 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: IHL
Date: 2001-11-21 07:35
pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is an undercut tone hole?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Eoin
Date: 2001-11-21 11:05
An undercut tone hole looks cylindrical on the outside, but opens out in a conical shape on the inside. It is supposed to help the clarinet play in tune better, preventing it from playing slightly above or below the note. As such, it is standard on all professional clarinets except for some of those intended for playing jazz.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-11-21 13:20
The bottom of the tone hole flares out to a larger diameter.
It is also standard on plastic Yamahas.
To do it by hand, as is traditional, is very time consuming, hence expensive, but to use a modern computer controlled 'CNC' machine would probably reduce the job for the whole instrument to a few minutes.
I presume this is what Yamaha is doing. Does anybody know?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2001-11-21 14:13
Pardon me for not getting out more often (!), but I have been studying the undercutting in my clarinets lately. I have two SML/Marigaux instruments that are the same model but from rather different periods of time. I acquired the second (newer) one to act as a parts back-up whilst having the first (older) one repaired.
After close observation of the two, there's no way one joint could be substituted using one from the other clarinet. This has mainly to do with the <b>undercutting,</b> which is radically different on each instrument. On the older clarinet, there is significant undercutting of the tone holes of the lower (RH) joint. On the newer clarinet, which has a very slightly narrower bore, the undercutting is observable on the tone holes of the upper joint, while those of the lower joint are much less undercut.
I would say that, in general, the treatment of the tone holes of these two instruments is vastly different. I assume this is a function of the bore size difference, yet at the same time that doesn't seem to explain it entirely. I was really surprised to find two clarinets I thought were just a couple of Model-T's off the same assembly line are, in fact, acoustically unrelated!!! --Bill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2001-11-21 14:26
Often, on professional instruments, the under-cutting is done to specifically alter the playing characteristics of a particular clarinet. It is a customized proceedure that will vary from instrument to instrument, depending on individual tonal and harmonic needs and is often practiced to correct the sound and/or pitch of individual notes that may be a "bit off" after manufacture. That may be why you notice variances in your two clarinets undercuttings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2001-11-21 15:43
There was a huge difference in the appearance and size of the second tone hole of the LH joint (counting up from the bottom tenon). On the newer instrument, it was slightly smaller than the holes surrounding it. On the older isntrument, it was very, very small, and much smaller than it's neighbors, comparatively.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2001-11-21 17:32
I almost always undercut toneholes on clarinets I restore (assuming they weren't undercut to begin with), although technically what I do is hand-radiussing, in which the bottom of the tonehole is smoothly flared into the bore with a continuous curve, using files and the like, rather than cut with a single angle as in traditional undercutting (which is more akin to the way automobile valve seats are shaped, if that helps to visualize it). I've found that, in every case, the response of a clarinet has been improved by this process. It generally eliminates stuffy notes, reduces resistance overall, and even if it doesn't solve specific intonation problems it hasn't (in my experience) hurt it either. So even though it is time-consuming, I consider undercutting (or my 'personal' version of it) to be essential for a high-quality clarinet. I admit this is a controversial subject and many authorities (including, for example, Dr. Arthur Benade) have written that undercutting can sometimes be harmful. Thus far that has not been my experience.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-11-21 18:14
The undercutters I saw Francois Kloc of Buffet use were radiused. Also, intonation can sometimes benefit from elongated or offset undercutting (more to the front or to the back). Now I <b>know</b> that there's some acoustical reasons for this, but don't ask me to explain them!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2001-11-21 20:17
I've read as much as I can get my hands on about fraising/undercutting, in Gibson's "Clarinet Acoustics," in Rendall's book, etc. I can't say that I have ever completely understood all the effects that are expected to result from this. I've read that undercutting increases flexibility (which seems logical), yet I've read that the most famous NONundercut clarinets of all time---the 1920s/1950s Selmers---were the most flexible in playing. My actual experience tells me that an undercut clarinet plays as Dave says, with greater ease of legato. I was fascinated by Alvin Swiney's writings on Klarinet some years back about "tone-hole dominated" vs. "bore-dominated" designs. Perhaps the flexibility of the Selmers was owing to the bore design. My Series 9 plays very easily but not with the tone I get from the Buffets. It's harder for me to really "get into" the tones with the Selmer. Ah well . . .
