 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-10-17 20:42
I posted recently about discovering and fixing leaks that had developed over several months, and how big a difference it made to playability. The leaks were apparently at least partially to blame for a bunch of issues I thought were reeds and other stuff. I don't ever want that to happen to me again.
One of the leaks was very obvious- a split pad on RH F/C. Not sure how long it had been split before I noticed. This post is about how I found the other 2 leaks, which weren't so easy.
I've read for years about leak lights, pressure machines, suction tests with your fingers and mouth, and pad probing with cigarette paper or thin plastic. And I'd tried the suction tests before with no satisfaction (is it sealing well enough? never could tell).
Then I found a YouTube video about suction tests on the upper joint that showed wetting the fingers first, and how you should be able to get a nice "pop". And I couldn't... unless I pressed down on the C#/G# pad. And I confirmed with my thin plastic probe that pad wasn't sealing all the way around. I heated and reset it, and bingo- I got the POP.
Bottom joint is not so clean. It's not so easy to seal it with your fingers or palm of hand- I tried working against various surfaces, no good seal. Wet palm is actually the best, but it's awkward. And no way I could get a pop, it just didn't hold suction that well. But I was able to experiment and improve the crows foot adjustment, and get more suction. Which then raised the question of, how good is normal?
OK- fingers do make sense to seal tone holes, that's how tone holes are supposed to work. But not the open ends of the joints. What might work better? ...STOPPERS. I measured and determined a #0 is perfect for top joint, #4 for bottom. eBay purchase for a few bucks. And they work great. (NOTE- be careful not to push too hard, I suppose you could split a wood tenon! My clarinets are hard rubber, yet another benefit of that material, LOL.)
So... my repaired upper joint, suction test either with fingers or combo of fingers and stopper... nice POP. Bottom joint with fingers and stopper... no pop but pretty good seal. Then I received my new backup (Lyrique "2nd") clarinet from the Ridenours and did the same suction tests the same way, and the new horn behaved identically. So now I know how the bottom joint suction is supposed to feel when in good repair.
Now those 2 stoppers are in my clarinet case. And I will test suction any time I think about it (if it's been a while), or if I have a playing issue. And I suggest every player ought to do the same (stoppers or fingers)- because of how badly things go when you have even a minor leak. Test while your horn is new or newly repaired, as a standard for later comparisons.
I did see another video poking fun at suction tests, to the effect that we don't suck when playing (well maybe some of us do in another context, LOL, but that's another story). And it promoted the use of a $$$ pressure test machine. Well, that's great if you've got the $$$ and savvy for it- but I think the suction test tells you 90% of what you need to know, quickly and easily.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-10-17 20:48)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2014-10-17 20:56
I bought an assortment of rubber stoppers from a laboratory equipment supply company, total cost around $10. They fit anything on a clarinet, flute or oboe and some of an alto sax.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-10-17 21:06
Don't even go down the pressure test machine path. I went to a shop that was mostly a brass repair (but claimed competent woodwind repair) just to replace a pad on my "A" key - no problem, right? They adjusted the spring tension based on their pressure testing machine. I was barely able to open the stupid key after they got through with it. Fortunately I can do most simple repairs (just didn't have a small pad that day for that key) and I was able to readjust the spring tension.
The suction test is a quick and easy way to get a rough idea where your horn is as far as sealing goes. Personally I don't stop until the bottom AND top joints seal like a coke bottle (hold a seal that feels just that firm). This is totally doable with cork pads on the top and almost any material on the bottom so long as it is seated properly and the key heights are properly adjusted (coordinated).
Also I am a firm believer in 'fingers.' After all, that's what you'll use when you're playing. If there is a problem with your fingers, you might as well know that upfront too.
Finally, there is also need to do a positive pressure test to ensure that the keys held with spring tension have enough firmness to continue sealing (not blowing open) when you're playing. My favorite spot where things go wrong is the RH pinky "Eb/Ab" key. If this is not firm enough, you can lose a LOT of resonance to the key actually blowing open slightly during play from mezzo forte on up.
