 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2014-04-03 19:02
Tom tests tuning of 4 Libertas clarinets on utube. rather impressive; I would like to have one!!
richard smith
Post Edited (2014-04-03 15:05)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: bmcgar ★2017
Date: 2014-04-03 19:41
I love mine. But I'm hoping he wasn't looking at the tuner when he was playing.
I'd suppose he wasn't, but I think he should have stated that in the video for the suspicious.
B.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bruno
Date: 2014-04-03 19:53
Link??
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2014-04-03 21:33
Anyone else notice that the ![[D4]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/d4.gif) didn't speak well on a few of the clarinets?
Voicing problem? Microphone placement?
...GBK
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-03 21:45
The only mic was the one on the camera.......by no means was this a professional recording as that wasn't the purpose. Tom did one take and conscripted my little sister to hold the camera.
Listen more and I would guess you could find other pitches that were somewhat distorted due to the lack of quality recording setup.
Ted Ridenour
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2014-04-03 17:50)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-03 22:48
I hope my earlier thread on this test doesn't preclude me from posting here. Discussing the issues is more important than the venue of their discussion.
I've heard people's skepticism. I suspect some of that is healthy, if not also addressed by the manufacturer.
What I haven't heard though and I would like to--as it's only fair--is to hear of other brands that people have found that are consistent, or perhaps said vendors publishing similar test of their own.
In fairness--time would need to be allowed for this to happen.
Hearing from unaffiliated bboarders, on this thread or at mine (I could not care less) about such experiences may help to level the playing field here.
e.g. to rehash: I've heard of a period where Selmers were very consistent. Can any of our Selmer historians verify this?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-04-06 14:58
The period where Selmers are consistent is NOW. I defy anyone to find a bad Privilege.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Bruno
Date: 2014-04-06 19:44
Paul:
It amazes me that posters in this forum actually favorably compare hard rubber clarinets with time-tested, honored grenadilla instruments produced by the finest instrument makers in the world - instruments played by possibly every top symphonic and chamber music clarinetist in the business.
If I had any interest in trying and possibly buying a hard-rubber clarinet as a second instrument (and I did), it has been aborted by the preposterous claims made on some of these threads.
Bruno>
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-06 21:29
Mr. Deecy:
I respectfully agree with everything in your first sentence up to the hyphen, but antithetically to the reasons you cite.
Why would we want a hard rubber clarinet that tests have shown people like the sound of more that clarinets made of wood, which keeps better in tune, is dimensionally stable, won't crack, that people report plays easier, that's less money, and likely far more consistent between clarinets of the same model than wood ones, all NOT sourced from a wood whose underlying tree is being subject to extinction?
Sorry for pointing out the obvious but I wish to make a point. Once upon a time the horse and buggy was time tested. Then, combustion engines came along. Many top symphonic players do play Ridenours. They
just don't talk about it because Ridenour doesn't pay endorsers like other clarinet manufacturers do.
It amazes me that after some of the recent postings on this matter, summarized above, that you would be amazed.
It's interesting how you talk about hard rubber perhaps someday being your backup clarinet. I say this because you won't be the first person motivated by such a goal. Nor would you be the first person that switched what they thought would be their hard rubber backup clarinet, to making it their primary clarinet.
Isn't it interesting how people pay the "hard rubber guy" to tune their wood clarinets http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=403698&t=403698 and then advertise them as such hoping to collect a premium, when the "hard rubber guy" not only makes clarinets so much closer to being in tune, that otherwise get finished by him all as part of the infinitely cheaper purchase price.
I have no affiliation with anyone in the music business. I have an R13 Bb from the 1960s that I purchaed in the late 1970s, and have purchased a Ridenour "A" at fair market value.
I apologize for sounding like a broken record. The fact is I love my Buffet R13, even though I too wish to send it to Ridenour for tuning. Other posters have confirmed my belief that Selmer also makes consistent clarinets. And its possible that some of the better known boutique manufacturers (Backun) do as well--I don't know (although I do know wood changes in size which affects pitch). It's just that you made a claim, and I sought to offer a different perspective.