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2001-11-21 20:28
My 'theory' (which, as I recall, is generally what Benade wrote) is that, as with nearly any airflow situation, rounded transitions create less turbulence than sharp edges, and even though intuition is often incorrect, intuition would suggest that a smooth transition between bore and tonehole (undercut or radiussed) would produce less turbulence than a sharp transition (straight tonehole) and that this might be acoustically advantageous. [Although I suspect there are situations where MORE turbulence might be desirable, e.g. the register tube (for 'tripping' the standing wave to effect the register change) or on a flute embouchure hole (again for 'tripping' the airstream to create the standing wave).]
Mark: I would guess that undercutting off-center (to the top or bottom side) would change the effective centroid of the tonehole, thus raising or lowering the pitch. No different really than adding cork or nail polish or electrical tape to one side of the tonehole.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Hiroshi
Date: 2001-11-22 01:46
Selmer Singature has a convex chimney for LH ring finger.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Emms
Date: 2001-11-22 22:06
David, if a sharp edge produces turbulence, such as in a tone hole, would pulling out the barrel to tune cause turbulance too, as there would be a small gap between barrel and 1st joint?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: IHL
Date: 2001-11-23 05:23
does undercutting make smearing more difficult as a side-effect of more stable tuning?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-11-23 13:07
Emms I think the two situations are quite different. This is the way I in my ignorance see it:
For the tone hole I imagine air is changing abruptly from vibrating up and down the bore, to vibrating in and out of the tone hole, which means it has to suddenly change direction at the bottom of the tone hole.
By contrast there is no DIRECTION change across a narrow gap at a tenon joint.
I imagine the air easily vibrating across this gap with only minor turbulence.
Imagine deep water flowing down a river. If you cut a narrow trench across the river bed it will hardly affect the river flow. But if the river is made to turn a right angle then there will be major turbulence, reducable by making a less abrupt bend.
Air is a fluid and behaves similarly to water.
Nevertheless there are players who swear by spacer washers in tenon joints.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2001-11-23 16:51
Dave -
As I recall what Benade said, rounding the tone-hole/bore intersection always improves playing qualities. Charles Bay takes plastic Vito and Bundy bass clarinets and does extensive undercutting and rounding and is said to turn them into professional quality horns.
I've watched Kalmen Opperman undercut toneholes to make the scale more even, and also to bring the different registers in tune. I've also watched other instrument makers (wood flute, recorder) to the same thing. The process is anything but straightforward. The angle of the cone, how far it runs up the tone hole cylinder, angling the cut "upstream" or "downstream," the amount of rounding off at the bore edge, and even whether it is rounded off at the outer surface, combine into a process that takes long experience to do right.
And I may be hyper-sensitive, but I've always been able to feel a significant improvement when I fill in any tenon taps with tuning rings. Bernard Portnoy easily heard the difference with his back turned to me, and the intonation improvement is not subtle.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob
Date: 2001-11-24 15:12
I have found the discussions since Thanksgiving to be more interesting than before. Guess everyone had a good meal. I find Dave's comments especially interesting and my guess is he knows what he is talking about. I understand the difference between radiusing and "coning" (my term) and ,to me, they represent just different degrees of hole corner "adjustment". I do have a gut feeling that the effect of such adjustments is at least partially dependent upon the thickness of the wall i.e. the length of the hole(depth?). Compare the thickness of a typical clarinet tube with that of a flute or pipe organ. I can believe that sharp edges at the bottom of the hole or almost microscopic fibres (or molding flash) can have a significant effect. I do suspect that variations at the bottom "corner" of a hole have a significant effect on the sound produced. But I don't know for sure.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken
Date: 2001-11-25 13:21
This process is very intriguing but isn't it true if a craftsman's in a situation where they need to literally "put wood back" in order to correct pitch, it's pretty much game over right?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-11-25 22:41
Why? Is it such a crime to add material? No problem as long as it stays there and is not cosmetically unappealing.
'Customizing' is and adjustment process. In any adjustment procress it is normal to go PAST the point of best-compromise adjustment in order to discover exactly where it is, then to return to that best-compromise.
However the beauty of modern CNC machinery is that once this ideal design is found it can be perfectly and easily replicated.
For this reason a student plastic instrument by now should be made to the same design specs as a wonderfully-customised pro instrument.
