 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: kkocman
Date: 2007-02-25 19:44
I have some questions as to the durability of this instrument. I have seen on the websites to buy the instruments that the Green Line can withstand changes in humidity, temperature, pressure, etc. I was wondering if anyone could possibly play this outdoors? I would like to know because i need a new replacement for my old crappy Artley from 5th grade AND my buffet E11, so killing two birds with one stone would be very helpful financially.
Thanks!
by the way, i'm a sophomore in high school..first chair in my school, i got 4th in the district and just yesterday 50th in the state (virginia). i hope to continue to play clarinet for a while..which green line model would you recommend?
Post Edited (2007-02-25 20:03)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-02-25 19:50
FWIW the Greenlines are our (.ch) army's "standard" clarinet for music corps. Their duties include outdoor playing and - quite possible - whacking enemies. Durability is one of the deciding factors when the army acquires stuff, top quality it usually is - after all it isn't their own money...
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2007-02-25 21:51
I believe outdoors is what Greenlines do best. So far I've used mine on days were it was almost unbearable to stand outside. They are however the same price as the wooden cousins (Tosca is also available in Greenline) but the way to go if you don't want to have to buy a second horn for outside gigs.
As for whacking someone over the head (I know you were kidding), I've seen someone actually crack the tenon off the bottom joint when a bell got stuck. Keep in mind this stuff is merely slightly more than sophisticated press board!!
..........Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sylvain
Date: 2007-02-26 02:46
I bought an RC prestige greenline in 1995 and it still plays. It has seen many things, hot humid cold dry, you name it.
-S
--
Sylvain Bouix <sbouix@gmail.com>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Morton
Date: 2007-02-26 03:49
I am quite happy with my Greenline R13, which has been by main horn for seven years. I chose it blind from amongst a number of R13s for its superior tone. I soon set aside my misgivings about owning a particle board clarinet and came to enjoy the relief from worries about extremes of temperature and humidity.
I once knocked it over when it was on the stand, satisfying my curiosity about whether it is somehow reinforced by carbon fiber strands. It snapped at the center tenon, and the material edges at the break appeared amorphous and extremely fine grained. There must be a reason the Greenlines are not laid up for strength like many carbon fiber products.
John Morton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda Siewert
Date: 2007-02-26 14:10
I have owned the Buffet Greenline R-13 and found it to be a wonderful and well made instrument. If you shop for one, however, please do so where you can play-test several. If you cannot go to a store in person to do so, have someone (such as a teacher) or someone who hand-selects clarinets all the time (such as Walter Grabner) get you a good one. Or, you can have the music store (such as woodwind and brasswind) send you two or three to try and you select the best from them.
If you only have one instrument and you need to play outdoors and indoors, you can't beat Buffet's greenlines. Read some of the threads on this board by doing a search for Buffet Greenline R-13.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ianm
Date: 2007-02-26 18:31
A Stephen Fox Delrin clarinet is powerful both acoustically and as weapon. The body is indestructable. Definitely a practical allternative for army bands!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-02-26 18:43
ianm wrote:
> A Stephen Fox Delrin clarinet is powerful both acoustically and
> as weapon. The body is indestructable. Definitely a practical
> alternative for army bands!
Thanks. I'll tell them to order two samples. One for them, one for me. But wait, I believe they're subject to export regulations, no? ![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EuGeneSee
Date: 2007-02-27 18:02
Ben, you know how it is with weapons in international commerce . . . even those nasty clarin-epees! Eu
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-02-27 19:17
B...but as long as we say "bore size" and not "caliber" or "gauge", we're safe, no?
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: KellyA
Date: 2007-02-27 19:37
The greenline is a great choice. I live in MN, so when I play a gig, my clarinet may not have time to sit out and warm-up. Nice to not worry about cracks, splitting, and warpage. The material is dense and heavy, and more uniform/consistent than full grain wood.
Buffet Tosca Greenline, Chadash barrel, Fobes CF+ mouthpiece, Eddie Daniels Ligature, Gonzalez F.O.F. 3.75 reeds.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: energia eolica
Date: 2007-02-27 20:48
I really don't know how most Greenlines play compared to most solid-wood R-13s, but I had an opportunity recently, in an emergency situation, to play a Greenline Bb that was the best R-13 I've every played. Everythng about it was perfect, from the amount of sound it could take, to the soft dynamics you could play, to the tuning.
