 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Jim Alguire
Date: 2002-04-03 02:49
Ok, dumb question time. As I understand a poly-cylindrical bore, the diameter of the bore is smaller at the top than at the bottom. At least this is the way it looks on my clarinet.
Is that correct?
So, when the manufacturer advertises a bore of, say, 0.575, is that the top, the middle, the bottom or an average?
Thanks for your insights.
Jim Alguire
Ketchikan
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brian
Date: 2002-04-03 09:15
I think...but I may be wrong and if I am boy will I ever hear about it!...that the bore measurement is done near the bottom of the upper joint. I seem to recall reading this on this particular bulletin board a couple of days ago. But like I said I may be wrong so if I am someone please give Jim the correct info.
And by the way Jim the only dumb questions are the one's you don't ask!
Peace!
Brian
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2002-04-03 11:09
I find it sickening when people go on about their dumb questions. It is so frequent in this forum. Is this an American fashion?
Or are so many people really THAT insecure? If so, why the need to advertise (boast?) about it publicly! Is this a clarinetist syndrome?
Or is it simply attention seeking - a sort of adult alternative to a temper tantrum. If so, it is a shame that it is almost always successful!
Note that this is a general rave rather than an individual attack. But perhaps Brian, having some experience in this mystifying phenomenon, can throw some light on this for me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette, Webmaster
Date: 2002-04-03 13:29
Gordon,
Insecurity or not, that was pretty impolite on your part. Whatever the reason someone phrases their question that way, it is not your job to criticize it. This is just like my yelling at people not to point out spelling mistakes, rather, to correct them in a response without pointing them out.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: beejay
Date: 2002-04-03 13:36
I thought the word boreing was a pretty neat pun. And I'd like to know the answer to this one as well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: beejay
Date: 2002-04-03 13:48
I thought the word boreing was a pretty neat pun. And I'd like to know the answer to this one as well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2002-04-03 14:37
OK.
Raw nerve area, perhaps.
Don, I assume I asked a dumb question, but did not phrase it in the correct, polite, 'dumb question' manner.
Mark, I was no so much criticising, but seeking enlightenment.
Doesn't it say somewhere, "Seek enlightenment, and you shall be enlightened".
I've now shut up.
But still not enlightened.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2002-04-03 14:55
Gordon (NZ)--I've always enjoyed the wisdom of your postings, but this last one was not justified and certainly not an intelligent pursuit of "enlightenment." Lets all be a bit more gentle with our less experianced, but none-the-less, eager to learn students of clarinetistry. No one need apologise in advance before posting a "dumb question," but perhaps one is in order for a "dumb response." Good Clarineting!!!!! (BTW--Brian was correct in measuring the bore at the bottom of the top joint)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2002-04-03 16:09
Excuse me, please. I don't think I will participate in this thread. In my continuing quest to find something to complain about, I see this one already has been thoroughly overdone.
I shall, however, remember in future to preface any question I enter with the remark, "And now, for a rare smashingly intelligent query"....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2002-04-03 17:02
Lets all calm down, GENTLE people. My conclusions re: cl bore nomenclature is that the term "polycylindrical" means a series of cylindrical sections of [very slightly] decreasing diameter from the top of the upper joint [UJ] to about its mid point, much like a [true] "conical" bore. Since the "normal" [musically-useable] Bessel horn [as with oboe-sax-etc] increases in diameter [somewhere] from the mouthpiece to the bell, these modified UJ bores are often referred to as "reversed". Benade's "Horns Strings and Harmony" and other works are the best modern references I know of, and Gibson's "Clarinet Acoustics" [inexpensive and available via Amazon, B&N etc] Ch. 10 "Variations on a Reversed Cone" will answer most questions being asked above [IMHO]. Not at all boring, Comments? Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jim Alguire
Date: 2002-04-03 17:07
Hi Gordon (NZ) and others.
Many thanks for your replies. I guess my intro statement is just another example of how it is virtually impossible to be humorous or flip when posting to a list.
No offense taken here. I've been burned by this many times.
Jim
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Todd W.
Date: 2002-04-03 17:19
Gordon --
You've already been sufficiently chastised for the manner and place of asking your question, so let me attempt a bit of an answer. Please remember that these are just my beliefs and opinions, not The Truth. My remarks are meant generally and are not refering to any particular person or question on this BB.
In a perfect world, our parents, grandparents, siblings, teachers, and peers would value us for who we are, and through their responses to and interactions with us would continually build our confidence and self-esteem. They would value and encourage our natural thirst for knowledge by appropriately responding to our questions--sometimes giving a direct answer and sometimes directing us to resources where we could find the answer ourselves. Scholars would be valued at least as much as athletes--including monetarily. Schools would be well-funded; the Pentagon would be holding the bake sales. Except that they wouldn't have to, because in such a world we would all value each other for who we are, and we truly could get along--person-to-person and nation-to-nation.
Obviously, we don't live in that world.
So most of us aren't perfectly self-confident, especially when we're put in an unfamiliar situation. And most of us have been ridiculed at some time for asking a question. For some people that may have happened many times. One way to deflect the expected criticism (and increase the chances of getting an answer) is the self-deprecating statement, "This may be a dumb question."