Is Yamaha the only maker getting close to this ideal?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken
Date: 2001-11-26 00:00
I wasn't attempting to assess the moral, social or legal implications of adding excess material to a clarinet to manufacture a perfectly in tune instrument that plays evenly throughout the entire harmonic progression and 3 1/2 octave standard range. And, I'm all for musicians squeezing every last bit of quality out of their service for the money.
I guess I wasn’t clear, and referring to older horns that have naturally been "blown out" over many years of play; one would normally have to add filler to bring these back to life. But, it's been my experience once a horn starts, generally blowing flat (especially in the throat tones), becomes dull, lackluster and less responsive it's ready to be fitted for a lampshade. All the undercutting or space-aged technology in the world is going to turn back the clock and bring a horn back to new playing condition. It's great plastic horns are rivaling wooden premium horn specs; this is especially beneficial to the beginner and intermediate student a great perk that'll enhance their playing experience and learning curve. To an advanced player and/or professional it's still polishing a turd.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-11-26 02:29
Ken, there's plenty of people who disagree with the "blown out" clarinet theory, and to paraphrase Dan Leeson, please send all your "blown out" clarinets ready to be made into lamps to me, please.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-11-26 10:44
Do the Brannens believe in blow out?
I've completely overhaluled plenty very old instruments which could certainly not be described as blown out after the overhaul.
Could it be that "blown out" could mean "a run-of-the-mill technician has failed to do a good overhaul job"?
It takes only one small leak to make an overhaul a relative failure.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2001-11-26 14:20
With all the good this work does, I wonder why Selmer and Boosey & Hawkes elected not to undercut tone holes on their top-level clarinets? --Bill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2001-11-26 16:45
A data point: I just finished an overhaul (with some modifications) of a hard rubber Malerne (Linton stencil) bass clarinet. As received, all the pads sealed well and it was completely playable. It had a number of response and intonation problems, which I documented prior to starting work.
In doing the overhaul, I was able to leave almost all the pads on, as they were nearly new and were sealing well. The main modifications I made were to raise most of the key heights, and to UNDERCUT ALL THE TONEHOLES. The result: The bass clarinet is now a phenomenal player --- great sound, good intonation throughout, smooth response --- at least an order of magnitude better than before undercutting. There were no deleterious side effects -- the instrument was thoroughly improved across the board, with no downside. [I should note that I the modification I made was actually the previously-described radiussing (with a needle file and/or small Dremel stone), not the traditional single-angle undercutting.] This instrument plays so well, in fact, that rather than sell it as I had intended, I'm probably going to keep if for myself (yes, I am selfish!).
The point is, undercutting, in its various forms, WORKS if not overdone or badly done.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken
Date: 2001-11-27 03:56
Mark, I'm aware the 'blowing out" theory has its share of supporters as well as detractors. Surely, both sides of the argument can produce laundry lists of players, well-established repair people and personal testimony vigorously defending their belief. But if the proof is in the pudding, I'd be curious if one took the time to do the research and tally how many of the top players in recognized major/minor orchestras worldwide (Boehm and Mueller systems, excluding Eaton and Wurlitzer) currently play sets over 10 years old, not alone, 20, 30 and up? Every player at that level knows WHAT brand they want to play and WHY they play it. At least in my case the lion's share of those I've met and spoken with in that arena affirmed literally wearing out a newly purchased horn in 5-7 years even with religious maintenance. It would be an interesting study; I know Larry Combs (at least he used to) is/was a firm advocate of horns blowing out and swapped out new horns every 5 years. Of course, a player of his notoriety and status probably gets his provided free of charge from Leblanc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bill
Date: 2001-11-27 19:42
Mark,
Pre-Series 10 Selmers, with the exception of the Seris 9*, were not undercut (except for one or two tone holes). The whole design was based on tone holes that had practically no undercutting. --Bill.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw
Date: 2001-11-27 21:56
There was a very good thread on blow out a couple of years ago at http://www.sneezy.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=15949&t=15910 . I wrote then:
I think the definitive explanation of "blow out" was given by a series of postings on the Klarinet board last year. Ed Maurey wrote at http://www.sneezy.org/Databases/Logs/1999/06/000786.txt where he wrote: "You can run a flap hone with 400 grit paper at 1,000 RPM for 60 seconds in the bore of a clarinet joint and not be able to measure a diameter increase. [You will, however, make it nice and shiny.] How a cloth swab could ever enlarge a clarinet bore is beyond me."