I speak nothing to the content of your character sir, and wish you the best.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2014-04-06 21:29
Thanks for sharing, Bruno. Let us know when you have something positive or substantive to add.
Seriously, there may be reasons to not choose a Lyrique clarinet, but what's at issue in this thread is the consistency of tuning. Ridenour Clarinet Products posted a video promoting one of their best selling points and challenging someone to equal it with another brand. What would you have them do? This is 100% fair and the response doesn't seem crazy or outlandish, especially in this particular thread.
Bruno seems to prefer that we just shut off all discussion and accept older designs and brands as unapproachable for all time AND all uses. I would prefer he brought a little more to the table than tradition.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: fskelley
Date: 2014-04-06 22:35
It's all a bit infused with the character of religion and politics.
Seriously though- would any of us want music to be completely devoid of personal passion and opinion? How boring. As an engineer I yearn for precision in many things, and it's great when over time some things can change from matters of opinion to pure numbers and science. That's good for a question like, "What grade of steel should be used for cable 417C in this bridge?". I'm not sure it's desirable for a question like "Which of these 2 clarinet mouthpieces yields a nicer tone (in some particular comparison)?"
I do want the science- I just recognize the importance of the unmeasurables. And I think I'm glad they're there.
By comparison, I've noted that for just about every location in the USA (and probably in the world), there are a bunch of folks who would never want to live anywhere else. And that's a really good thing, we can't all live in one place, and I'm glad we don't want to.
I hope I don't regret chiming in on this discussion. :-/
Stan in Orlando
EWI 4000S with modifications
Post Edited (2014-04-06 18:35)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-04-06 22:53
If the wooden Selmer Privilege is truly as consistent in tuning as the Lyrique, it comes at a cost that is slightly over 4 times the cost of the hard rubber Ridenour Libertas.
Per the ProWinds website http://www.prowinds.com/product/B16PR/Professional_Clarinets?gclid=CILskJHlzL0CFcWTfgod5X0ACg , the current price for the Selmer is $6029.00 (shipping is free) and comes with an optional 1-3 years Extended Service Plan with the 3 year plan costing $295.00. Upon reading the Extended Service Plan http://www.prowinds.com/esp cracks are repaired.
Kessler Music and Kennelley Keys Music also carry it for the exact same price.
WWBW and Weiner Music do not carry it.
An interesting thing that I noted on one of the YouTube videos is that the register key is the same "ergonomic" type that is used on the Lyrique 576bc. (which is optional on the Libertas)
None of the websites nor the videos talked about its tuning. (that I could see or hear about)
Since, in this thread, we are discussing tuning issues only, why pay 4 times more for a wooden Selmer model (with the possibility of it cracking) and which is (IMO) restricted to indoor playing over a demonstrated, highly accurate tuning, hard rubber Libertas?
I'm just trying to add something useful to this discussion.
Disclaimer: I have no connection with Ridenour Clarinet Products.
Post Edited (2014-04-07 00:47)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2014-04-07 01:00
Since Tom already has the setup and is familiar with the testing process, perhaps four randomly seleted Lyrique G1s could be the first wood clarinets tested?
jnk
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2014-04-07 05:22
I would have felt much better if Tom had not been able to see the tuning meter. I heard him adjusting his tone and, to some extent, his intonation. I'm absolutely willing to think that he adjusted depending on his ears rather than the meter, but I heard some slightly out of tune notes that he quickly corrected.
I agree that the intonation on the Libertas is outstanding, but I was surprised when Tom made adjustments that didn't show on the meter.
Tom, this is no insult to you. You're a great player who makes a great product. I just wish you had put the meter where you couldn't see it.
Ken Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-07 05:37
We have no interest in promoting or testing the G1's intonation. The reality is that it will probably be discontinued in the near future. They are not as consistent (I would say why but I don't think it would be appreciated in this forum), as far as how they come out after initial fabrication, requiring massive amounts of specialized work much of which is related to intonation.........some production simply is unusable (based on Toms standards). The G1 has received excellent reviews from many players including several top notch players but this is only after extensive preparation by Tom. But we do not feel its as good an instrument as our hard rubber clarinets in the aggregate.