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-10-17 21:13
I imagine some of you (or me) contemplating an old horn for sale and thinking, "Do I really want to put my mouth on THAT?". Or will the seller care if I squirt Sterisol on the open joint ends?
How many other prospective buyers have already tested it the same way? Reminds me of geology lab experiments that involve tasting- how many other students have already licked this particular rock?
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-10-17 22:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SpiritTalker
Date: 2014-10-17 21:48
I am curious how you pressure test a top joint with the additional hole in the lower tenon joint (as a full boehm with articulated c#/g#) I can't cover everything up to see if it seals and I gave up trying (but would love to know if there is a good way to do this so I can try again!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-10-17 21:49
Thanks for the comments. And I'd like to hear some others' experiences on suction tests of lower joint. Is a "Coke bottle" tight seal common? ...or needed? (would it really make a difference to playing?) And if it would, does it follow we should demand it on a new or newly repaired horn? Those of you who make or service clarinets, would that be a fair demand?
Also, I wonder how many times when we play test clarinets, the differences we think are "brand X plays/sounds better than brand Y" are really just that sample XX is sealing better than sample YY. How big a deal is the tightness of the seal?
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-10-17 22:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-10-18 00:31
fskelley wrote:
> Is a "Coke bottle"
> tight seal common? ...or needed? (would it really make a
> difference to playing?) And if it would, does it follow we
> should demand it on a new or newly repaired horn?
>
Yes to all of this. A good independent repair person wouldn't let a clarinet out of his shop if both joints didn't seal this way. But this kind of attention to detail can cost money. Sometimes the people who work in music stores are under pressure to get the work done inexpensively and can't put the time into an instrument that this kind of result requires.
> Also, I wonder how many times when we play test clarinets, the
> differences we think are "brand X plays/sounds better than
> brand Y" are really just that sample XX is sealing better than
> sample YY. How big a deal is the tightness of the seal?
>
I think this is often the case. Just yesterday I was trying a couple of instruments out at my repairman's shop. One that he called my attention to was an instrument he had just put $800+ worth of extra setup work into. Another that I picked up from a nearby table that had not had that amount of setup work felt stuffy and hard to focus. I'm certain the second instrument suffered so much in the comparison because of the extra work done on the first one.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-10-18 00:37
Oh Stan these are VERY good questions!
When I play test horns, the very first thing I do is the pair of pressure tests. A poor showing doesn't rule out a horn or make it unplayable but that DOES factor into how you evaluate the overall performance (if it's really good, then you KNOW it will only be better!!!).
Though some clarinetists on this forum will even go as far to say that a little leak will make the sound note-to-note more 'smooth,' I definitely prefer the good seal. I hear, feel and prefer the greater resonance of sound to any note-to-note 'smoothing.' I prefer to create any effect I get rather than have it created for me.
I just had a somewhat uncomfortable disagreement with a repairman over what the bottom joint should feel like. I promised to let him compare anything he does with my Yamaha CSGs and how they seal. I think he said, "Who's the repairman here?" I thought not answering that question was exhibiting more restraint on my part than usual.
Oh, and to address the articulated G#, I would use the right thumb as a bottom stopper and stop the "articulated" hole with the right index finger.
For complete body clarinets (ie Rossi) you just stop the bottom with your bare calf. There is ALWAYS a way to make it work!
...............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-10-18 01:00
Blu-Tack or similar can be used to stop open toneholes when testing a joint with no keys on it for leaks. A large blob of Blu-Tack can also be used to stop open tenons when testing single piece bodied clarinets.
On clarinets with artic. C#/G# I stop the open C#/G# tonehole on the tenon with my left pinky. If testing on a mag machine (which I don't have or use anymore) I block that tonehole with Blu-Tack.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2014-10-18 04:07
"I imagine some of you (or me) contemplating an old horn for sale and thinking, "Do I really want to put my mouth on THAT?". Or will the seller care if I squirt Sterisol on the open joint ends?