Given how many R-13s I've played that weren't quite up to standard, I'm tempted to say, try some Greenlines as you would a regular clarinet and feel secure in the choice. A lot of clarinets have been cracking lately.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: shmuelyosef
Date: 2007-03-04 17:35
Here's a question to extract opinions...is it possible that it's just snobbery that causes us to buy wooden instruments at all? At one point, it was heresy to play a metal flute, largely because a lot of care was put into making excellent wooden flutes and metal flutes were stamped out willy-nilly. The Fox/Ridenour examples suggests that if the same care is taken with modern materials, then superb instruments can be made that are more consistent AND durable. Buffet, in their own advertising, do not suggest that they are trying to build a better clarinet...they are trying to save trees by using manufacturing scraps (chips and shavings) to build clarinets that they can intimate are similar to wood ones. Chipboard has few of the properties of wood...
Why do y'all think that Buffet (and Selmahablanc) don't make professional grade clarinets out of Resonite, or Delrin, or carbon-fiber reinforced composites (which can be made to have similar anisotropic mechanical properties like wood, for those that argue this is important). Guitar manufacturers have begun to do this, and composite guitars are now at the high end for non-purists...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sdr
Date: 2007-03-04 19:10
Same is true for fly rods. For years now traditionalists buy cane rods but for performance (durability, power, accuracy) everyone knows that a graphite fly rod will consistently out-cast a cane rod.
-sdr
PS- apologies to my traditionalist flyfishing brethren
PPS- I play a Greenline R13
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2007-03-04 19:23
"...is it possible that it's just snobbery that causes us to buy wooden instruments at all?"
Whoa! How dare you!! Heresy!!!
Actually you may have a point. I'm pretty happy with my Green Line, although I wish I had had the opportunity to play a few of them before purchasing one. (My one-over-one Eb/Bb and two-over-two C#/G# are very weak compared with my Selmer.) But living in Maine, using an unheated room for practice, having to transport my clarinet in a cold car then having to play in a hot rehearsal space -- well it was just too much wear and tear on the Selmer and that's why I got the Buffet. Apart from the one problem I mentioned, it has a beautiful tone and the keywork is superb.
Now, what I'd like to see is a clarinet made out of carbon reinforced epoxy and grenadilla dust, delrin, high molecular density plastic -- whatever -- but made without the center joint. I seem to remember that my first clarinet teacher had a Buffet that came in a long case and all the keywork was on one solid piece of wood, barrel and bell were separate. This could be done on a composite instrument not limited by the availability of suitably large timber. Wouldn't this allow for a better-working C#/G# and clean up some of the difficulties which occur in the crowded midsection? I wonder if this possibility was ever explored on the higher end metal clarinets.
Here are two related articles:
http://www.ridenourclarinetproducts.com/grenadillamyth.htm
http://www.jazz-clarinet.com/comments.pl?cid=98&sid=88
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kkocman
Date: 2007-03-04 21:29
Would you guys recommend getting a greenline Tosca? I think that's what I'm going to go with..the thing is my parents dont want to spend upwards of $10,000 for me to test play 2-3 instruments. And unfortunately there's no decent instrument stores around here :-/ . What would you do?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Saxismyaxe
Date: 2007-03-04 21:30
Am I the only one who has issues paying the same price for what amounts to wood dust sweepings and resin as one would for the same model in choice, select and SOLID African Blackwood/Grenadilla?
I realize the intended purpose of this line of horns, but can't seem to get over that underlying fact.
Mike S/Saxismyaxe
Administrator:
Saxontheweb.net
Vintagehorn.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Danny Boy
Date: 2007-03-04 21:33
I realise that some tongues are firmly planted in cheeks in this thread...but has anyone seen what happens to a greenline instrument when you drop it (or, I would imagine, use it as a weapon??)
They don't crack...they shatter, in to hundreds of little pieces, hardly sturdy stuff.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-04 21:43
Saxismyaxe wrote:
> Am I the only one who has issues paying the same price for what
> amounts to wood dust sweepings and resin as one would for the
> same model in choice, select and SOLID African
> Blackwood/Grenadilla?
Yes, you are. The Greenlines are SOLID, as you would emphasize, are more dimensionally stable, are less prone to cracking, and are more difficult to machine.
What would make you think that regular wood is better, other than the aesthetics?
How much do you think that block of wood or Greenline composite costs in respect to the overall cost of the clarinet?
Did you know that hard rubber and metal clarinets once demanded a PREMIUM price over wood?
