not vacuum tanks. Thus no vapour, but the pressurization of the fluid inside must be to accelerate its absorbtion into the pieces of wood.
The first attached picture (in my next post below) is from a new Schreiber German system clarinet I had for trial for just a couple of weeks, "bleeding" bore oil from the surface (that happened after some time of continuous playing, when the instrument got warmed up).
The other attached picture is from my own Wurlitzer clarinet, also "bleeding" bore oil from the surface. That happens whenever I have oiled it to full saturation (the bore staying wet, not absorbing further oil), and also after some time of playing when the instrument gets warm.
In the third picture that same area is wiped clean. Interestingly it's a particularly "nongrainy" area of the body, while one could expect a "leakage" to appear at a seemingly less solid place.
I've never oiled the outside of this clarinet, only the bore. Thus, at least to me, this is proof beyond doubt that also simple post-factory oiling of just the bore not only gets the oil absorbed into the wood, but also (with fully saturated wood) gets the oil to "travel" all the way through the body wall to the outside surface (and yes, this joint is airtight as a bottle, so no cracks or similar for neither air or oil to escape such a way).
When posting these pictures a few years ago in another thread here, someone commented on them as remarkable. However, with at least German or Austrian made clarinets I think this is just perfectly normal (bear in mind also that some Buffet models are/has been made by Schreiber, with probably the same factory oiling process as for Schreiber's own clarinets).
Post Edited (2024-03-09 12:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julian ibiza
Date: 2024-03-09 01:33
Hi Glen,
Thank you for sending me that scientifically conducted study.... Very interesting. At the risk of muddling rather than clearing the waters however, I would offer that there is going to be some differences between oiling untreated wood and pressure treated wood, because although untreated wood is likely to be initially more absorbent, it is bucking its own surface tension to penetrate. If the wood has been pressure treated with an oil, then the quantity of the bore oil absorbed may be less, but upon meeting the existing oil in the wood it is likely drawn in deeper supplementing saturation.( This would explain the wicking of oil from bore to exterior on Micke's horn when warmed up.) If this has any real bearing on the matter of oiling or not I don't know. What I do know is that pressure treating likely saturates the wood through and through. Although the water repellent nature of this treatment may gradually reduce, so too is the wood gradually adapting to the internal tensions in a gradually increasing micro flexing of the fibers. ( like arriving at a degree of physical flexibility through gradually increased stretching exercises perhaps?) This is likely why manufacturers aren't endorsing bore oiling, because they're counting on their pressure treatment to adequately pace the gradual conditioning of the instrument to reach final resistance ( that's obviously a relative and subjective state). That's just my educated guess for want of a reasoned explanation from manufacturers themselves. Also they likely hate the idea of careless bore oiling messing up pads and leaving excess residues.
A friend of mine who makes wooden archery bows once told me that you don't just make a bow and bend it to full draw. You should put it on the jig that bends it repeatedly and progressively,?gradually working it up to full draw. Hence it will bend where otherwise it would break because the wood fibers have be worked microscopically.
Sorry for adding another dose of physics speculations to the whole issue.LOL
Julian Griffiths
Tel. 34 696 798 853
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Julian ibiza
Date: 2024-03-09 12:05
Indeed that was really just another dollop of useless speculation for anyone simply interested in preventing their instrument from cracking .. Ha-ha!
To try to sum up the information and weight of opinion on the matter as best I can grasp it, it seems that the most important practice here is playing in the new instrument gradually and from then on being diligent about warming up the top joint before playing. Also having some awareness that if the conditions are dry, or if the instrument hasn't been played for some time, that extra care is in order.
The factory pressure treatment plays a principal roll in the protection of the wood from moisture in the bore, but as this protection slowly reduces, the individual piece of wood will either be one which is destined to crack because of some existing flaw... or not.
The fact that verdicts are so out on the effectiveness of bore oiling, rather suggests that it is at best a minor player in the whole matter.
This is obviously just another opinion, but I try to offer it as a synopsis that reasonably embraces all the general opinion on the matter that seems to go round and round on this forum. It is of course impossible to prove that an instrument was saved from cracking by bore oiling ... but by the same token it just might be so in some cases.
Ps. And anybody who believes in Atlantis is missing the fact that Plato was not only a journalist, but also a social philosopher with an axe to grind.
Plato:
" I'm warning you guys!.... if you don't get some bore oil on those instruments then your continent is going to sink beneath the waves." Hee-hee !
Julian Griffiths
Tel. 34 696 798 853
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: donald
Date: 2024-03-09 16:24
My old Buffet S1 clarinets were accidentally left in the sun for a few hours (this was in 1984, they had been put next to a window at night and then had the curtain drawn across them so I didn't notice they were sitting in the morning sun until they'd been there for a few hours). They "sweated" oil, drops of oil like sweat came out of the surface. The clarinets didn't crack immediately, but a week later they both got hairline cracks. A coincidence? who knows.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crazyclari
Date: 2024-03-10 06:01
Hi Julian as per the research there is no statistical difference between the amount water absorbed by a treated (oiled) or untreated wood (clarinet). Oiling does zero (non-existent impact) and potentially does harm by leaving muck behind. The research reccomends not oiling based on the total lack of effectiveness of oiling it also highlights (as we all know) to avoid temperature change. It really is simple. Thanks for reading the article, good to have someone interested in facts.
Note this is not in reference to factory pressure oiling. I am not a hydro dynamics expert but fluid under industrial levels of pressure is.....
Post Edited (2024-03-11 03:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crazyclari
Date: 2024-03-10 06:26
I should note again this research was first published in 1967. It would seem in nearly 60 years that no-one has looked for the research/facts, that's a worry. The above facts should put an end to this discussion going around and around.
