 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ringw
Date: 2014-02-13 00:50
I recently bought a Ridenour Lyrique Libertas Bb Clarinet. For several years now I've been playing on Ridenour Lyrique Clarinets along with Selmer Recitals. Most recently before purchasing the Libertas I was playing the 576 Lyrique exclusively. Last year I sold my Selmer Recital and since then have played only on my Lyrique 576. The ease of playing, the even scale throughout the range of the clarinet and the tuning on the 576 is remarkably good. I paid thousands for the Recital, a clarinet that I hold in high regard....but I have found the Lyrique 576 is easier to play and the tuning is dead on. So why the switch to Libertas...I've felt the weakeness in the 576 relatively speaking is the keywork and I also felt the Lyrique 576 didn't quite have the depth of sound that my recital had and the key work for sure does not equal the playing quality of the clarinet. The Lyrique Libertas has a quality in the sound and it has a depth and “woodyness” in the sound that the 576 doesn't have yet without any sacrifice to the ease of play or tuning in the clarinet..I would say the best qualities of the 576 are brought to a higher level of fulfillment in the Lyrique Libertas. I'm also happy to say that The Keywork on the Libertas is much improved. It has in-line trill keys...the overall strength of the keys are stronger, the posts are anchored with set screws. The position of the left hand F-C key is more accessible. To me the Lyrique Libertas is a dream to play. Now I will admit some bias here since I've known Tom Ridenour for many years going back to the time he was the with the Leblanc Company...that being said I believe he has developed an outstanding clarinet in the Lyrique Libertas at a very reasonable price. Walt
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2014-02-13 02:12
Phasing out the 576, based upon comments here, would seem to be appropriate. The comparison for many folks will be between the Libertas and the other makes of professional clarinets, many of which cost far more than the Libertas, incidentally, but otherwise seem to be on a par with the Libertas. Try all before buy.
richard smith
Post Edited (2014-02-13 17:49)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2014-02-13 19:46
But Friedland generalized that rubber doesn't carry as well as wood based on the performance of a rubber model that Ridenor says he has acoustically improved in the Libertas. Since Friedland didn't have a Libertas to compare to his G1, doesn't that leave the question of the differences between the two still open? Perhaps Friedland would have to reconsider his generalization after actually trying the Libertas and the G1 wood model side by side?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-02-14 01:46
Seabreeze,
I have sent another email to Ted and Tom concerning the acoustical improvements of the Libertas as far as their effect on "projection" or "carrying power".
Stay tuned. (No pun intended!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2014-02-14 05:00
I"ve used my RCP-576BC Lyrique at outdoor weddings and have had feedback that there was no problem hearing me clearly.
But then again, I don't sit in an orchestra of 60 or 80 players.
I can imagine that wood has more 'carrying power' (projection) but the advantage wouldn't be all that much.
And how many of us here actually play in a large symphony orchestra? Therefore the subject is really irrelevant for most of us and perhaps even quite subjective.
I think that the projection of ones sound has more to do with how the Clarinet is breathed (blown) into than what it is actually made of.
But it is nice to have a top quality wooden wind instrument just so long as the thing doesn't crack/distort/ alter/resettle/shrink/expand/become oval/'blown out' ect ect .
And considering the average quality of the wood of a modern Clarinet all these things are a real possibility.
Have you noticed that the wood of a modern Clarinet doesn't have the heft (density) of the old Clarinets ?
BJV
"The Clarinet is not a horn"
Skyfacer
Post Edited (2014-02-16 15:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-02-14 07:53
Hi everyone,
With regard to projection of wood vs hard rubber, I sent an email to Dr. Allen Segal and straight forwardly asked him if anyone proclaimed greater projection when going from an ebonite to wood barrel. He gave me express written permission to reveal his answer but only if it was "in his words" with no editing on my part. I, of course, agreed and here is his answer:
There have been players who used my wooden barrels on rubber or plastic clarinets and reported marked increase in projection, but keep in mind that they were specifically seeking some new oomph, so they requested barrels that projected well.
In the current thread (I read some of it), keep in mind that there is a current obsession with Dark Tonality. New Instruments might emphasize this feature at the expense of a full tonal spectrum.
