 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Henrik
Date: 2001-10-10 21:17
I have been following the various threads on the E&S subject with great interest, and I now feel confident enough to present my view on the subject.
Six months ago I purchased an E&S Master Model on eBay because i wanted a backup for my RC. It has a serial number in the low K5,000 range and as such dates back to 1953.
The rumour of the "reject R13" is really what triggered my interest and subsequent aquisition of this instrument. Many people have stated that it cannot be an R13 for a number of reasons. I will try and clarify some of these.
A certain clarinet model is essentially defined by it's acoustical properties. These are in turn defined by the structure/density of the wood, the size of the bore, the size and position of the tone holes, and finally the undercutting of the tone holes. These properties are all linked together.
The first step when it comes to manufacture of a clarinet is obviously the selection of wood. The base of my theory is that the Buffet craftsmen select the densest wood for the R13 designated production line.
1. "It cannot be a reject R13 because the keys are different!"
It has been stated that the Master Model is a reject R13 for cosmetical reasons. It is impossible to judge how deep a flaw in the wood goes. Therefore, it has to be turned on the lathe to the final stage until you know. By then, it’s acoustical properties are already defined. If the densest wood intended for R13 was used, it either has to become an R13 or discarded. Buffet chose to label the ugly ducklings Master Model to increase their manufacturing yield. When it comes to the keywork, the critical measurement is the distance between the rings. This measurement is set on the lathe and determined by the bore size. If a clarinet has inset tone holes, like the Yamaha CX, it would be possible to position the rings after it has been turned. However, this is not the case with the Master Model and it's integral tone holes.
Buffet chose to put on a simpler keywork to keep the cost down.
Conclusion: The Master Model was not labeled after final inspection and play testing, but rather after the inital session on the lathe.
2. "It doesn't sound or play like an R13!"
Because of wood's natural properties, no wooden clarinet can be an exact copy of the other. They all differ slightly within the same model. Back in the 50's this would be even truer due to less precise manufacturing methods. Less care was presumably taken when finishing the Master Model, making them less consistent in sound quality.
3. "My Master Model has no flaws in the wood!"
I have only seen my own, and I can tell that it has clearly visible flaws in all 4 wooden parts. Other people might not consider some of them as flaws. Please see http://clarinets.netfirms.com/MasterModel.html for pictures of them.
4. "It doesn't have the R13 bore!"
How can you tell? I doubt that anyone of us has the tools to do a correct measurement of the bore. I've seen references to calipers, but these are not intended for making precise inner diameter measurements. Besides, it's only possible to measure the bore at each end of a joint. We still wouldn't know of any diameter changes for the remaining 95% of the bore.
I have borrowed a device called an “internal gauge” from a friend mechanic. This tool is capable of doing accurate inner diameter measurements with a precision of 0.005mm (1/5000 of an inch). It can also reach about 75mm (3”) into the bore. Even with such a device it is really hard to make consistent measurements. My trials revealed that the bore has a diameter of 14.93mm at the top of the upper joint. At the bottom it is 14.65mm. When reaching into the bore, starting at the top, the diameter decreased gradually to about 14.87 where the register tube is positioned. The lower portion measured 14.65mm for the entire reach of the gauge. This implies a reverse cone taper design at the top. The peculiar thing is that my supposedly polycylindrical RC measured exactly the same, within 0.01mm! As you might understand, the changes of the bore diameter are extremely subtle. When looking into the bore, I notice 3 distinct sections. First a reverse tapered section, extending from the top to the register tube. It is followed by a cylindrical section reaching to the thumbhole on the E&S, and to the G# key on the RC. Finally, another cylindrical section to the other end. For the record: The register key is positioned 3.5mm higher on the RC compared to the Master Model.
My conclusion is that the Master Model deploys a polycylindrical design, and that it is identical to the R13’s due to the statements made under point 1.
Disclaimer: These are my own conclusions, and should not be considered as anything else than just a theory.
Henrik Faltstrom.
Sweden
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-10-10 21:53
Henrik wrote:
>
> These are in turn defined by the
> structure/density of the wood, the size of the bore, the size
> and position of the tone holes, and finally the undercutting of
> the tone holes. These properties are all linked together.
> The first step when it comes to manufacture of a clarinet is
> obviously the selection of wood. The base of my theory is that
> the Buffet craftsmen select the densest wood for the R13
> designated production line.
While they may have selected the densest wood for the R13, whether or not the tone is dependent on the density of the wood (after a fashion - we're not talking balsa here) has not been proven. Bore, tone hole depth, tone hole diameter, tone hole placement, et al. have been proven to be significant.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Douglas
Date: 2001-10-11 19:06
Henrik dates his E & S clarinet to 1953 and feels it is the same bore as the polycylindrical R-13. Because Buffet started to market the polycylindrical R-13 in 1955, it is hard to imagine that the E & S had this type of bore before the R-13 did.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wes
Date: 2001-10-12 07:29
The E & S Master Model I had, serial K8082, had what appeared to be Buffet first line keys and the wood looked great. The second register had good tuning but the first register was flat and unresponsive. There was no undercutting of the tone holes. After undercutting most tone holes, the instrument was very much better in tune and the bottom register was responsive. Later, it was sold to a student.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