How many other prospective buyers have already tested it the same way? Reminds me of geology lab experiments that involve tasting- how many other students have already licked this particular rock?"
Put some cling wrap over the end and poke a hole with your finger.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-10-18 06:38
Good and very practical advice... especially the cling wrap.
From my own previous experience (maybe I wasn't doing the suction tests well enough?), it would seem that bottom joints maybe are not commonly as tight as top joints. Do you agree? And if so, is it because of the larger pads etc? Or because it's harder to test quickly and the mfg and techs can more easily get away with it?
And back to the question of, does it matter anyway? That is, does a perfectly sealed bottom joint make for better playing than one that is well sealed, just not Coke bottle tight? Karl and Paul seem to think so. I'm a tad skeptical. It would be devilishly difficult to prove or disprove, just like everything else with clarinet playing where we feel and hear what we expect to feel and hear. You'd have to do double blind tests with identical instruments. Maybe have 3 "regular" seal and 1 "super" seal and ask you guys to pick out which one is the Coke bottle example just by playing.
And this is a bit personal. I have- as described above- 2 clarinets in my possession right now with identical imperfect bottom joint sealing (or I'm not testing correctly). One new, one a year old and with my own repairs. They're either both AOK or both need work. Sounds like I ought to get them looked at, but I wonder if that will prove to be a waste of time, energy, and $$.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2014-10-18 06:39
Hello fskelley, Can you post the link to this particular video?
Ta,
JK
''Then I found a YouTube video about suction tests...''
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-10-18 14:23
HEY........MILES AHEAD MUSIC !!!!!!
This guy is a TOP tech, and one of the few in the country that I would trust with my personal horn (and have!). He had done several clarinets for the Army Band out there in Louisville with all Kraus Omni pads. And let me tell you, the bottom joints of those clarinets sealed EXACTLY the same as the top joints.
This is not new either. Any techs that are of the Moening tradition (or school if you will) can give you the same results (with most other types of pads) - Brannen, Spriggs, Davis (of Miles Ahead), Muncy, Onks. Unfortunately there are many more of the "I guess I'll just throw a new pad in there," types.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2014-10-18 15:34
Does the fact that leather pads used on the entire lower joint are more porous and will not seal as well as bladder pads seem like a valid point?
Post Edited (2014-10-18 15:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2014-10-18 15:35
In general, leather pads are not more porous than bladder pads. They can be... or not.
Post Edited (2014-10-18 18:16)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-10-18 17:22
Clarineteer wrote:
> Does the fact that leather pads ...
> are more porous and will not seal as well as bladder pads seem
> like a valid point?
>
If that were fact, then what would be the point of using the leather pads? Just as bladder pads can be of high quality or low, so can some leather pads seal better than others. A careful repair tech tests the pads he uses, buys from the most reliable sources he knows, and doesn't use porous pads in high quality work.
As to the questions, "does it make a difference," and "is a 'coke bottle seal' worthwhile on the bottom joint," it may depend on the use the clarinet is being put to. If the context in which you're using the clarinet demands top performance, then, yes, it makes a difference and is worth the effort (and attendant cost). Will it matter to someone who plays recreationally once a week in the clarinet section of a community band? Maybe not. In any case the player needs to decide how well the clarinet, which is after all only a tool, needs to perform.
One other point in connection with a well-sealed bottom joint. High quality pads, not just any pads from the box, are important. The pads must be properly leveled to seal well when closed, and the springs must hold closed pads shut without interfering with the player's ability to move the key easily. But many times, it isn't leaky pads or their being out of level or even the mis-regulation of springs that can cause small but additive leaks. The pad seats themselves must be perfectly smooth with no irregularities or open grain lines that could allow air to escape. Problems in this respect can be found even on brand new instruments. Re-finishing a pad seat, or several, can be time-consuming work. Is it worth the cost? Depends very much on the demands the player makes on the instrument.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-10-18 18:11
We seem to be saying that a less experienced player or less important player need not worry about it. I don't like this rationale. Just as I would say that ANYONE should use the best clarinet that they can afford, I would also say that one should have the clarinet regulated to the best degree possible. This allows for the easiest playing and the best playing. Why would ANYONE WANT less?
