 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2025-02-06 19:05
The top pad on the lower joint, the one that's operated by the right hand rings, is not closing securely. The notes just below it in all registers it are defective unless I press the rings down extra hard. As a test, I play clarion F5 by closing the top finger hole with my middle finger, and it barely wants to sound, and then I use my index finger to press down on said pad, and it palpably closes slightly further, and then the note sounds normally.
This appeared after getting some bumper corks and the middle tenon cork replaced, and my repair tech also removed the keys and cleaned the tone holes. Somehow this ring / pad height got out of adjustment. I could let him know, and he'd fix it, but he's very busy right now and also in another town, and I need this working in a couple days. Therefore, if I could fix this myself, I'd just as soon.
What is the proper fix?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Luuk
Date: 2025-02-06 19:15
(sorry, wrong pad addressed)
Regards,
Luuk
Philharmonie Brainport
The Netherlands
Post Edited (2025-02-06 19:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Luuk
Date: 2025-02-06 19:24
Attachment: IMG_20250206_162119.jpg (189k)
Sand down the cork in the 'bridge' between upper and lower joint. See picture.
Regards,
Luuk
Philharmonie Brainport
The Netherlands
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-02-06 20:14
Attachment: cork.jpg (48k)
Make sure the joints are aligned to how you like it before adjusting the long Bb regulation.
Personally I absolutely hate it when people use cork everywhere (besides cork pads and the throat A stopper) as there are far better alternatives and the cork should've died off yonks ago along with the dinosaurs, although it proves there's still dinosaurs out there still using outdated repair techniques.
There are some numpties out there who say the lower edges of the ring keys should never go above the height of the tonehole chimneys when the ring keys are released, only if you consider the relation will change depending on the angle you view them at, that's going to be massively variable compared to measuring the actual venting of the ring key pad which is far more reliable. If you were to base the venting on not seeing any daylight between the lower edge of the ring key and the tonehole chimney, you'd have hardly any venting and the instrument will be stuffy as anything in the lower register.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2025-02-06 20:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2025-02-06 20:59
As a test you can try rotating the upper and lower sections so the bridge is not engaging and try playing those notes. It will be uncomfortable and weird but just as a test.
If they play fine that way, then either the bridge is mis-adjusted, or at least it is mis-adjusted when the sections are in the orientation that you have them when you play at least.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2025-02-08 03:48
Thanks to all for the advice. If I slightly misalign the bridge as clarnibass suggests, just a sixteenth of an inch or less, that cures the problem. For now, that will suffice, as my hands don't noticeably register the small difference in playing angle.
However, the little cork between the bridge arms was not replaced, and in fact it is a bit worn, and I've been having right along to be quite accurate in assembling so that the bridge aligned perfectly straight, or other problems would appear. I suppose now, as the cork inevitably wears further, I'll gradually have to adjust the alignment back toward straight on.
I've emailed the tech for his thoughts. He did replace the middle tenon cork, and it's thicker than the old one. If that did not change the centering of the bore, it should be making no difference to the bridge.
For now, I'm good to go for playing, but I wouldn't mind figuring out what caused the height change.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2025-02-08 09:30
If either the lower section top pad or the left hand D/A key pad was changed (or both) it affects the bridge adjustment.
Maybe they adjusted the bridge linkage but not accurately.
It could have bent accidentally. This is the most common reason for it to go out of adjustment (second is a linkage cork falling off). I guess it's less likely that it happened while being repaired... but possible. Either way it's one of the main things to check on a clarinet after it's repaired.
The bridge linkage design is poor on most clarinets, so if you move it a fraction it can already move significantly out of adjustment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2025-02-08 14:31
Can anyone put me right about the top/bottom joint linkage. Some models have a wide, 'fish tail' shape on the upper joint part of the linkage. I'd always assumed this was to allow the joints to be rotated relative to each other to suit the preferred hand position of the player. However, an English maker, who includes this feature in their instruments, insisted the main arms/shaft of the linkage needed to be aligned for the mechanism to work properly. In which case the fish tail shape became unnecessary, or so it seems to me. So why include it? Am I missing something.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-02-08 17:38
The 'fish tail' is there to aid assembly, so you should ideally line up the bridge key so the centres of both overlever and underlever align with each other. You can also use the sides of both parts of the linkage so they both line up with each other.