Alan Swiney agreed, writing at http://www.sneezy.org/Databases/Logs/1999/06/000791.txt :
"You are right. Cloth swabs don't change the bore through wear but they do change tone holes drastically. When the bore contracts so does the wall of the clarinet. When the wall of the instrument contacts the tone holes get smaller. When the tone holes get smaller the pitch gets flatter and stuffier.
"Lets talk about the swab! The swab is used to clean the BORE! Right? The swab never makes contact with the tone hole wall or undercutting. Usually when a clarinetist has finished playing, they must blow the water from the tone holes or used a pipe cleaner. The pipe cleaner only gets the cylinder clean but the undercutting is left untouched. As the swab is pulled though the bore, lint or fibers from the tight swab will build up in the bottom section of the tone holes, especially with cotton swabs.( I recommend silk swabs as they shed less). This fiber build up acts as a filter. As saliva and condensation runs down the bore of the horn, this fiber filter sucks it right into the tone hole.
"Next the Moisture dries and leaves natural minerals like calcium in the fiber filter. Over a period of time the a crusty plaque will form in the tone made of lint, fibers and calcium. This Build up is very similar in appearance to calcius or dental plaque. Eventually this plaque will decrease the tone hole volume and occlude the undercutting thus making the clarinet play in a "blown out" manner. Each month I remove a tablespoon of plaque from or local symphony clarinetist's instrument.
"Chronic water gurgles are also a sign of fiber build up or tone hole plaque. I originally discovered tone hole plaque while doing medical studies on clarinets. I was X-raying some of the clarinets that I inherited from my Repair teacher W. Hans Moennig. These white rings kept appearing at the apex of the undercutting with a resolution very similar to human bone. It was quite confusing to me because I could not find foreign material via the bore or tone hole cylinder. I used a proctoscope to view the undercutting and there it was Big as Day, a I.5 mm protrusion into the air path. At that point I design a cleaning tool that matched the tone hole profile. The tool was designed to reach the hidden section of the undercutting that the swab never cleans. After carefully removing the old plaque build up from the tone holes the instrument was much more resonant.
"In addition to improving the pitch and timbre, Removing swab and fiber plaque can also reduce wood cracks though tone holes. Such cracks are very common on the top joint side B and Bb trillers, throat A, and the Left hand G# hole. If you have a new clarinet, now is the time to clean the plaque from the tone holes. I will be glad to mail you information on the cleaning tool and how to use it, if you don't already have it. Just send me your street address as I don't have a scanner yet.
"I hope this posting will help clarinetist better understand the age old problem of pitch change due to tone hole plaque and Not Bore Blow Out."
This is the only satisfactory explanation I've seen for "blow out," and it seems to have settled the issue on the Klarinet board, at least for the time being.
However, I can speak from experience that the situation with barrels is different, at least when they are new. The high moisture level, combined with the altered stress patterns when the bore is drilled, mean that that the bore, and particuarly the sockets, of a barrel will nearly always shrink slightly. This results in "frozen" joints that occur so often between the upper joint and the barrel on new instruments. At least with Kalmen Opperman's carefully "tweaked" barrels, you must always bring a new one back for readjustment of the bore after a month or two, or even several adjustments, particularly if it is made of rosewood, which is his preference.
Several years ago, I went to a concert where Harold Wright played the Brahms Quintet with the most beautiful tone I have ever heard. I can still remember where I was sitting and how wonderfully he played. I learned that he was playing Ralph McLane's A clarinet, which at that time was well over 50 years old, yet was still, according to Kalmen Opperman, the finest A clarinet in existence.
Best regards.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2001-11-28 11:07
Ken this almost exactly mirrors my discovery of the hard matted build-up, which I also remove. When I overhaul old instruments and attend to this cleaning a typical comment I get from the player is that it now goes better than it ever did. And so it should.... the manufacturer's QC issues have been attended to also.
That is certainly not blow-out!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-11-28 13:38
I know, Bill, but you said that Selmer doesn't undercut. They have for quite a while ... try buying a <b>new</b> Series 9 ;^)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
