 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2011-06-13 03:10
Barrels: what a completely interchangeable stupid part of the clarinet...
Why?........why didn't they just make the dang left hand piece of the horn longer and do away with these barrel thingys anyway!..
..and yet my clarinet case has room for a bunch of them.
I bet I could make one out of some PVC pipe and duct tape..
====================
Of course, these exaggerations aren't true. Advanced clarinetists, with cause, rule out no part of their setup as attributable to their overall artistry--and I don't blame them.
But I'd love to hear someone here (who is bound to know more than I do about this!!!) with accoustical know how, talk about the attributes of barrels--and I'm not just talking about how longer/shorter barrel length reduces/increase pitch.
What is it about the barrel's bore size, and the change in bore size of the barrel, as one goes from mouth to bell that changes things? Which ones go best with which setups/mouthpieces. Why are some skinny and some fat. Then there's plastic, rubber, grenadilla, cocobolo, and tulipwood.
Now--I know people will have different opinions on what they think is the best..and that's ok. I respect you all.
But maybe someone can talk about what these variations in design were intended to address.
Bob (Phillips)--I bet (seriously) you've got some really good science you can educate us with here if you have the time.
Thanks all!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2011-06-13 03:55
Don't get me started...
Actually, I'm barrel victim. They can make a huge difference in the way the clarinet responds, sounds, and tunes.
Why I once had a wonderful barrel --but for its complexion --a horrid, Bakun red color --and its intonation.. OK, I'll stop here.
... but there are many threads to find here through the search facility...
... and some written by folks who are so good that they can MAKE tuning barrels --and make them do what needs to be done!
AWESOME
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2011-06-13 12:58
Ho boy........someone close the barn door
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2011-06-13 16:16
I've recently turned into a barrel changer myself. I can tell differences in sound, response, and tuning.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cigleris
Date: 2011-06-13 16:35
That Perfect Reed,
Very early Boehms were made with the top joint and barrel all one piece, I think it changed around the 1890s early 20C. Im sure someone can give the exact dates etc.
Peter Cigleris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Grabnerwg
Date: 2011-06-14 03:37
One of the biggest advantages of making the barrel separate from the upper joint is having the ability to make a reverse taper barrel. It would be hard (but probably not impossible) to make a reverse taper in that part of the bore without the barrel being detachable.
Walter Grabner
www.clarinetxpress.com
New and Used Bufet Clarinets
Walter Grabner
www.clarinetxpress.com
847-266-8644
Post Edited (2011-06-14 04:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-06-14 22:29
Because, just plain old because. How else are you going to "pull out " the barrel to fine tune if you don't have a barrel? Of course you can push it in to if you're already pulled out. There's a whole lot of fun, in, out, in out. If you really want a one piece top joint, just use supper glue and you'll have it, go for it. ;-) ESP
( player of Backun and Segal barrels) eddiesclarinet,com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2011-06-14 23:43
One concept is that the barrel is an adjunct or part of the mouthpiece, rather than a part of the instrument.
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2011-06-15 00:52
Very good Dr. Allan. In his book "The Clarinet" The famous english clarinetist Jack Brymar agrees, the barrel is more an extension of the mouthpiece than it is part of the clarinet, I agree. By the way, it's a great book. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2011-06-15 02:19
Ok..it's probably me, so let me better rearrange my thoughts, and apologize.
In my opening remarks, no way was it my suggestion that barrels be done away with. That was just "devil's advocate talk" to hopefully spur the "barrel pationate" to discuss their experiences. Of course, as I expressly stated, "[such] exaggerations [of a clarinet, sans barrel] are not true."
The ability to control, first and foremost pitch/intonation, not to mention what appears to be a myriad of colorful aspects of clarinet playing and sound via barrel change is what makes the barrel such a focus for some players.
Having not seen in a comprehensive search on the site of any explanations of what things like bore size, bore taper (reverse or not) and materials have on sound, scientifically speaking, I thought someone might like to share the science, or at least their experiences with certain makes and models.
There of course, as suggested, have been excellent prior posts on people's impressions of certain barrels, should the latter of these 2 aforementioned goals be a very "been there, done that" of a topic space here.
Thanks all. Sorry if I rehash old material.
Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Claire Annette
Date: 2011-06-15 04:09
I would also like to understand the reasons for the varying tapers and shapes of the bores inside barrells.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2011-06-16 05:25
OK, I'll re-share one clarinet barrel experience...
... there is this fellow in Spokane who turns architectural features (like the three story tapered columns on a colonial facade. He has built a HUGE lathe to do that.
Another fellow insists on using an odd mouthpiece that is really, really long and throws his horn all out of whack. He's friends with the industrial turner, and talks the guy into making him a short barrel to compensate for his long mouthpiece.