B&H and Peter Eaton clarinets have the main action toneholes slightly misaligned when the linkage is lined up so your wrists and elbows are slightly more relaxed than they would be if everything lined up.
Selmer usually have the ramps on the RH ring key foot and Buffet and Yamaha usually have the ears (or fish tail) on the LH2 linkage - B&H used to have the fish tail on the top (as Buffet/Yamaha) then they flipped it around in the late '50s/early '60s and put the fish tail on the RH ring key foot.
Some Selmers and others don't have the ramps/ears/fish tails, so you'd have to hold the LH2 ring key down during assembly which is good practice on all clarinets to be sure you don't tear off the linkage corks or worse still, mash up the entire linkage which is all too common when people don't know how to hold the joints during assembly.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2025-02-09 16:47
Thanks, Chris.
So if the fish tail isn't for allowing rotation of the joints, why don't manufacturers create a mechanism that does?
Though I have big hands, I find the LH E/B pinky key on my CSG IIIs just reachable. I rotate the joints very slightly to get a bit more traction on the key. Luckily that doesn't cause problems. If my fingers were any shorter I'd be in trouble, so a lot of people must have difficulty reaching E/B. So, would alternative to joint rotation be key bending?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-02-09 19:52
Chris P wrote:
> Some Selmers and others don't have the ramps/ears/fish tails,
> so you'd have to hold the LH2 ring key down during assembly
> which is good practice on all clarinets to be sure you don't
> tear off the linkage corks or worse still, mash up the entire
> linkage which is all too common when people don't know how to
> hold the joints during assembly.
>
For some reason - I think to make it easier to align the bridge keys visually, Hans Moennig used to remove the ramps/ears/fish-tails entirely. He assumed players knew how to assemble their clarinets. Or that clarinet teachers were making a point of teaching their students how to do it.
I still don't ever just rotate the two sections into place without pressing on LH2 to raise the upper bridge key. Even on clarinets with ramps, I can't make myself trust them.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2025-02-09 19:54
>> So if the fish tail isn't for allowing rotation of the joints, why don't manufacturers create a mechanism that does? <<
If you mean a mechanism that allows rotation without affecting adjustment... one reason is that manufacturers often don't have the best designs.
There is a reason to make it so rotating the sections would affect adjustment and that's just in case the bridge keys bend accidentally. If it's not by some huge amount you could rotate slightly and adjust it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-02-09 21:34
If the pillars for the RH ring keys were the same height as the ones for the LH2 ring key, then you'd have a much better relation between both parts of the bridge key and no sliding, but rotating the joints will still affect the regulation as you're still altering the leverages.
You're most likely to find all the ring keys mounted at the same heights on clarinets with a single piece body joint if both the RH and LH ring keys share the same height pillar between them.
One way around the creakiness of the sliding motion between both parts of the linkage are to use low friction materials (and natural cork isn't one of them) or fit a roller or bearing as Martin Foag has done on his clarinets:
https://www.thomann.co.uk/martin_foag_bb_metal_clarinet_17_6.htm
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: m1964
Date: 2025-02-09 22:59
clarnibass wrote:
>> So if the fish tail isn't for allowing rotation of the joints, why don't manufacturers create a mechanism that does? <<
"If you mean a mechanism that allows rotation without affecting adjustment... one reason is that manufacturers often don't have the best designs.
There is a reason to make it so rotating the sections would affect adjustment and that's just in case the bridge keys bend accidentally. If it's not by some huge amount you could rotate slightly and adjust it."
I just took apart a Selmer 10G where the 3-ring key has a convex "fish-tail" and the arm from the one-ring key (from the upper joint) looks to be slightly concave so it probably would allow for some degree of rotation without affecting the pads alignment.