Their seems to be a misconception that the G1 is a big part of RCP. It's not. It never has been, and in the near future it's possible and even likely it will no longer be offered. RCP is a hard rubber clarinet company.
The setup for the test was nothing anybody with a few cameras couldn't reproduce.....their was nothing special or expensive about creating it. Theirs little or nothing stopping anyone from doing the same thing with another model/brand.
Ted Ridenour
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-07 05:43
Ken,
We probably should have. The test wasn't something we really planned though. Tom did a tuning test with one clarinet and I said "why don't you do 3 or 5 clarinets back to back to back....". My point is this isn't something we spent days or even hours setting up or planning.
Tom made a statement regarding the issue of compensation, I'm not sure if its in this thread or the other. I've had others tell me they felt it was clear Tom was making minimal adjustments. Everyone's free to watch the video....read Tom's statement....and draw their own conclusions.
Ted Ridenour
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2014-04-07 02:15)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2014-04-07 06:38
Did Tom make this video before or after he had worked on the clarinets?
jnk
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-07 06:46
I'm not sure why that's relevant but as we try to be honest and transparent......
I believe they were "in process".....meaning they were not fresh off the line but were not finished and ready to be sent out.
Ted Ridenour
PS- Cherry picking the clarinets would mean Tom fully prepared 20 (pick a number) and then selected the best four. This was not the case. These were simply the four clarinets that were in process when the idea for doing the video was thought of.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2014-04-07 06:50)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-07 06:55
Mr Kissinger:
I respectfully do not understand, as you suggest, why an individual promoting his line of hard rubber clarinets, and making the point (as discussed in other posts) that :
* hard rubber machines better, and
* produces intonation superior clarinets, that
* remain that way because they are, unlike wood, dimensionally stable,
as compared to his competitor's clarinets (who in his marketspace pretty much all make their clarinets out of wood or Greenline material) would introduce, or be incentivized to put copies of his own wood clarinet model to the test so as to cross compete with 2 of his models against each other.
The implied message was, at least I think, 'can other non Ridenour [i.e. wood] brands do this?'
A fast food analogy, as I see it, might be McDonalds comparing the taste of a particular one of its burgers to a relatively comparable one at Burger King, in the hope of achieving increased sales: something McDonalds isn't likely to experience if it merely runs a taste test between two of its burgers.
Perhaps I miss your point. Maybe it was that the tester of all clarinets, at least, would be the same person.
Maybe the tester should have been a 3rd party.
Kindly explain.
===========
Mr Shaw:
"I was surprised when Tom made adjustments that didn't show on the meter."
I am confused as to what adjustments you refer to. I don't recall Mr. Ridenour "Sr.," (not to confuse him with Ted, his son) claiming much in the way of embouchure changes ( I think he said the opposite). Someone had suggested he might be biting, for example, when in fact he is a double lip player--which doesn't mean of course that he can't adjust pitch with changes in embouchure pressure to the mouthpiece.
Yes--Tom seeing the tuning meter could allow him to respond to notes that the meter showed as off key, and therefore doing it without visual access to the tuner might have been a better test (not that I still don't find the results amazing), but Tom could also get feedback by simple hearing himself play, even without the meter, and make adjustments to notes he merely heard (rather than saw) that were off key.
I simply choose to believe that when Tom said, in so many words, there was no hanky panky in this test, that there wasn't.
Honestly, I don't know how few accoustical cents a trained ear like Tom's can hear difference in (I read 5-6 cents being the average in humans), or what sensitivity level the meter was set at. Still more, the recording wasn't high fidelity, so maybe I missed something, but even though Tom didn't run the test blind, I did--in the sense that I listened to the video without looking at it a couple of times. I don't recall hearing much in the way of quick pitch adjustments in Tom's part when a note that wasn't so in tune was reached, did you? More times than not I saw the meter center itself within a fraction of second, without my hearing commensurate pitch changes.
Could that have just been the time the meter took to hear enough of the note to analyze its pitch accuracy?
I'm not playing devil's advocate. The truth is I honestly don't know. My belief is that if competitors run the test the same way (access to the meter) it will be fair, but it's best done with all players in the test playing blind to the meter.