When seeking a correction for this, the player may note that some wooden barrels project better on their horn (yep, I call it a horn, no big deal) because the horn might be intrinsically dank. Of course some wooden barrels (even of the same wooden species) maintain the dullness, as do some synthetics.
I do find that the hard rubber barrel (Insert disclaimer here.....) that I helped design with Dr. Omar Henderson tends to project quite well, but it's design reflects my own bias towards a full color palette and ease of sound production. If one wants to join the dark lords and the Sith, you can always stuff cotton in it.
ALLAN SEGAL, MD FACS
412.889.8202
Clarinetconcepts (tm) clarinet tuning barrels
New Chedeville (tm) tuning barrels
Facebook Page for Clarinetconcepts
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2014-02-14 03:42
Judging from the few notes that Ridenour plays on his new video, the Libertas does not seem to belong to the extreme noir black as night school of clarinet and barrel design. I heard a wide overtone profile in the clarion, throat tones, and lower register. The Libertas has a deeper sound but not the rather flat timbre profile that some of his previous rubber models may have had.
Did anyone direct Dr. Segal to Tom's brief demonstration of the Libertas on Youtube so he could hear for himself?
My impression of the Libertas so far is that it is actually bright enough to possibly benefit from a darker-sounding mouthpiece, such as the Vandoren M15 or, at the high end, the new Grabner G11*. The barrel may be just fine, as it is.
My big question now is how the Libertas stacks up alongside the wooden G1. I would think that both are resonant instruments rather than dull.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alseg
Date: 2014-02-14 22:23
Dan was asking me about what patrons noted about playing wooden barrels instead of rubber. Tom's new instrument was not part of the question.
I subscribe to Tom's YouTube channel, so I will eventually listen to the demo.
FWIW, no one ever asked me to make a barrel for one of his horns, and from what I hear, they are very good, consistent, flexible tonally, spot on with intonation, and I would love to own one. I will check it out as soon as I catch up on all the other channels ( Nutnfancy, etc. that I watch when I can).
Former creator of CUSTOM CLARINET TUNING BARRELS by DR. ALLAN SEGAL
-Where the Sound Matters Most(tm)-
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2014-02-15 01:57
Greetings everyone!
Again, addressing the aspect of "projection" of rubber vs wood, (this time as the material of the clarinet body, barrel, and bell), I decided to email Tom Ridenour, the designer of the Libertas and asked him to comment on this matter. I received his reply with written permission to submit it on this BB forum, again with the stipulation that his wording remain intact.
So, what follows is Tom's response:
Dan,
Regarding the issues mentioned in this thread you can find my opinions below.
"This whole thing about projection is a red herring. It doesn't comport with reality. Last year a jr. in Texas won the young artist competition at the OU symposium--playing our Lyrique 576. No one mentioned she had "projection" problems--and it's not as good as the Libertas in regards to producing raw volume.
Everyone said the same thing (just propaganda) about the Opus/Concerto until Morales played a duet with a, let us say, non-Opus player at the 1992 Clarinet festival. What was perfectly clear to any fair-minded person is not only did the Opus play up to the other model in projection (sound presence), but went beyond it and did so while retaining excellent tonal quality. I never heard anyone mention "projection problems" after that.
In my mind, the really critical issue for sound is the issue of the ratio of quality and quantity.
Who cares if you can play as loud as a trombone if the pitch/color/shape envelop ruptures and quality significantly deteriorates when you hit the higher, fuller dynamic levels?
What I find with the Libertas (and the 576 as well) is I can produce higher dynamic levels without worrying about the tonal qualities of pitch, color and shape deteriorating--something I could never forget about and just play when I was playing the old "status quo" in the 1970s and 80s.
The "status quo" always presented difficulties in eliminating the harshness and ugliness of the sound playing above the staff at higher dynamic levels. This is not the case with either the 576 or the Libertas.
At the OU Symposium last summer I went up to one of the judges after the winner of the young artist competition was announced and asked him how the gal who won sounded. He said, "She sounded great." I said to him, "Did you know, she was playing one of my hard rubber clarinets?"
When I told him he looked shocked.
It seems things have not changed very much. When there is a paradigm shift there are always the objectors, and they most often are those at the perceived top of the food chain.