Not sure if it's a factory future or someone modified the one-ring key arm.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-02-09 23:31
The shape of the linkages won't have much effect when it comes to the alignment of the joints as you're still altering the leverages in relation to each other regardless of their shapes. You'll never find a bridge key linkage that will allow the same degree of regulation on any clarinet and all bridge key linkages have one optimal alignment where the long Bb regulation is working as it should.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2025-02-10 00:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2025-02-10 14:02
Chris, if the fish tail follows the curve of the body of the clarinet, that is, its upper surface remains parallel to it, I don't understand why the other arm of the mechanism wouldn't work properly if the joints were twisted?
From the few examples of this I've seen, it seemed to me the curve of the fish tail in relation to the curve of the body wasn't particularly well executed, but then, from what you say, perhaps it wasn't supposed to be. Alternatively, perhaps those fish tails had been damaged. I certainly take the point that the fish tail helps a little bit in assembling the joints.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2025-02-10 19:04
>> if the fish tail follows the curve of the body of the clarinet, that is, its upper surface remains parallel to it, I don't understand why the other arm of the mechanism wouldn't work properly if the joints were twisted? <<
The critical point is that it has to be parallel to the clarinet body in the pressed position (which obviously means it won't be in the released position). Even if part is made that way, it still needs to be adjusted after installing the pad, etc. Then it would work that way. In reality since there are soft materials it doesn't have to be perfect to work.
>> From the few examples of this I've seen, it seemed to me the curve of the fish tail in relation to the curve of the body wasn't particularly well executed, but then, from what you say, perhaps it wasn't supposed to be. Alternatively, perhaps those fish tails had been damaged. I certainly take the point that the fish tail helps a little bit in assembling the joints. <<
It wasn't well executed because many parts on many instruments don't have the best design. Better instruments mostly have a better design, but they still have issues and compromises.
Some Selmers have a relatively good shape for the bridge key (compared with most others), but it's more likely that it wasn't made exactly parallel originally.
The disadvantage of having it that way is, as already mentioned, is that it doesn't allow small adjustments if the key bends slightly by accident, etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-02-10 20:41
The 'fish tails' are only there to provide ease of assembly as opposed to allow the mechanism to remain in full regulation regardless of how the joints are fitted. If you prefer the joints to be offset for comfort, then the fish tail will allow the joints to be assembled as you wish but will only allow the correct regulation at that point as opposed to the full width of the fish tail. It's all down to geometry.
Rotating the joints will affect the leverages of both parts of the mechanism regardless of their shapes as both parts of the mechanism are still mounted in the same place as the pillars aren't moving. The inside edge of the linkage is moving at a different rate to the outside edge. An easy way to see that is look at a record - the outer edge of a record will move much more in relation to the inside (label) edge. It may move by the same degree (angle), but the distances will be massively different - you'll see that on the lines of a protractor as they diverge from the inside point to the outer edge. will The bridge key is effectively working like gears and you're changing the gearing by rotating the joints.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2025-02-10 20:41)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2025-02-11 09:55
<< Rotating the joints will affect the leverages of both parts of the mechanism regardless of their shapes as both parts of the mechanism are still mounted in the same place as the pillars aren't moving. >>
It might seem like that but that is actually not true. When rotating, it is only when the keys are in the pressed position. It doesn't matter if the parallel side is the top or bottom, the linkage point would remain the same and move along that parallel line. The distance of each linkage to the body/keys remains the same.
<< An easy way to see that is look at a record - the outer edge of a record will move much more in relation to the inside (label) edge. It may move by the same degree (angle), but the distances will be massively different >>
That would affect the change between the pressed and released positions. Let's say the parallel side is the top of the bridge. In the pressed position (parallel), it would simply move along that parallel line. In the released position, that linkage is now not parallel, with the player side (in playing position) now closer to the clarinet body than the keys side. Meaning the relation between the venting of the two pads (lower section top pad and upper section D/A key pad) would change. The radius for adjustment (i.e. your record example) doesn't change because it's only rotating in the same (pressed) position.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-02-11 20:50
You're applying two rotational aspects together in any linkage and moving either of them in relation to the other will be the difference between it working and not working.