There are LOTS of new horns that have less than satisfying final regulation. Buffet has been pretty notorious for this on their standard R13s for decades. What brought me to the repairman just yesterday was a brand new R13 with sketchy pads (very thin; loose bladder material; spongy synthetic cork on the crows foot etc.). I even had custom Wurlitzer clarinets that had corks glued against the adjustment screws (rather than the opposing key).
I guess though it does take a more experienced player (or one that bothers to have some repair knowledge) to find flaws that CAN be easily corrected, and who can find someone who is onboard with the corrections. So in a way I then do concede to the above point ........grudgingly.
..............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2014-10-18 18:52
While I do check suction on my instrument, a few years back my tech told me that it is helpful, but not ideal. He said that in his experiences sometimes it is possible to get a "false reading" because you may have a pad that is not seated great, but that you can suck it closed and get it to seal where it may not perform as well while playing.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-10-18 18:53
I may not have been clear - it was hard to know how to put what I wanted to say into words, and I hope clarifying doesn't just make things worse, as any politician knows it sometimes can.
Paul, to try to be clearer, I wasn't trying to say that the need for a peak-regulated instrument depended on the skill or experience level of the player, necessarily. But the need for an optimally responsive instrument is something each player has to decide for himself, probably based on what he or she wants from it. That section player in the community band may well want the best response and resonance his clarinet can give him and be willing to pay for it in additional shop time costs.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-10-18 19:11
I see the suction test as a "necessary but not sufficient" tool. That is, if the suction test is bad, that's bad. But if it's good, you may still have a problem (weak spring or whatever).
I thought about trying to make a video of my suction tests- maybe I will, but first let me describe them in words.
Top joints (of 2 clarinets)... I put the #0 stopper snugly in the bottom (wet or not makes no difference), close the tone holes with wet LH fingers and thumb (I use water not spit, LOL), and suck on the top. I am able to establish a suction that lasts long enough to pause, block off with my tongue, then lift a finger and get an audible "pop". Very nice.
Bottom joints... same thing with #4 stopper, wet RH fingers, also hold down the E/B key with pinky. I suck on the top. I feel nice resistance, but it won't "hold". That is, as soon as I stop sucking, it's gone. I sucked on hundreds of Coke bottles as a kid, and these are not at all the same. (And I just double checked using wet palm instead of stopper, no difference.)
So- the verdict is these are both in need of further repair? Any of you with Lyriques or Ariosos, please try suction tests and tell me what you find.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-10-18 20:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-10-18 19:17
Ed wrote:
> While I do check suction on my instrument, a few years back my
> tech told me that it is helpful, but not ideal. He said that in
> his experiences sometimes it is possible to get a "false
> reading" because you may have a pad that is not seated great,
> but that you can suck it closed and get it to seal where it may
> not perform as well while playing.
Well, after you try a suction test, you can always check in the other direction by blowing smoke through the sealed-up section to see if any of it escapes and where. The downside is that the clarinet will smell of smoke for days or longer. :(
Your tech was correct. The trouble is there is really no effective, convenient way other than suction to test for *small* leaks at home. You can hear a major leak when you gently blow air into the section (no smoke needed). Or you can play and have someone else press on pads to see if the tone improves. But those aren't very precise, either. Probably no one except an extreme gadget freak is going to have a Magnehelic machine at home.
Suction and light blowing are about all we have at home. If a problem turns out to be harder to find, a good repair shop is usually the next stop.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2014-10-18 20:14
>> The trouble is there is really no effective, convenient way other than suction to test for *small* leaks at home. <<
There is, it's the blow/squirt test. Instead of sucking, close the holes in the same way and squirt air from the mouth. It's a little difficult to explain but it's similar to puffing your cheeks and releasing the air but no need to puff the cheeks. With a little practice you can be very sensitive this way. The only real reason I use a magnehelic machine is because I'm not crazy about putting my mouth on many random clarinets...