Do you know that grenadilla is not the traditional clarinet wood? It came into vogue when the keywork became complex and heavy enough to warrant a change in material because other woods weren't strong or stable enough to take all that drilling?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2007-03-04 22:04
"What would you do?"
What I *could* have done was (1) order several instruments from a company that will do this (WWBW is one) and keep the one I liked best, or (2) send the instrument back describing the problem and having them send another. But it was my first Buffet and I thought it would just take some adjusting on my part. That's why it's good to have something to compare it to. Another option (3) would be to have your instructor or another experienced clarinetist also play it; that way you can really hear how it sounds and he/she can give you an additional opinion. Don't be shy about returning an instrument which is unsatisfactory.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Saxismyaxe
Date: 2007-03-05 01:59
I'm fully aware of the material culture of the Clarinet and it's construction history Mark, thank you.
As a matter of fact, I am also well versed in the price difference between African Blackwood, Ebony, Honduran Rosewood and synthetics such as wood composite, resin , instrument grade hard rubber, and Delrin (polypenco) etc. I am a maker of custom, handcrafted Irish Uilleann and Great Highland bagpipes among other woodwinds myself, all of which can and do utilize these materials.
Although a few of the synthetic and hybrid materials can cost as much as Ebony and certain standard grades of AB/Grenadilla, it's consistency and ease of turning actually translates to a MUCH cheaper to produce product, with less rejected blanks and wastage. Other than Buffet's Greenline, most makers of woodwinds price their instruments made of these materials accordingly, that is significantly less than their premium African Blackwood or Honduran Rosewood/Cocobolo models.
My issue is with the quality/cost of material vs. the price point, not the stability and suitability of the material.
Cheers.
Mike S/Saxismyaxe
Administrator:
Saxontheweb.net
Vintagehorn.com
Post Edited (2007-03-05 02:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-05 02:17
Saxismyaxe wrote:
> Although a few of the synthetic and hybrid materials can cost
> as much as Ebony and certain standard grades of AB/Grenadilla,
> it's consistency and ease of turning
That is not correct in the case of the Greenline. The material, according to Buffet, is harder to machine and causes greater wear on the machinery. A new set of machinery was required to produce this line of instruments.
> actually translates to a
> MUCH cheaper to produce product, with less rejected blanks and
> wastage.
I don't believe it is cheaper to produce, but you are correct about fewer rejected blanks,
> My issue is with the quality/cost of material vs. the price
> point, not the stability and suitability of the material.
I miss your point, then. Are you stating the Greenline is an inferior product (quality)? Are you saying the material is cheaper to produce (inclusing presses, machining, etc.? If so, please be specific. My information, though it is only oral from the manufacturer, is at least "from the horses mouth", so to speak.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Saxismyaxe
Date: 2007-03-05 02:34
Hi Mark,
The consistency of the man made material (which doesn't necessarily translate to a more "desirable" product across the board, all else being equal), makes them lower in cost to produce overall. This I can assure you from personal experience within my realm of woodwind manufacturing.
My quip is that these savings are not being passed down to the consumer as they have been with other woodwind makers/instruments. Rather a premium price has been charged for what is a fine, albeit more economical, alternative to dearer versions of the same model.
Contrary to what marketing hype might have you believe, this material's main ingredient consists of a by product of the milling/lathe reduction process i.e. Sawdust, combined with resins. This translates to a nice idea that makes a good profit from an otherwise waste product, but certainly a "bonus" material source for the industry at best.
Are the environmentally friendly, climate proof attributes the probity of the material's implementation, or just good marketing points as an afterthought to profits? I'll leave that for everyone to ponder for themselves.
Mind you, I AM playing a bit of the Devil's Advocate game here.
Mike S/Saxismyaxe
Administrator:
Saxontheweb.net
Vintagehorn.com
Post Edited (2007-03-05 02:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-05 03:07
Saxismyaxe wrote:
> The consistency of the man made material (which doesn't
> necessarily translate to a more "desirable" product across the
> board, all else being equal), makes them lower in cost to
> produce overall. This I can assure you from personal experience
> within my realm of woodwind manufacturing.
Within the realm of mass production, Buffet says something different.
> Contrary to what marketing hype might have you believe, this
> material's main ingredient consists of a by product of the
> milling/lathe reduction process i.e. Sawdust, combined with
> resins.
I am very familiar with the constituent material of the Greenline. I am also familiar with the costs of a new manufacturing line for mass production, being involved with the automotive industry.