The distance may remain the same on both parts of the linkage in relation to the pillars they're both mounted between (both the LH2 ring keys and the RH ring keys) as the lengths of the linkage pieces are completely fixed, but rotating the joints will change the relation between the two parts of the linkage and move the contact point of them and throw the long Bb adjustment out, regardless of their shapes.
That's just basic geometry and true with all instruments where there's a linkage across a joint - you'll see this on bass clarinets with linkages across the joints as well as on oboes which have several linkages across all joints. If you rotate the main body joints by a few degrees, you'll most noticeably affect the F#-G# regulation and if you rotate the bell by a few degrees in relation to the lower joint, that will affect the closure of the bell key pad.
Soft spongy pads and compressible silencing materials will go some way of wiggle room or margin of error, but much firmer materials and harder pads will highlight the issue.
The fact of the matter is if you misalign any linkage by a few degrees, you're going to alter the regulation in one way or another and all linkages across joints have an optimal position to achieve the correct regulation (ie. the closure of the two or more pads involved).
It's normal to have one part of the linkage flat and the other part radiused (convex) for a smooth action instead of having both parts flat (which will cause wear or a clunky action) or both parts radiused/convex (which will make the alignment very critical). Having one part convex (usually the underlever) and the other part (overlever) concave will also make the alignment of the linkage very critical.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JTJC
Date: 2025-02-11 21:42
Thanks Chris and Clarnibass. I think understand the problem a little better now. So, if we're only talking about a small rotation, would it work if the material between the two levers was the thickness necessary for the twisted position, provide venting etc isn't badly affected?
With such a critical linkage, I'm surprised the CSG IIIs have the E/B lever so far over (to the right, as you hold in playing position) . I'm sure it must be a problem for many users. Anyone found the same.
So, failing adjustment by rotation, I'm left with key bending? Not that I'd do that myself.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2025-02-11 23:49
My tech has replied, saying that the tighter tenon cork is likely the cause of my problem as it allows for less tolerance in the bridge key adjustment. He also apologized for misjudging it despite making an effort to be sure it was correct, and he'd like me to bring the instrument back in for corrective adjustment.
I may do as he suggests just to better understand how the tolerance was affected by the tighter cork, since I'm not quite visualizing it. However, over several days the problem appears to have gradually lessened; today it needed just a miniscule offset - barely any - for things to work nicely. If the tighter cork is indeed the cause, I wonder if it has compressed a little with use and thereby reduced the needed offset.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-02-12 01:05
It's not usually tight tenon corks that cause problems if they're sufficiently greased, but tight fitting tenon rings binding up in the sockets usually cause things to stick and making fine adjustments erratic. Cork is compressible whereas grenadilla (or any other wood) isn't. And on the other side of things, loose fitting tenons will cause more problems if the joints wobble about and no amount of cork will cure that.
If your LH E/B lever is set too far towards the right in you're having to reach inwards for it (and risk leaking off the LH2 or LH3 toneholes), then it's easy enough to bend to the best position for you, although the LH F#/C# lever will also have to be bent so they don't clatter against each other. Only have your repairer do that while you're present to be sure they're set to the best position for you.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-02-12 03:23
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-02-12 03:22
Philip Caron wrote:
> My tech has replied, saying that the tighter tenon cork is
> likely the cause of my problem as it allows for less tolerance
> in the bridge key adjustment.
I've been loosely following this thread, but now I' confused. What does "allows less tolerance in the bridge adjustment" mean? If the joint is difficult to move (the result of too tight a cork), it may be harder to get just the right place in rotating the tenon, but that should, if the cork fits into the socket, be eased by greasing the cork. Some of my students over the years have had the same problem even with tenon corks that weren't poorly fitted - because they never used grease until I harassed them about it.