>> A good independent repair person wouldn't let a clarinet out of his shop if both joints didn't seal this way. [i.e. like a coke bottle] <<
Everyone who worked on many clarinets has the experience a clarinet which plays fine, but still chasing the tinyest leak that is still possible to notice (not by playing), finally finding and fixing it, only to end up with the clarinet playing... the same. Not by an average or even good player, but absolutely excellent player at the highest level, whether that's the repairer or the owner who really knows their instrument.
Of course I'm not saying not to aim for that regardless.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-10-18 20:42
clarnibass wrote:
>
> Everyone who worked on many clarinets has the experience a
> clarinet which plays fine, but still chasing the tinyest leak
> that is still possible to notice (not by playing), finally
> finding and fixing it, only to end up with the clarinet
> playing... the same.
But, of course, you don't know if finding and fixing that last little leak will make a detectable improvement in the instrument's response or not until you fix it. And this also begs the question, how are you detecting this "tiniest leak?" If the section still won't hold a seal, I'm not sure how tiny it is. In Stan's case, my advice would be to pursue whatever is preventing him from getting any sustained suction from either lower joint. That, for me, isn't a tiny leak.
Karl
Post Edited (2014-10-18 20:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2014-10-18 20:53
fskelley wrote:
>
> Bottom joints... same thing with #4 stopper, wet RH fingers,
> also hold down the E/B key with pinky. I suck on the top. I
> feel nice resistance, but it won't "hold". That is, as soon as
> I stop sucking, it's gone.
>
> So- the verdict is these are both in need of further repair?
IMO, yes, but by someone who knows how to do more to seal a clarinet than just replace pads.
> Any of you with Lyriques or Ariosos, please try suction tests
> and tell me what you find.
>
It doesn't really matter much what other instruments from a given maker are like when they come from the factory. The manufacturer isn't going to put in the hours of hand work that may be needed to make the instrument seal optimally. No clarinet is given the kind of personal treatment that a Haines flute or a Loree oboe gets (or is said to get) before it's sent out to a buyer. But no clarinet is that expensive, either, and no one has to custom order a new clarinet or wait for months or even years for it to arrive. Among the consequences of highly mass-produced, affordably priced clarinets is a lot of room for further work once the clarinet is bought.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-10-18 20:56
OK, Karl- thanks for the recommendation. Service on the older horn was the plan all along anyway, I bought new one so I wouldn't be hornless while old one was in the shop. I was just being lazy and cheap to think I could avoid the checkup. And I understand I may not feel any playing difference after the service, even with a coke bottle tight lower joint. Which is not the same as saying that there IS no playing difference, LOL.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2014-10-18 21:24
>> But, of course, you don't know if finding and fixing that last little leak will make a detectable improvement in the instrument's response or not until you fix it. <<
I meant in restrospect. A leak that doesn't "show" when playing but you find another way, or a leak that you fix but there's no change in how the clarinet plays. These situations exist.
>> And this also begs the question, how are you detecting this "tiniest leak?" <<
The blow/squirt test I explained or a mag machine, to find there's a leak and then one of many methods to find where it comes from.
>> In Stan's case, my advice would be to pursue whatever is preventing him from getting any sustained suction from either lower joint. That, for me, isn't a tiny leak. <<
My post was in response to clarinet joints sealing like a coke bottle and a good repairer not letting a clarinet out if not in that condition. Maybe it wasn't meant to be taken so litterally...?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-10-18 21:49
This video I recorded just a few days ago, using what I've been calling my older clarinet (Arioso), repaired by me (other thread) and sealing as described above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFLJTf_a6O0
On this song, after my repairs I found much more stability in phrases like at 1:40 where I'm up in altissimo and come back down into lower clarion. Previously, the clarion here would require extra effort not to fall apart on me. Also at about 2:00-2:04, the altissimo D E F E D G was often problematic but is now much more stable.