I don't believe you will find that the cost of raw material to be related to the cost of the finished product in any appreciable sense. That billet of wood, bought in large quantities by Buffet, is a very small fraction of the $2.5K cost of the clarinet. The Greenline material cost may be lower, but its manufacturing (turning) cost is higher. Which probably makes them about equal in cost to the manufacturer, which is why the Greenline & regular clarinets are priced the same. There _is_ no "lower cost" to pass on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-03-05 05:59
If I'm not mistaken the actual wood of one clarinet is not expensive at all. Actually, if human work is involved making the Greenline material from the wood (and there must be at least some of it) I wouldn't be surprised if in the end the Greenline material cost them the same or even more than wood (considering everything). There are too many things involved for you to just say the material is less expensive (not necessarily) so the clarinet should be less expensive too.
By the way, I just watched a DVD from Buffet about the Grenline. It was on the 10th year of the Greenline production. It's about one of their endorsers and another person from Buffet who climbed the highest mountain in Europe (I think) and took the Greenline and he played the clarinet at the top of the mountain, at -20 degrees. It's a good film.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-03-05 07:24
> It's about one of their endorsers and another person from Buffet who
> climbed the highest mountain in Europe (I think) and took the Greenline
> and he played the clarinet at the top of the mountain, at -20 degrees.
Hey! When I'm hiking and climbing mountains I don't want no clarinetists sittin' up there and mess with the majestic silence. I've got enough grief with all them mountain bikers already!
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Saxismyaxe
Date: 2007-03-05 12:19
I' m attempting to share insider info with you on the actual costs vs. profits ratio of these materials (Instrument worthy grades of Tanzanian African Blackwood and Honduran Rosewood, two of the rarer harvested species of woods, with accompanied high costs for the raw material and dwindling supplies of choice material, let me assure you, BTW)
The actual equipment needed to lathe turn, drill, bore, ream and finish the materials are in fact the same, with possibly a change out of cutting bits.
Resins, Delrin (polypenco), Hard Rubber, Wood Byproduct hybrid materials are easy on the equipment compared to African Blackwood, which is so dense, hard and has such a high oil content, that cutting blades and bits must be changed out at an annoying rate of frequency. Were the other materials to be a top seller in general, I can assure you that most woodwind makers would gladly switch to the less challenging, more cost effective materials.
Even the much smaller woodwind makers (such as yours truly) pass on these savings with their instruments constructed from these materials, usually a third to half the cost of comparable AB instruments in many instances.
This should be the case with a big maker like Buffet, who can certainly take advantage of even lower prices of raw materials due to their ability to purchase larger quantities with each order.
The amount of waste, both through cutting as well as rejection due to splits, knots, voids, errors in manufacturing etc. with wood is FAR greater than that of Delrins and other man made, consistent materials, this is a fact among those of us involved in the making of woodwinds specifically, other outside manufacturing industries mentioned not withstanding.
Everyone has, and is more than willing to express, an opinion. However I present to you the facts from one who has hands on experience with the tools, materials, manufacturing and sales/marketing of woodwinds....with no dog in the Clarinet specific fight, so to speak.
I'm not going to attempt to "lead a horse to water" with this, nor do I have a grudge to bear against the maker or model of horn. I'm simply stating the facts as I know them to be, perhaps as an academic argument if nothing else.
Take it as you will.
Cheers.
Mike S/Saxismyaxe
Administrator:
Saxontheweb.net
Vintagehorn.com
Post Edited (2007-03-05 13:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kilo
Date: 2007-03-05 12:38
Saxismyaxe wrote:
>Were the other materials to be a
> top seller in general, I can assure you that most woodwind
> makers would gladly switch to the less challenging, more cost
> effective materials.
Especially if they could price them as high as Buffet does! (smile)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-03-05 14:03
(Disclaimer - I am a designer of the Forte' Clarinets Bb & C)
From my own experience, the price of the starting material is not a huge factor in the final cost. Instrument grade plastics and composites come near the cost of instrument grade Grenadilla. The quantity of the billets for Buffet's Grenadilla dust, carbon fiber, resin, produces, or has made for them, does not reach the cost efficiency zone of large enough quantities to make them significantly less expensive than other materials - IMO.