The turner buys a hunk of cocobollo, and makes a couple of barrels for the long-piece guy.
Soon, he's hooked and sets up a production operation, making barrels by the dozens.
He tries to make them alike inside, but with different outer contours --thicker walls, thicker walls --but with the same bore and socket size, a couple of different lengths.
One day, he comes out here to Sandpoint with a grocery bag (GROCERY BAG) containing about 70-tuning barrels made of two different types of wood.
I wear out the upper cork on the upper joint of my clarinet going through each barrel in the bag. This takes about three hours --playing the barrels "logo in line with the throat A key. It would have taken about 5-hours to try them in 4 rotational orientations.
Of the 70 three are just outstanding for their tone color and responsiveness. One is spectacular.
I buy it and one other --just in case.
My colleagues loved the the sound, and logo-out turned out to be the best orientation. They were exceptionally concentric. the bores went right down the center of the mouthpiece and into the upper joint.
THEN, I took the horn to my lesson. OOPS. For the first time: the tuner!
They were great sounding and playing barrels, but they made the twelfths about 40-cents sharp.
Well, heck, one was red and the other was brown...
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: old999
Date: 2011-06-16 20:55
Hmmmm. I just figured that since the barrels are prone to cracking they can easily be replaced without having to replace all the stuff that comes with the next section.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2011-06-17 04:18
ThatPerfectReed,
To over-simplify (and I don't make barrels, just have used a few):
As the Dr. and Ed P., stated the barrel is better viewed as an extension of the mouthpiece. A barrel will have some affect on the sound and response, but the most important function is its' affect on the tuning of the clarinet. (read Mr. Phillips account)
Back in the day, in a land and time far far away, the barrel was simply a cylindrical bore and that was that. Well that was good and fine, until the manufacturers started fudging around with the size and shape of the clarinet bore to aid in better intonation. (Never mind using the same mouthpiece on an A clarinet.) This created a mismatch between the larger bore mouthpieces that many players were using and the altered bore of the clarinet. Suddenly, many clarinetists found the left hand 12ths were Way out.
Well along came Hans, and he got to thinking.... What would happen if I made a barrel that had a larger bore at the top and slowly tapered down to a smaller exit bore at the bottom? Viola!! The 12ths were much closer, the clarinetists could continue using their larger bore mouthpieces (that we now covet like Un-obtainium) and the peasants rejoiced.
But speaking seriously, that was the birth of the Moennig barrel. Some claim it was simply a barrel he reamed out with a standard morse taper, but I don't know as I was not alive. Some claim it was made to have a gap between the bottom of the mouthpiece and the beginning of the bore of the barrel (I know that's unclear but I don't know how else to write it.) Again I haven't found scientific proof either way, though I never truly searched. What it did accomplish was making the 12ths of the R13 much more manageable with the Chedeville, and Kaspar (Chedeville-based) mouthpieces. These mouthpieces tended to have a larger exit bore, with the Kaspar having a much more significantly conical flare. (These are generalizations too.) The tapered barrel aided greatly in the tuning.
Now we have many variations of the reverse taper, many versions using a 4 or 5 stepped reaming process, so even the rate of taper is not constant. Not being an acoustician I cannot speak with authority about the measurements. Scientific-proof can be offered as to how the mouthpiece dimensions, bore configuration, and clarinet bore affect tuning ratios. Yet there are so many options available today that it would be quite a tome. If you search enough you can find some general rules though.
As for sound and response being affected by wood type and wall thickness, you said you have not found scientific proof.- I think that might explain itself. Some will say if the dimensions are correct the material is inconsequential. Also, they will say the wall thickness doesn't have any affect. Others claim the differing woods change tone quality. Some attribute sound qualities to the surface finish of a particular wood, or its' density and porosity. What is the answer? I have no clue. I have found differences, but is it all a placebo effect or due to these variables- well at the end of the day if it does what you want does it matter?
The actual gifted barrel craftsmen that lurk here could speak in a less general way than I do.
-JH
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chetclarinet
Date: 2011-06-17 17:34
I play on an R13 Buffet clarinet. I actually have used this one for the last 20 years.I also used often in professional situations a Buffet Tosca clarinet. I also own and have experimented with just about every barrel made available by custom makers. I keep coming back to the original barrel that came with my clarinets.Go figure!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2011-06-18 02:23
I love my Ridenour fat hard rubber barrels , a 63.5mm / a 64mm / and a 65mm.
They look sexy with their curvy outer diimensions and are REALLY useful for tuning my clarinet but if I want to change the tonal quality of my Clarinet, I play around with different mouthpieces.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