Hi Don, sorry to hear about your S1's its upsetting when it happens. I had the top joint replaced on my L300 at about the same time. (last clarinet I oiled, last crack) It opened up like a can of spam...
Post Edited (2024-03-10 06:32)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hy-Dex
Date: 2024-03-12 05:27
Thanks to everyone who contributed information and suggestions. The instrument in question is a LeBlanc Concerto (I) Bb clarinet. As someone suggested, I will follow the manufacturer's recommendation concerning oiling, as well as the designer's personal recommendation to me. I will break-in the instrument very slowly, carefully warm it with my hands before each brief play session, swab and use pad paper frequently, and wipe the sockets and tenons dry after each play session. Thanks, again.
Hy-Dex
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crazyclari
Date: 2024-03-12 08:59
Lovely horn, I bought an Opus Bb second hand and recently an Opus A and C.
I have had Stephen Fox make a basset extension for the A and am awaiting the same for the Bb.
Have fun on your horn.
Post Edited (2024-03-12 09:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hy-Dex
Date: 2024-03-12 18:10
Thanks, crazyclari. In my opinion and experience, the LeBlanc France Concerto/Concerto II models are among the very best concerning tone, intonation, evenness, and response, and I have read many such testimonials by Opus/Opus II players as well. I am glad that you have your own such collection.
You mentioned in a previous post that silk swabs are abrasive and do not absorb much moisture. I have heard this from other people too. Assuming this is true, why are silk swabs so highly recommended for use with wooden instruments? For example, a regional master repair technician in the Indianapolis area chastised me when he saw my Yamaha microfiber swab, which seems soft and very absorbent. I assured him that I also have many 100% silk swabs and he told me to use only 100% silk.
However, after I use a silk swab, I often resort to using the microfiber swab immediately afterwards in order to remove more moisture. It seems to me that microfiber absorbs more moisture. And, does the slightly abrasive property of 100% silk actually result in any small amount of erosion or other damage over time? Thank you.
Hy-Dex
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Micke Isotalo ★2017
Date: 2024-03-13 13:23
Hy-Dex, just adding a bit to something I merely touched on in a previous post above.
If there happens to be a loose ring anywhere on this clarinet, I would strongly recommend you to make it tight before any playing at all. Choose whatever technique you find appropriate, or leave it to a tech (by the search-function here you can find at least a couple of suggestions about how to do it yourself).
A loose ring means there is room for unrestricted expansion of the wood underneath, and the more sudden that expansion occurs, the higher likelihood for a crack.
Another sign of excessive shrinkage of the wood due to a lower than usual humidity level is binding keys (one of the most sensitive to this is the throat A-key).
If you for whatever reason are hesitant about tightening a loose ring, or all rings are ok but you have a binding key, I would recommend abstaining from playing until you have raised the moisture level by other means - with such as a case humidifier, orange peels inside your case, or similar. If you get the rings tight and binding keys loose this way, you could then start playing, according to your "normal" break-in plan.
In case someone concludes from this that the wood of an un-played clarinet just gets drier and drier for "all eternity", that isn't true. To start with, all clarinet makers dries their wood stock, in one way or another. That drying is sufficient when the moisture level of the wood is at least closely corresponding to the ambient humidity of the facilities where this particular clarinet factory is located (that way the wood staying dimensionally stable throughout the whole manufacturing process).
After leaving the factory, an un-played clarinet will just acclimatize itself to the ambient humidity wherever in the world it ends up. If in an environment with higher humidity than at the factory, the moisture level in the wood will rise (with swelling) - and if in a drier environment, the moisture goes down (with shrinking).
Since ambient humidity in most places varies, not least with the seasons (dry in the winter, moist in the summer), also the moisture level in the wood of this still un-played clarinet will vary accordingly (thus going through a yearly cycle of swelling and shrinking, all by its own).
This is partly the reason why I can't see why a break-in-process for a newly manufactured clarinet, compared to one that hasn't been played for years - or even decades - should be any different.
Post Edited (2024-03-13 15:40)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Micke Isotalo ★2017
Date: 2024-03-13 14:09
Concerning swabs, I don't have knowledge about the possible abrasiveness of silk vs microfiber. But a factor anyone concerned about this could consider, is the pure size of the swab. A large one that has to be pulled through with considerable force, would of course have at least the potential of "grinding" the bore more than a smaller one - regardless of its material. On the other hand, a too small one would't collect moisture as efficiently as a larger one. So, at least choosing a suitable size (or adjusting it) could be a sensible starter.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crazyclari
Date: 2024-03-14 04:46
Hi, i cant tell you why he has that opinion. Shops used to sell those fluffy things that you pushed into clarinets, Saxophones and flutes etc. The repairers I know hated them as they left fluff/lint on the pads, sucked up moisture to the pads and generally kept the horn wetter, my only answer to those was, money...
Its why I keep banging on about facts. Simple research will confirm that silk is as described. Currently I use a 2 dollar pull through from China😀 Believe me I am truely fastidious about this stuff, hence the research. I try and find out about the facts...
I have heard some truely.... opinions about some things.
BTW the Opus A and C were NOS. Like everything players choice.
Totally agree re: Tenon rings above. I just repaired a full boehm selmer 9 that had the nickel insert in the middle tenon. Likely shrunk as described above and split.
If you like let me know your thoughts on horn. The Opus and Concerto had the same diameter bore at the bottom of the top joint. My 'suspicion' is that the bore itself may have varied. The catalogue and general comments from many is that they were acoustically identical.
Many comments have also said that the Concerto had a darker sound. Could just be the barrell. Who knows?
I went to textile learner.com silk is more absorbent than cotton, less than wool. Microfibre? seems to do a good job as you say
Post Edited (2024-03-14 08:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