Chris P wrote:
> ...but tight fitting tenon rings
> binding up in the sockets usually cause things to stick and
> making fine adjustments erratic.
Chris, how tight can a tenon ring be made to fit? I guess I've never had a tenon ring machine-fitted once a clarinet left the factory. Most loose rings are caused by dryness. We've always - even the repair people I've gone to - tightened loose rings up with humidity (orange peels or Dampits years ago) or, if that didn't work, paper shims. Do you have a machine that tightens up tenon rings when they loosen? How do you make them tight enough to bind the cork?
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-02-12 04:53
Those are socket rings which loosen up when the wood shrinks - tenon rings are the machined wooden rings on the tenons that should fit nicely in their respective sockets and on may clarinets, the tenon ring on the end of the tenon is protected with a metal tenon tip ring which again should fit well in the base of the socket.
Unfortunately on some clarinets including many B&H clarinets as well as Buffet Prestiges, the metal tenon rings are undersize and the middle joint wobbles about like anything on them. That can either be dealt with either by shimming the tenon ring by skimming it down and soft soldering a metal shim onto it and machining it to the correct diameter, or removing and replacing the tenon rings if they're loose or damaged.
Undersize wooden tenon rings can be rebuilt with superglue and wood dust and machined to size, replaced with a wooden or plastic sleeve and machined to size or sleeved with metal depending which is most suitable.
Loose socket rings will have to be refitted to ensure the socket doesn't crack as they add the necessary support to the sockets when the tenons are fitted into them. In most cases if they're a bit loose so they rotate but won't drop clean off, they can be glued back on or if they're excessively loose and drop off easily, they'd have to be shimmed and refitted so they're tight and supporting the socket.
ALL wooden sockets need reinforcing with metal socket rings - sockets with integral machined wide diameter socket rings don't offer any reinforcement as the sockets can still crack along the grain line of the tenon is a tight fit, or even a loose fit as that too can crack sockets from the force they exert within the socket when the joints rock.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: crazyclari
Date: 2025-02-12 06:23
Just as a thought 'if'any of the two pads concerned are not sitting flat any leakage/sealing problem may be exacerbated by the linkage being out alignment etc. This may be feeding in to the package.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2025-02-12 17:55
Hi Karl. I don't understand how the tenon cork would affect the bridge, and I want to. The cork is well greased, and bridge alignment is accurately managed.
At this point, the problem has lessened in severity to where only tiny rotational offset is needed in the bridge, an amount so small that a less careful assembly might generally accept it. I've been accustomed to perfectly aligning the bridge arms because the cork between them has gotten a little worn. However, at present if I do perfectly align the bridge arms, then the affected notes are still a noticeable bit resistant.
I'm content for now, as the small rotational offset doesn't noticeably affect my playing, and I'm imagining that it allows room for future wear of the pertaining corks and adjustment therefor.
As one who yearly removes all the keys and clean the toneholes myself, I've learned - perforce! - and continue to learn that the mechanics of the clarinet are nothing as simple as they immediately appear.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2025-02-12 19:43
Philip Caron wrote:
> Hi Karl. I don't understand how the tenon cork would affect
> the bridge, and I want to. The cork is well greased, and
> bridge alignment is accurately managed.
>
That might be something that (maybe?) your tech could explain. I'd be interested in the explanation.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2025-02-13 10:39
>> The distance may remain the same on both parts of the linkage in relation to the pillars they're both mounted between (both the LH2 ring keys and the RH ring keys) as the lengths of the linkage pieces are completely fixed, but rotating the joints will change the relation between the two parts of the linkage and move the contact point of them and throw the long Bb adjustment out, regardless of their shapes.
That's just basic geometry... <<
OK I'm not sure how to explain it better, especially in English. The adjustment is only considered in the pressed position (i.e. when the key is pressed, bridge is up, and the two keys need to close). We can assume the key/pad being closed a single position, and it doesn't sound like you meant the tiniest movement by closing the key itself with less or more force to be the issue so we are not considering this as something that affects this adjustment.