In 1812 Ivan Müller presented his 13 key clarinet to a special Paris conservatory committee of so-called clarinet experts for evaluation.
Müller's clarinet has several very important improvements, including that it played equally in all keys. The "experts" of Parisian professoriate rejected it for that very reason, even though they admitted their 6 key clarinet really did need improving.
This rejection by the clarinet experts actually caused Müller to stop production of his clarinets for a while. But within a few years the military bands latched on to it, more and more people began to play it despite the Parisian claricognoscenti had snubbed Müller and his clarinet. And by 1820, only 8 years later, Müller's clarinet came into wide use, and once that happened it quickly became and remained the standard clarinet in France into the 20th century.
The problem I think we see here is the experts fail in objectivity because they are subjectively immersed in and defending their human capital--and their reputations as experts--They have much invested they reflexively defend, even to the point they reject genuine improvement (and Müller's clarinet was an enormous improvement). I've even seen some get angry once they see a clarinet other than their beloved "status quo" does some important things better and more securely. For the life of me, I just can't understand that: someone makes something better FOR THEM, and they get angry. What kind of Stockholm syndrome is this?
As I said, things ain't changed a lot.
I wonder how many of the top flute players 100 years ago resisted the move from wood to metal flutes? I'll bet a lot, even though the metal flute had enormous improvements; fuller sound, better tuning, more consistent production, and more even, predictable response, etc.
What is the result? Today the only place you can find wooden flutes is sitting behind a glass in a musical instrument museum. I content that wooden clarinets will have the same fate.
I mean, the dinosaur was big and powerful and king of the hill not all that long ago. He never expected he would be suddenly extinct and replaced by something quite superior. But it happened...but I digress.
Regarding Sherman's observations; with all due respect, first, they are subjective. Second, the only way you can make comparative determination about the "projection" qualities of materials (or any other aspect of the performance quality of the materials) is to have an apples to apples comparison.
That is, if both have the SAME ACOUSTICAL DESIGN and the non-acoustical elements optimized for each horn, then and only then can anyone make any meaningful objective statements.
Comparing two clarinets, one made of hard rubber and the other of wood, with dissimilar acoustical design, and then making a determination means next to nothing.
After all, if I took a well-designed hard rubber clarinet and a poorly designed wood clarinet and compared their tuning, and then declared that "hard rubber clarinets tune much better than wood, and you can take that to the bank", what, in reality, would that mean? Next to nothing.
Without apples being compared to apples you cannot conclude anything of significance.
From the aspect of the anecdotal, what I can say as a designer and maker is that we next to never get comments about problems in projection, and when the clarinets are compared back to back in blind tests the hard rubber clarinet comes out looking fine.
So, back to my original point: the claim that hard rubber doesn't project like wood doesn't not comport with reality.
One final story. A professional clarinet player and friend had to quit his job in the Florida orchestra to get a more lucrative job selling to help his family out in Missouri. He kept playing and teaching, and one day he called me, asking if I had a clarinet he could play while traveling on his sales route. I sent him a Lyrique 576 and he bought it.
About six months later he called me out of the blue. He told me the clarinet he sent me was great, but he never got to play it much, because one of his two best students had clarinet problems and he "loaned it" to her.
In his phone call he told me this student and his other best student had gone to the local church to use the piano and let Fred hear them play their contest pieces. Fred told me the other best student had what Fred called "a really top line wood model." He continued, saying the girl who was playing my 576 sounded so much better than the girl with the wood clarinet. He said he couldn't believe it--and no only that, the girl with my 576 played with much more confidence and ease--and with much better tuning."
Normally, Fred (my friend) would call me up to ask for products--reed finishing systems or mouthpieces, etc. But he made the call I just related specifically to tell me that story and conclude, "you've really got something with this clarinet." There were no comments about "projection problems." The only comment about sound was the girl playing my 576 sounded much better than the wood clarinet--and these two students were both pretty much on the same level as players. A friend of mine went to the Kennedy center a few years ago to perform, and his group had a couple of rehearsals they recorded in the hall. He told me he brought my 576 and his wood clarinet, and compared them, both in playing and by listening to the recording. He told me the 576 made it much easier to play the music, and when he compared the recordings he told me the 576 recorded much better than his top-line wood clarinet. Finally, he said, at the concert I played the 576 and the wood clarinet remained in the case. Just where they belong, I might add.