As I believe every advanced clarinetist makes some degree of adjustment to embouchure for pitch (others on the board have said this too) I suppose it wouldn't be fair for the players in the test to wear noise blocking headphones.
Maybe, as important as competitors doing the test, might be RCP clarinet product owners (or non-RCP owners) doing it as well and reporting their results. As I've stated, I did this with my R13 and my intonation wasn't nearly as good as any of the 4 instruments Tom used, even accounting I believe for, and discounting deficiencies I may have to Tom's embouchure.
I do know this. To steal a prior commentor's line, the "proof's in the pudding." If Ridenour horns weren't consistent, they couldn't survive using their "ship and try" marketing paradigm.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2014-04-07 08:22
I don't think RCP would sell a wood clarinet if they didn't believe it was good-quality and in tune with itself. The fact is that they do sell a wood clarinet and it is the most expensive soprano clarinet in their line. That they may not view it as an important part of their line any more is not obvious from their website (as Ted has acknowledged). It is different from the Libertas both in design and material. I was interested to know, particularly given Tom Ridenour's reputation for designing clarinets that are well in-tune with even scales, whether RCP's business model could produce a wood clarinet with the same tuning characteristics as their top-of-the-line hard rubber clarinet. I don't think that was an unreasonable request. RCP brought the tuning issue up in the first place, after all. Apparently, they didn't find it unreasonable either because they have already acknowledged that the G1 probably doesn't tune as well. Their conceding the point renders the test moot.
If RCP only sold hard rubber clarinets, then publishing test results about their top-of-the-line would make sense (unless they wanted to demonstrate that their lower-end models also have impressive tuning characteristics).
Suppose Buffet posted test results for the Tosca or Divine that were as good as or better than the Libertas. Wouldn't you also like to see results for the R13?
I don't think your analogy is quite appropriate because "taste" is a personal subjective concept. Still, I think McDonald's would be happy to demonstrate that more than one of their products tasted better than any of their competitors'. No? I think a better analogy might be nutritional content because that, like intonation, is capable of objective measurement. Would not nutritional content for all of McDonald's products be useful information?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-07 08:41
The G1 was never a big part of our business. It's always been a minimal % of our business and was made to accommodate a minority of customers who, for whatever reason, were not willing or as willing to try a hard rubber clarinet. Yes...we have a wood clarinet listed on our site. We don't spend time or energy promoting it and the sales of it are minimal.
The G1 is a great clarinet that has very good intonation, those who have purchased it can speak to its quality if they want (some have), but only after Tom has spent an enormous amount of time working on it. Based on the labor involved we should probably charge more but.....that's not how we operate. Is its intonation as good as our hard rubber clarinets? No. Is it as consistent from clarinet to clarinet? No. Such has been the nature of wood clarinets in Toms 40 or so years of experience repairing and designing clarinets.
I don't understand how the G1, a clarinet we've always said was something made to accommodate individuals who liked Toms acoustical designs but simply preferred wood or refused to accept hard rubber, is relevant to this conversation.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-07 08:42
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2014-04-07 08:43)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2014-04-07 08:52
Ted, I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I might be trying to sneak up on an accusation of cherry-picking. That was not my intent. You said earlier that Tom hadn't done that and I believe you. The possibility never crossed my mind until you mentioned it. FWIW, I personally don't believe there was anything "dishonest" about the test. On the other hand, you have admitted that the whole thing was pretty ad hoc. which means, as an experiment, it lacked a lot of controls to rule out other factors that might have an interactive effect on the results. A number of earlier posters have suggested some of those potential factors, which could very well be unconscious.
Given that some tuning adjustments probably had been performed, I think there is another factor that may have been operating, albeit unconsciously. Tom has an excellent reputation for his ability to tune clarinets. But each player, including Tom has individual differences in oral cavity and mouthpiece/reed/ligature preference that can affect how an instrument performs for him/her. Clarinet equipment and the player are a system. They interact to create an output. To the extent, Tom tuned the instrument to his personal profile, then I would expect it to play better in-tune for him. My point is that his results may reflect not only the clarinets he tuned, but also an interaction between the effectiveness of his adjustments and his individual characteristics. This would tend to bias the results positively.