What's sickening to me is not that statement, but that the person making it has been "taught" by the responses of parents, teachers, peers, that there are dumb questions--or worse that the person asking them is dumb.
In fact, when a person makes that statement, I see someone whose courage and desire to learn has overcome their fear (perhaps great fear) of ridicule.
(As an addendum, that they're asking it on this BB indicates to me that Mark and the regular posters have made this a welcoming, friendly, and "safe" place to ask just about any question.)
Gordon, I hope this (one person's) answer is helpful.
Todd W
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Scorgie
Date: 2002-04-03 17:21
Jim --
If I remember correctly, you started this thread by asking for some info re polycylindrical bores.
The bores on the upper joints of well made clarinets are either same diameter top and bottom (cylindrical) or diameter decreases in steps from top to bottom (polyclindrical) or diameter decreases in a taper from top to bottom (reverse conical).
Note that a clarinet made with a conical bore in the upper joint (diameter increases from top to bottom) will tend to sound harsh and wild, like a tarogato, which is why you seldom see this configuration except on some very old very cheap clarinets. On all clarinets, the lower joint must be flared out.
On a cylindrical bore, the diameter is the same at the top and at the bottom of the upper joint. A good example would be the classic Bundy Resonite, which is a 0.590" cylindrical bore.
The polycylindrical or reverse conical bore should be measured at the bottom of the upper joint. The difference between top and bottom will typically be 0.010" -- 0.015". Most of the Buffets which are listed as 0.573" -- 0.575" polycylindrical bore will measure somewhere between 0.585" and 0.590" at the top of the upper joint.
Please understand that these are not great differences. A sheet of Xerox paper is ~0.003" thick.
There are several different ways to measure i.d. of cylinders or cones such as clarinet bores, and I don't wish to get into a debate as to which method yields the most accurate results. Whatever method is used, the tools must be high precision in order to produce valid results.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gordon (NZ)
Date: 2002-04-04 14:01
Great information, John.
Todd, thanks for distinguishing my manner from my search for understanding. YOUR statement "What's sickening to me ....." more precisely expresses my feeling which prompted my post, but I hoped there would be a less ominous explanation for self-deprecatory introductions.
Jim. I specifically wrote that my post was not a personal attack and I am grateful that you, unlike others, did not take it as such.
Cheers.
Others: I acknowledge that the placement of my seeking of understanding was inappropriate in individual's thread, in that this made it look like a personal attack, which was not my intention. My intention was to understand the manifestation of what appeared to be a cultural difference. I have learnt that to present POSSIBLE explanations re sensitive issues in this type of forum context is bound to arouse the wrathful defenses of at least some readers; a pity. Re my forthwrite manner - that's just me, and I hope that in my postsw it offers more than it detracts from this forum.
Mark, sorry to be once again guilty of forraying from clarinet issues to succumbing to my curiosity re cultural differences in human behaviour.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2002-04-04 15:03
Gordon - keep up the posting. I for one appreciate your direct style and fastidious attention to detail in technical and repair issues. I come across many societal, cultural and life-style differences in my travels and appreciate the differences in preception of similar events or writings by various cultures (even within regions of the U.S.) One of the wonderful things about this bulletin board is the diversity of knowledge, opinions, and approaches to posts. We all have been sensitized to personal written attacks and hopefully agree that it is out of bounds, and that there are no (or very few true instances of) "dumb" questions - these often require the most sophisticated and technical explanations. Approaches and disclaimer modifications to posts are probably inherent to the personality of the poster and as such are not a common cultural trait. Euphemisms and hackneyed patterns should be discouraged to be sure. Good humor and puns should be encouraged.
The Doctor
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: miftw
Date: 2002-04-05 00:12
It seems to me that humourous answers on this BB are often "shot down" as being flippant. Making the BB totally "technical" and humourless would mean the end of my visiting this board. I've been logging on here for ages but have only post twice and I always felt that the questions asked had been answered sufficiently to warrant my adding "my two cents' worth". I've not seen a few regulars for a while - have they been scarred off?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette, Webmaster
Date: 2002-04-05 05:43
miftw wrote:
> I've not seen a few regulars for a while - have they
> been scarred off?
Once in a while I send a personal message to people when things get out of hand on the BBoard - such as when people start using it as a personal "chat" area or when a vendor comes perilously close to using the BBoard as an advertisement, even when that isn't the intent.
Some people take the criticism fine, some don't and leave in a huff. There's not much I can do about it.
Gordon in general has been a great member of the BBoard and I was taken a bit aback by his comment here. Perhaps the wording could have been a bit clearer; I took offense in the meaning. Perhaps it's a cultural thing ... I didn't find a lot of differences when I spent a few months in Oz and NZ a long time ago, but those were "face-to-face" meetings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Dow symphony NB
Date: 2002-04-24 14:40
the polycylidrical term began in the 50s with robert Carre and his invention of the R13, this means there are slight evasements throughout the enitre instrument(dips in the bore) that allow for more flexibility and precise tuning.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