Sorry but the above is not correct. In that (pressed) position, it doesn't matter that the two sides of the bridge linkage are attached to posts with different lengths. If the linkage shape is parallel to the clarinet body rotation, and the other side of the linkage moves along that parallel linkage arm, then the adjustment would remain the same when rotating the two sections.
I've done it on an actual instrument too but it's not necessary to show that is how it works.
You could have one side of the bridge on meter long posts, with linkage arms that then go back a meter. As long as each side of the linkage remains in its same position (i.e. the keys are pressed) then it remains in that same same position in relation to the clarinet body.
What you describe and what does change from that "basic geometry" is the relation between the open and closed positions. If the linkage is parallel to the clarinet body in the pressed position, then rotating the sections would affect the venting of the keys in the open position in relation to each other. This happen anyway with any linkage shape so it's not a disadvantage of that linkage shape. If the linkage is parallel to the body rotation in the open position (or any position that isn't the closed and adjusted position), then this will throw the adjustment off when rotating the sections.
I don't think I can explain it better. Beyond that someone might have to try it on an actual instrument or make a model to show it, which I have done.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: symphony1010
Date: 2025-02-13 13:09
To go back to the original query: -
The R.H. first finger ring should sit ever so slightly proud of the tonehole. The pad above it should rest firmly on this tonehole and when the correspondence link is correctly adjusted (i.e. central and visibly in alignment) the pad on the top joint that ensures a secure long Bb should be covering but slightly lighter than the top pad on the lower joint.
The tenon should be adjusted so there is no wobble and just enough grease should be in place to permit 'fine tuning' of the adjustment. If the upper and lower joints move too freely in relation to each other don't use grease and consider having the tenon re-corked when convenient
That's it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-02-14 01:53
My standard setting up of ring keys is to have them sitting slightly proud of the chimneys by around 0.2mm or thereabouts (and evenly around the entire circumference) which is the starting point and suits most players.
For players with smaller hands or skinny fingers, I set them up to sit much higher in relation to the chimney tops to be sure the player's fingers will locate better and ensure the vent pad closes. For players with large hands/fat fingers I can set them lower which is more comfortable.
As far as linkages across joints are concerned, rotating the joints will always change the contact point of the linkage so that will mean the difference between the pad on the connected key (eg. the LH2 ring key E/B vent pad) closing fully, not closing at all or closing with too much pressure and not allowing the pad on the RH rings to close, depending on the degree of rotation.
It's far easier to demonstrate than to put into words, especially if your mental mechanical reasoning is better than your verbal description which can easily be misinterpreted. I've seen similar linkages on bassoon tenor joints for the whisper key mechanism that have a flat spring on the underside of one of them to give some wiggle room which will allow different crooks with a different height whisper vent to be used and still allowing the RH thumb to fully close the low E key pad.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: symphony1010
Date: 2025-02-14 14:59
What strikes me in all this are the number of contributors here who don't have quick access to a good technician/repairer.
If I have a student with an issue I can't fix, excellent help is not too far away and most repairers will assist quickly in an emergency.
My own preferred technician has announced his retirement but he has sent out a list of others so, hopefully, his regular customers will be OK.
The US contributors seem to have more issues than those of us in the UK, even though really good techs here are, by nature, thin on the ground.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-02-15 00:31
symphony1010:
"The US contributors seem to have more issues than those of us in the UK, even though really good techs here are, by nature, thin on the ground."
You can say that again and there's loads of them in the NAMIR directory or as I like to call it, the "Sax Offenders' Register". I feel sorry for the decent repairers who are members as they too are peed off with these charlatans and bugger all is being done about them.
It's the instrument repair version of Checkatrade - just because someone's name is in their directory doesn't mean they know one end of a screwdriver from the other and NAMIR's vetting procedure is bulls#1t if they're allowing shoddy repairs to happen which is why I'll never be a member. The names I mentioned to NAMIR's chairman last time he called me up to threaten me with legal action are still in the directory, so clearly raking in subs is more important than quality work.