I do occasionally find that coming down to C5 ![[C5]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/c5.gif) from altissimo it doesn't want to play. These days I blame that on the reed (other threads- now I'm working with a new box of Vandoren blue #3 and lots of ATG adjusting), but now I wonder if a tiny leak is the culprit. Or it's still just my embouchure and all that stuff. Sigh.
On the other hand, C7 ![[C7]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/c7.gif) (3:27) is very reliable for me these days. Even C7 was helped by recent repairs, which I don't fully understand but I'll take it anyway.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-10-18 21:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-10-19 01:30
Stan,
I gotta tell you I really liked this video (superimposing yourself on the music is a gas!). For my tastes though I'd tweak the reverb down just a tad........awesome the way it is though.
I really hear the difference in the airtight seal with the lowest chalumeau notes mostly but there is also more 'presence' in the low clarion as well. I just think that optimum performance is what we are all about. There's nothing wrong with chasing that "demon in the sky."
As for the problems skipping from the altissimo, I would recommend being conscious of using more air, and more focused air for the upper neighbor (which means the reverse coming down!). Whenever I have trouble with skips, I go back to playing 12ths up from the chalumeau (and down) without the octave key. Always good to remind yourself every now and then what the basis is for the clarinet acoustic.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-10-19 02:20
Thanks, Paul, I do appreciate your help and encouragement.
Reverb is a matter of taste, and I tend to optimize for the headphone experience, maybe not the best choice. Perhaps one day I can afford to contract with a real sound engineer for my final audio mixes. But I know my skills in that area have increased over time, just like everything else. That makes it hard for me to listen to my older recordings, and makes me want to update them ASAP.
The music I'm standing in front of is (as some of you may know) the staff display from Sonar Cakewalk. Piano, bass, and electric piano are all my own arrangements / performances on keyboard, using MIDI voices from various sources. Then Sonar shows what you played. It's not perfect, runs get glopped together into ugly chords and such- but I thought it interesting enough to show. Other keyboard or arranger nerds might find it entertaining. The piano is the old Gigastudio "Gigapiano", which originated from a sample of a Dallas studio's Yamaha C7 that was the favorite piano of Kenny Rogers and a bunch of other artists. First time I heard and played that sample I was hooked. I'm glad it's still usable in Sonar even though Gigastudio bit the dust.
And I still plan on some more service on my horns. Maybe afterward I'll have some Eureka! playing sessions.
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-10-19 05:14)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2014-10-19 02:30
So using a Mag machine what number closest to zero is required for an optimum seal on the lower joint?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-10-19 02:48
I implore all of you to avoid the machine.......they don't handle what is important regarding spring tensions and the finesse aspects (my opinion) of what feels right to us as performers.
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-10-19 04:34
If you do go by the mag machine reading, you ideally want a reading of less than 0.5 on the top joint - as near to 0 as is humanly possible. If you haven't got a mag machine, you want to be able to create a vacuum in the top joint that holds for at least 10 seconds - the longer the vacuum holds beyond 10 seconds, the better.
I just overhauled a clarinet which was only a few years old which originally had very porous pads fitted and the top joint didn't hold a vacuum at all when doing the suction test - less than half a second at best. The owner wasn't happy with its overall tone feeling it was lifeless and he found it hard work to play in general.
But after repadding it using cork pads almost throughout (with just the largest four lower joint pads in leather) the instrument held a vacuum for ages and in comparison to how it played before, it had come to life and was both responsive and more resonant.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-10-19 09:55
"...it had come to life and was both responsive and more resonant."
I take that to mean that it played AND sounded better. If that is so, even if you can- by skill or force of will- play a horn with a mediocre seal, you may still lose something in tone quality. Could you also work around the sound issue?