Finally, I hate the word "projection." It's so ugly. The question of the sound is does the sound have presence. Now, presence does not depend upon raw volume, but upon the focus or shape of the sound. It is the shape, not the volume of the sound, that enables it to be heard at very soft dynamics--even at the back of the hall.
There's much more on this subject, but the fact here is that when all other objections fall flat people lapse into this subjective nonsense. It is a red herring and a cheap excuse from facing the truth: hard rubber clarinets are better."
Post Edited (2014-02-15 03:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2014-02-15 03:01
I read this loud and clear: "Hard rubber clarinets are better," and the Libertas is the best of the rubber clarinets. Sherman's generalizations about rubber not having the presence of sound found in wood clarinets is incorrect.
I buy the explanation and I'll probably buy the Libertas too, soon as my budget permits.
I have heard some metal clarinets that sound really good, not at all like a beginner's instrument, a loud band instrument, or a hybrid saxo-clarinet. Will try to post some audio evidence of this soon.
Tom is right in maintaining that first-rate clarinets can be constructed of materials other than wood,
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: dibble
Date: 2014-02-15 14:10
So, he says the only way to tell the difference between rubber and wood is to compare 2 clarinets of the same acoustical design (same dimensions)... Ok, that is fair.
But he tries to strengthen the case that rubber is better than wood by using the example of 2 students, who are different people, with different anatomies, and another party; a listener of these 2 people, who has his own subjective opinion.
There are people who report that wood has a bigger sound (more projection, presence, whatever....just semantics), but THESE people seem to not know what they are talking about.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Ridenour
Date: 2014-02-15 17:24
My opinions can be found below;
The argument of the two two students was anecdotal but I believe that was stated. Their are literally dozens (many more actually) of such anecdotal cases though. Furthermore, accomplished players are using hard rubber clarinets in professional enviorments of all variety and their are no reported problems with projection. If their really was an issue with projection I dont understand how so many players, including some of the finest players in the world, would have purchased and be playing on hard rubber clarinets in any type of enviornment you can name.
The fact that the same thing was said when the Opus/Concerto came out is to my mind a strong indication as to what is inspiring the statements from a handful of individuals regarding projection. It's not that said individuals "don't know what their talking about" it's that when your invested in an idea whatever it may be (a way of doing business, a philosophy, a form of goverenment, or the material by which clarinets should be made), people will say almost anything to justify holding onto their position.
That is why the stories of Ivan Muller and the transition from wooden flutes to metal ones was brought up. We're the professors in Paris who rejected Mullers clarinet ignorant? Of course not. But they had invested so much time and effort into how they had been doing things that to accept something else was all but impossible for them. What Tom said has nothing to do with people not knowing what their talking about.
Ted Ridenour
Ridenour Clarinet Products,
rclarinetproducts.com
sales@ridenourclarinetproducts.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2014-02-15 12:57
I guess we are back to discussing metal clarinets, again. I played one, my first clarinet. In ninth grade our band/orchestra director stopped us to tell us mine was the best timbre he had heard in many years. Ray Adams, principal of the Allentown Band, played one. His timbre was superb. I never heard the word "projection" mentioned, and to this day do not understand it, but surely the acoustics of the surroundings must be primary.( At age 89 not much really matters. )
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2014-02-15 18:42
Yes, well-designed metal clarinets can have a compelling depth and presence that is rare in wood. I know the Hanson company in England has made a few (?) titanium clarinets that I'd love to hear. Gaston Hamelin (Ralph McLane's teacher) played a top model metal Selmer clarinet in the Boston Symphony until the conductor noticed and fired him, presumably not because of the way he sounded (he was one of the best players of his time) but because of the way his clarinet looked--a case of pure, blind prejudice.
Tom is demonstrating that rubber clarinets can more than hold their own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Carmelo
Date: 2014-12-31 02:44
Hi All,
I was sent this link that demonstrates the Libertas Clarinet in a quartet. I don't if has been posted, but the sound is really nice...enjoy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmSiG07DKCk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