I have more than enough evidence to back myself up and I've posted plenty of photos on Facebook, so fight me.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2025-02-18 10:33
>> As far as linkages across joints are concerned, rotating the joints will always change the contact point of the linkage so that will mean the difference between the pad on the connected key (eg. the LH2 ring key E/B vent pad) closing fully, not closing at all or closing with too much pressure and not allowing the pad on the RH rings to close, depending on the degree of rotation. <<
I'm not sure I can explain it better than I have already but I'll try...
The first part is true, the contact point does change, but it's incorrect that the adjustment would change if one side of the linkage is parallel to the rotation and the other side remains on the parallel line, as long as you remain in that same position (which you do for the adjustment) i.e. with the keys pressed.
The contact point changes but the adjustment doesn't.
What changes is between the pressed and released positions, but that happens regardless unless the linkage is parallel to the rotation in the released position, and is irrelevant because the whole point is the adjustment remaining the same when pressing the key.
>> It's far easier to demonstrate than to put into words, especially if your mental mechanical reasoning is better than your verbal description which can easily be misinterpreted. <<
I've done both and saw that it's true that the adjustment doesn't change when the linkage is parallel to the rotation, in spite of the linkage point moving.
A simpler example that is easier to see (or imagine) is a bass clarinet neck key linkage. If the key linkage side is a curve parallel to rotation of the body in the "released" position, rotating the neck would keep the same distance from the operating linkage rod no matter the rotation. Similarly, if it is parallel to the rotation in the "pressed" position, the key/pad would open the exact same amount regardless of rotation. What changes is the relation between the "pressed" and released" position, but same as a bridge linkage, this happens anyway and is irrelevant. The relevant issue is the "pressed" position.
Bass clarinet neck key arm parallel to the body/rotation = bridge linkage parallel at "released" position = adjustment does change when rotating the two section.
Bass clarinet neck key arm parallel to the body/rotation in the "pressed position = bridge key linkage parallel to the rotation in the pressed position = bass neck key opens the same amount regardless of rotation = bridge linkage keeps keys adjusted in the "pressed" position regardless of rotation.
Any more than that I'd have to physically show and demonstrate that this works and is correct, which I've done by modifying a bridge key to that shape.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2025-02-18 16:57
That only applies to bass clarinet and sax crooks where one linkage is mounted vertically and the crook key is mounted horizontally, so the linkage should remain in the same adjustment regardless of the rotation provided the radius of the crook key loop or T bar is concentric with the tenon.
It doesn't work all that well (in that it's variable) if the shift lever mounted on the top joint has a horizontal inverted L-shape and the crook key is a straight vertical bar as the venting will alter depending on how you line up the crook in relation to the top joint as you'll see on older Selmer basses and Yamaha basses (and Chinese copies of Yamaha basses).
On bell key linkages (on instruments to either low Eb or low C with a bell key), rotating the bell in relation to the lower joint and the linkage will throw the bell key out of adjustment as you're moving the contact point of the bell key link (a straight vertical bar) in relation to the linkage on the lower joint (a horizontally mounted bar curved to match the joint radius) which has more travel at the free end than the end nearest the fulcrum and it's absolutely critical to line up the bell correctly because of this.
But when you have two linkages mounted vertically, misaligning them will put them out of adjustment regardless of the shape of the linkage as the underlever only has so much travel and moving the pillars further apart will mean the overlever is moving far more in relation, so if there are two connected pads, the uppermost one won't close as a result of the joints being further and further misaligned. That's also true if the underlever with limited/restricted movement is mounted horizontally/perpendicular to the bore and the overlever is mounted vertically/in like with the bore.
If you move the point of contact (effectively changing the leverages), you alter the level of adjustment. I know exactly what I'm talking about even if it's not coming across well. I'm a doer and not a university lecturer.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2025-02-18 21:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