If Buffet had to do significant retooling or set up a separate machining sequence and use different tool heads to make Greenlines there is a large up front cost that would have to be amortized over time and sales volume. I gather from second hand information that their composite is harder on burrs than other easily machined resins such as Delrin. There may indeed be some savings in rejected blanks using resin based blanks versus wood but with modern technology and machining techniques these too are not a huge cost factor if selection of the wood blank is thorough at the beginning.
Most of the cost in making an instrument is the quality control elements and the amount of machining and final finishing and adjustment steps necessary to reach a defined level of production quality for a given item. I gather that similar levels of quality go into the production of a Greenline and their sister wooden instruments in the R-13, Prestige, and Tosca lines. A large cost element of any instrument is the keywork and time setting and adjusting the keywork to the body. Investments in research and development, initial setup for manufacturing, and marketing and advertising cost too are not insignificant factors in the final cost of an instrument line either.
Our own experience indicates that the buying public for our professional grade "C" instruments prefers a similar quality wood instrument > 8 to 1 over a resin instrument, and our cost savings producing either is < 15% for the end product (other manufacturers mileage may vary) Figuring in all the costs plus final markup for sales cost this percentage drops to a very small differential in final cost of the instrument. IMO Buffet has created a cache for their Grenadilla composite material that may or may not be deserved in real acoustical value but IMO has lowered the preference level differential between wood and their resin instruments significantly.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Saxismyaxe
Date: 2007-03-05 14:32
Very well conveyed post Mr. Henderson, and I certainly won't discount your perspective. I can say that this pricing structure does not stack up quite the same outside of the Clarinet market, in my area of woodwind manufacturing, nor the costs to the consumer.
I think the price justification has a lot more to do with the name on the bell and marketing, than real costs involved with Greenline, both as a material and the cost of its use in manufacturing the clarinet, however.
I do agree that Delrin, although not a cheap material in cost by any stretch of the imagination, has them all beat in ease of manufacture and limitation of waste.
Cheers.
Mike S/Saxismyaxe
Administrator:
Saxontheweb.net
Vintagehorn.com
Post Edited (2007-03-05 14:35)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-05 14:35
Saxismyaxe wrote:
> I think the price justification has a lot more to do with the
> name on the bell and marketing, than real costs involved with
> Greenline, however.
I think that's true for all manufacturers of all more or less mass produced instruments. Take a look at the price of an "American" Les Paul or Gibson SG guitar.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: nik
Date: 2007-03-05 15:15
Danny_Boy wrote:
>I realise that some tongues are firmly planted in cheeks in this thread...but
>has anyone seen what happens to a greenline instrument when you drop it
>(or, I would imagine, use it as a weapon??)
>They don't crack...they shatter, in to hundreds of little pieces, hardly sturdy
>stuff.
find me a video of that. now *that* would be entertainment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Saxismyaxe
Date: 2007-03-05 15:18
"Mark wrote:
I think that's true for all manufacturers of all more or less mass produced instruments. Take a look at the price of an "American" Les Paul or Gibson SG guitar."
That is indeed true Mark. I suppose my thoughts on this subject can be synthesized down to the opinion that:
based on my knowledge as a maker, I, as a consumer will not pay the same price for what amounts to sweepings off of the factory floor combined with a binder, as I will for a choice, select and aged Grenadilla bodied Clarinet. Based on usage among professionals, I do not appear to be alone in this.
Ah, the minutiae potential of clarinet discussion! ;-)
Mike S/Saxismyaxe
Administrator:
Saxontheweb.net
Vintagehorn.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-03-05 16:04
(Disclaimer - I am maker of the Forte' Bb and C clarinets)
You have to admire the marketing job of Buffet at combining the presumed qualities of Grenadilla (despite the lowly source of the factory floor sweepings) with resin into a product source that would not have the same connotation of lower quality instruments made of resin, hard rubber (but ob cit the threads on Tom Ridenour's instruments), or the awful word "plastic". Another whole world of discussion which rears its immortal head now and then surrounds the "material" and sound quality versus instrument design and quality production techniques to produce the final instrument sound - endless debates.