I espect the impact would be relatively small but probably measurable, so I would rather have seen the tester be someone other than the one who adjusted the instrument. That's my only point.
Post Edited (2014-04-07 09:01)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-07 08:54
"RCP brought the tuning issue up in the first place, after all".
I don't know what to make of this comment. Should we not advertise the virtues of our instruments?
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
|
|
|
Author: ThatPerfectReed
Date: 2014-04-07 09:05
"I don't think that was an unreasonable request."
I agree, but one a manufacturer might not want to honor, so as to create competition between two of its models. It's Ridenour's hard rubber Libertas clarinet challenging other makers' clarinets, irrespective of what their body is made of/with.
"Suppose Buffet posted test results for the Tosca or Divine that were as good as or better than the Libertas. Wouldn't you also like to see results for the R13?"
Yes. Just like I'd want to see what you suggested with Ridenour, but feel Buffet won't advertise doing unless it each of the models it tested, met or beat the Libertas' results.
Note: I'd in fact really like to see the models you suggested should they come in the Greeline product line, assuming it being more dimentionally stable than pure grenadilla, and representing Buffet's potential future in clarinets should the pure grenadilla lines need to be abandon due to the wood's shortage.
========
Your analogy and mine each have their strengths and weaknesses. Yes, nutritional content is more objective, and in that attribute it surpasses my analogy regarding taste. I'll give you that. Fair is fair.
But sadly, it's not nearly enough of a factor in the actual purchase decisions of people who visit these chains that it should be (see "our country's obesity epidemic.") and therefore, I think, less relevant (i.e. analogous).
Nutritional content is published across all foods from what I've seen the few times I've step inside one such place. I suspect it's mandated, as it sure isn't good news that such places would want to voluntarily publish across all lines.
But in the clarinet example, Tom Ridenour put its best foot foward (who could blame him), akin to Burger Kind or McDonalds only publishing nutritional
content on its, say, tastiest meal that's also relatively healthy.
Taste isn't anywhere near as objective as nutritional content. Again I agree with you there, but in many ways, the very nature of its subjectiveness may put it more in line with the nuance of human choice when it comes to instrument selection, and make it something that can only to some extent be neatly put into things that math and numbers can describe and quantify.
Stan from Orlando, IMHO, said it best already today above as he posted a thread in which both scientific and nuancical aspects (i.e. taste) go into his clarinet purchase decision, mine, and those I believe of many others.
I bear no ties whatsoever to anyone in any aspect of the music industry.
Post Edited (2014-04-07 09:09)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-07 09:12
Tom spent a minimal amount of time playing those clarinets before hand. He performed a few basic operations on them, none of which involved playing them actually. The clarinets were in no way prepped for the purpose of Tom personally achieving excellent tuning. They were not being prepared for him to play a recital on that night or even do a tuning test. They were being prepped for various customers.
Would it maybe be more authentic (not sure what the right word is) if the player was a 3rd party? Probably. But honestly, and this isn't directed at you personally, we feel like no matter what we do we're going to get skepticism so why spend the time and money to create what would seem to be a perfectly authentic test when it's going to get attacked either way.
I know of no other manufacturer who has done something similar and been as transparent about the circumstances as we/I have here. If one has I applaud them.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2014-04-07 05:17
I think you're reading too much into my comment, Ted. And you've taken it out of context. Of course you should advertise your product's virtues. I think you went a little further than that, however. You didn't just post the video that showed your results with some commentary regarding how impressive you considered them. You challenged other manufacturers to post similar information about their instruments. In other words, you asked them to reveal what you expect to be their vices. Since you raised the challenge, it seemed to me fair game to ask you about other products in your line.
jnk
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-07 09:26
Maybe I did read to much into it....sounds like it and I hope so.
The difference is that the G1 is made of a material that we've never claimed to have the same level of consistency as hard rubber, in regards to building clarinets. In fact quite the opposite.
IMO....a more relevant question would be how does the 576bc's tuning compare? Maybe we'll do that one day. I don't know.