Thought experiment. You are about to play your performance or audition of a lifetime. For whatever reason, you have only 2 possible clarinets available. #1 is your personal favorite, but is for the moment slightly lacking in seal tightness. Let's assume every pad passes the usual cigarette paper probing, but top joint will only hold suction for a second or 2, and bottom joint not even that long. Clarinet choice #2 is a well respected instrument but not at the level or cost of #1. I think you can imagine a few such choices. But #2 is Coke bottle tight, both joints could hold suction while you went out for dinner, LOL. Which clarinet are you going to play?
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-10-19 09:57)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2014-10-19 10:07
Chris, please tell me the ideal number for the lower joint using the Mag machine. Thanks.
Post Edited (2014-10-19 10:07)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2014-10-19 10:17
OK, I just checked with the magnehelic machine an actual plastic bottle. It's a big 1.5L one and I used the same setup that I use for clarinets, so it took longer but it got to 0. Actually not 0, but lower, as low as the needle can go, same as when the machine is turned off.
By the way those kangaroo leather pads that many on the other thread really like and claim to seal great weren't even close. That's testing just one pad on an optimum home-made plastic "tone hole" and pressing significantly harder than I would on a clarinet key...
In addition, different set up mag machines can give different results, so comparing measurement by different people/shop/machines is not necessarily reliable. Even if the machines have been set up following the same "instructions". That's when using rubber plugs. If testing with fingers, force and finger prints are another pretty big variable.
Unfortunately sometimes these types of exaggerations are a sign of less precision and accuracy. At least that's what I found statistically. I rather hear someone working to a specific tolerance, for example, than to say it is perfect. Often enough in the case of the latter it's nowhere near...
Post Edited (2014-10-19 15:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-10-19 17:12
The lower joint may not have as good a seal as the top joint due to the nature of some leather pads, so expect a reading around 1 to maybe 2 at worst on a mag machine. If you can get the lower joint as near to 0 on the lower joint, then that is ideal, but may not always be possible to achieve - perhaps with some modern synthetic pads in the largest pad cups you can get there.
But that's not to say a clarinet with a higher reading than 1 or 2 is unplayable - some very leaky clarinets due to porous pads play surprisingly well compared to others that are bottle tight.
I read on here a while back that Oehler system clarinets and their players prefer the resistance the micro leaks offer due to the type of porous leather pads they use.
Personally I prefer any instrument to be as airtight as possible for the best efficiency as no energy is wasted through leaks, so clean articulation and crisp staccatos are made easier, plus overall response is better.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Steven Ocone
Date: 2014-10-19 17:31
A leak in one place has a different effect than a leak in another, but I can't always which ones are most problematic. I have done some expensive repairs to bass clarinets, essentially replacing most or all of the pads till everyone seals. I use a pressure machine.
When I use a pressure machine to do a professional repad on a soprano clarinet I typically get a seal that lasts 45 seconds or longer (upper joint). I use plugs in the raised tone holes and thumb tube so that I can press the ring keys very lightly. Otherwise I would be pressing the keys more than I would in a playing situation.
I don't bring every clarinet to the same reading on the pressure machine. If I am doing a quick repair on a student clarinet, I know what reading will create an acceptable repair. This will usually give me 10-20 seconds on seal with the suction test (not drawing on it too deeply).
For wooden clarinets, the trick to getting a great seal is sealing the tone holes and filling any checks. I often have to work on new (unsold) clarinets. I can turn a leaky clarinet into an acceptable one but working on the tone hole alone.
Steve Ocone
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarineteer
Date: 2014-10-19 19:10
Chris, Thanks for your reply. I usually get the upper joint to about 0.2 to 0.4 using cork pads but I can only get the lower joint to 1.5 to 2.0 using Ferrees kid leather Bassoon pads.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-10-19 19:34
The lower joint isn't as important provided the largest pads all seal well on their respective toneholes - the ring key and cross B/F# 'sliver' key pads are the ones that really need to be good as they're at the top end of the lower joint, but you can get away with the largest diameter pads being porous as that's not going to have too much effect on the instrument as a whole as they're right at the lower end of the instrument (however it will cause problems if they're not seated well against their toneholes). Leaks or porous pads on the top joint are far more detrimental to the instrument's overall performance.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