Tom doesn't prepare clarinets for himself he prepares them for customers. Some of the most respected clarinetists in the world have sent their clarinets to Tom to be hand tuned. The fact that the test was ad hoc I think indicates that nothing exceptional was done with these four clarinets....they were just four clarinets being prepped for customers, not for Tom.
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
Post Edited (2014-04-07 09:36)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2014-04-07 09:36
I test the tuning of my Clarinets by playing along with CD backing tracks (minus one). I mostly use the 'Guest Spot' Play-along for Clarinet series. These books have excellent sound quality although I don't like the cheap way they 'pad out' these books by including a two page Clarinet fingering chart with each book , and sometimes duplicating numbers from previous books. But that's besides the point here.
As you all may be aware, for some reason CDs are often slightly sharper than A440 but this is easily compensated by using the appropriate barrel length.
I mostly only use my Lyrique Clarinets for playing in our local theatre orchestra and other occasions although I have a couple of excellent plastic Clarinets as 'knock-abouts' when needed.
The interesting point is , I have found that whilst using my Lyrique Clarinets (RCP-576BC & RCP-570C) with these CDs , there is no problem at all playing in tune. My ear quickly tells me when I"m out of tune but with the Lyrique this doesn't happen at all, so well are they in tune with themselves. I have no need to modify my embouchure to compensate for any problems with tuning.
This is an entirely different approach to testing a Clarinet's quality of pitch ect other than using an electronic tuner. It forces you to listen carefully just like you must do when with others in a group , the advantage of a quality CD recording however, is that you know it's in tune. You can't argue with it !
No doubt there are other brands of Clarinets that are also excellent, but I'm very pleased with the quality of Tom Ridenour's Lyrique.
BJV
"The clarinet is not a horn"
|
|
|
|
|
Author: dibble
Date: 2014-04-07 11:22
I have a Lyrique AND an R13 (from 1963). The more i play both, the more I like them. The R13 has it's problems...the typical flat low e and f. The sharp C clarion. But it is workable. Otherwise it is great. The lyrique has an uncomfortably sharp low e that is quite a challenge, but if the dynamic is double forte, it is better than a flat e. The clarion F# was VERY flat but I undercut the tone hole myself to bring it down and have little problems now.
The lyrique is so easy to play and this is no small thing. Agile, for sure. But, i keep going back to my R13 because the resonance, especially when you go lower is absolutely no contest. When I hear the new videos of the Libertas, I can hear similar tendencies in my hard rubber horn. I'm not trying to hurt anyone, it is just my opinion....
|
|
|
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2014-04-07 18:41
If in the market for a clarinet, try (many) makes and models before buy, as recommended by Snavely in his The Clarinet article, but also keeping price in mind . A daunting task, if not impossible, at best.
richard smith
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-04-08 00:15
Jack Kissinger wrote:
"Tom has an excellent reputation for his ability to tune clarinets. But each player, including Tom has individual differences in oral cavity and mouthpiece/reed/ligature preference that can affect how an instrument performs for him/her. Clarinet equipment and the player are a system. They interact to create an output. To the extent, Tom tuned the instrument to his personal profile, then I would expect it to play better in-tune for him. My point is that his results may reflect not only the clarinets he tuned, but also an interaction between the effectiveness of his adjustments and his individual characteristics. This would tend to bias the results positively."
Mr. Kissinger, first of all, in response to your remarks about my "fitting the clarinets to my particular playing quirks." In the form of "the Educator's Guide to the Clarinet" I wrote a large book, defining the most efficient playing mechanics in the most detailed and objective terms.
The remainder of the text (pt. 2) was concerned with understanding what is required in clarinet equipment to facilitate that efficiency in playing mechanics and how to test equipment and objectively judge its efficiency.
If you've read that material and understand it you'll know what I'm talking about. If not, you might consider doing so.
Now, with that in mind, let me respond to your suggestion I've skewed these horns to my particular playing quirks:
To begin with, let me see if I can't discern the erroneous presupposition implicit in such a statement. If you take your statement, prima facie, as true one must also logically conclude it is not possible to create models of clarinets with specific characteristics in sound, response AND tuning, that the great mass of clarinet players will give common recognition to. Rather, that each clarinet must be skewed to adapt to each player's particular "quirks" for any success.
This does not comport with reality. The fact is, with a large number of clarinet players who have good playing mechanics there is common agreement on the performance qualities of a wide array of clarinet equipment, including reeds, mouthpieces, and clarinets.
Next, most clarinet players are deeply subjectively involved with adapting to their instrument's acoustical "quirks."
Their practice is most often involved with learning how they must adapt and change to compensate for those acoustical quirks to play successfully. Thus, over a period of time the clarinet "trains" them, and the habits they form, perhaps unnecessary on better designed clarinets, become deeply ingrained---ingrained to the point that when they do pick up a more efficient playing clarinet they cannot take advantage of its' improvements. In fact, reflexively playing it with the quirks they have developed on an inefficient clarinet, they commonly experience these improvements as problems and defects.
This is similar to someone driving a car all his life that pulls to the left driving one that does not for the first time. That person might exclaim, "This car's no good. It pulls to the right! See."--as he heads toward the right shoulder of the road and the ditch. He hits the ditch unaware that it is HE who is pulling to right by a muscle reflex he has trained to keep a car that pulls to the left driving straight.
Do you see my point?
Being aware of this, I have labored very hard for the past 25 years, not to adapt my playing mechanics to a particular clarinet with all its quirks and defects, but to develop a very objective way of playing; an efficient way of playing with virtually little or no adjustment--and that only slight changes in tongue position, used only in places like the throat tones.
Only in this way can I see how the clarinet changes, and get an objective picture of it--an objective picture. If I am adapting I will never get a clear picture of the clarinet. Adapting my mechanic testing clarinets is like trying to test some piece of equipment with some testing device that won't stay in adjustment: you can never approximate a true answer.
Stated another way, the vast number of players develop their tone production habits to adapt to the clarinets they play. I have labored hard to develop a highly disciplined, non-adjusting, efficient set of tone production skills to use as a means of OBJECTIVELY analyzing clarinets, especially in regard to their evenness of resistance and their tuning.
The test I carried out on four clarinets were done that way, to reveal the objective tuning of the clarinet. If I had been doing any remarkable degree of adjustment to adapt to the tuner any astute listener would recognize that fact by noticeable changes in color and shape. The fact is, I hardly made any adjustments at all to achieve the results I did, either in number or degree.
If I had serious playing quirks, and adjusted every clarinet to them, then how could I hope to be able to prepare clarinets successfully for large numbers of clarinet players?
If you don't get it, that's a rhetorical question.
Finally, you and/or others seem critical that I didn't have my back turned to the tuner. Actually, doing that is no problem once I've adjusted the clarinet to play 440. But think about what you're saying. Let me see if I can't help you do so by an analogy:
A flutist comes up to you and says, "Match the tuning of my concert F on the top line of the treble clef."
You respond, "Okay, let's hear it."
The flutist responds, "No. Just match it. If you can't match it without a reference point you're cheating."
Or, would you be making a reasonable request if you went into a paint store and asked the man behind the counter to match the shade of green on you bedroom wall at home. When you man asks to see a sample, you respond, "What kind of paint store is it. Match the damned sample. If you can't I'm going to report you to the Better Business Bureau!"
Logically, matching pitch (or anything else) means, ipso facto, TWO elements must be present: the thing to be matched, and the thing that matches it.
That ability to match it with little or no fuss is the test, not the ability to match an abstract standard that is not present in any form except the imagination of another person--which is absurd. Matching, as a realistic and objectively defined task, would happen when either the flutist gives a tone, or there is a frequency indicated by a machine to match.
Get the idea.
It's always a good and advisable thing to actually think about what you're saying before you speak. I recommend it.
Now, by hook or by crook, can you match the results of these tests I did under similar conditions?
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
|
|
|
Author: dibble
Date: 2014-04-08 03:00
I'm sorry, I meant that I undercut the tone hole of the Lyrique to bring it (the pitch) up not down.
|
|
|
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif)