I applaud Buffet for making a resin instrument of very high quality and BOO (By Others Observations - no pun intended - a good boo versus the bad boo) sound quality. Greenline horns obviously have a good reputation and "choice" potential for individuals and environmental situations that would traumatize most wooden instruments. IMHO Buffet could not charge less for these Greenline horns and maintain the "IMO - illusion" that the material was not less expensive or less good, or produced lower quality instruments than their corresponding wooden horns. Only Buffet knows the true numbers of expense of producing the Greenline instruments so we will never be able to say if they are cheaper to produce or not. As with most instrument prices the demand and buyers conditioned thought processes will dictate to a great degree what a manufacturer can charge for an instrument. Given the choice, but without the marketing conditioned thought process regime, I feel that most players would choose wood over resin at equal pricing - thus the enigma and conundrum of Greenline.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2007-03-05 17:16
I noticed no one has talked much about the timbre differences between a regular R 13 and a Greenline R13...I find the sound on the Greenline to be fantastically bright..and not in a good way. In orchestra I find it just to be too much and so use a regular wooden clarinet...
In Canada most professional orchestra players I know(an this is quite a few) don't use or care for the Greenline...however, for show music and band concerts they are ideal.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-05 17:24
Saxismyaxe wrote:
> I will for a choice, select
> and aged Grenadilla bodied Clarinet. Based on usage among
> professionals, I do not appear to be alone in this.
Which brings us full circle, back to my statement:
What would make you think that regular wood is better, other than the aesthetics?
There are a number of professionals, albeit a minority, that prefer the Greenline.
For the record - I don't own a Buffet, they don't advertise here, and I have nothing to gain by this discussion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Saxismyaxe
Date: 2007-03-05 17:47
Mark,
The idea of combining wood dust with resins or other binders in the production of woodwinds is not a new, space age idea. Highland and Uilleann pipe makers experimented with this type of material in the 1940's during the war, when supplies of suitable hardwood was all but impossible to procure.
These instruments neither survived the test of time, physically or practically, nor are they considered tonally equal to the best Solid wood examples. They were priced significantly lower than the other models too, as synthetic pipes are to this day.
Like most non organic materials, the sound is often as Mr. Dow describes it:
Bright, strident, favoring the upper partials, lacking in richness and resonance etc. This applies to the Clarinet equally well. Although Hard Rubber and wood composite material can come CLOSER to mimicking the tonal qualities of a quality, tight, straight and densely grained hardwood than most plastics and resins.........still no cigar.
Tonally, most other alternative materials fall into the same classification by the majority of critiques.
Those that don't place an appreciable value on quality of materials and it's effect on the intended application vs. cost can certainly freely spend their money on these items. Priced as they are, I must decline.
Mr. Henderson is correct, although this material serves a subsidiary service to those who perform in extreme environments etc., it is the Buffet marketing department that deserves a raise.
I agree that Buffet is validating their pricing of these based on name and prestige, but I'm not biting.
But one man's opinion.
Mike S/Saxismyaxe
Administrator:
Saxontheweb.net
Vintagehorn.com
Post Edited (2007-03-05 17:56)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2007-03-05 17:57
Saxismyaxe wrote:
> Mark,
>
> The idea of combining wood dust with resins or other binders in
> the production of woodwinds is not a new, space age idea.
Where did I ever imply that?
> Like most non organic materials, the sound is often as Mr. Dow
> describes it:
That's his description. I may find them to be something else when played by people with no preconceived notions. I find no magic in organics when it comes to clarinets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Saxismyaxe
Date: 2007-03-05 18:18
Hi Mark,
I think we (or at least I) have beat this horse to death. The sum total of what I have to say has already been posted.
I guess we just flat out do not agree on this! :-)
Cheers.
Mike S/Saxismyaxe
Administrator:
Saxontheweb.net
Vintagehorn.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2007-03-05 20:23
Mike, the problem is, at least sounds like that to me, you base a lot of things as if you knew some facts but in reality you don't know them. You wrongly assume the Greenline material is cheaper. You don't know how much harder it is to work on this material, and how much Buffet spent on either different tools or changing tools more frequently. You give examples of OTHER materials, but those are different from Greenline. You claim the wood is much more expensive. Omar Henderson seems to have facts showing the wood is not a huge part of the total cost, and it's not unreasonable to assume Buffet buys the wood at a lower price (considering their huge amounts), maybe have better choice of wood (for the same reason, which also results in less waste), plus extra human labor required to make the Greenline, plus ??? If the cost of wood compared with other material (derlin?) was very small for Omar Henderson (final cost for customers that is), it must be even much smaller for Buffet. Notice I'm not saying you are right or wrong, or that I know what is correct, but only that you don't have enough information to support what you are saying.
The price, if based on "name & prestige" as you say has nothing to do with the materials. You pay for it in their wood clarinet just the same.
So it comes down to the fact that you simply claim the Greenline material doesn't give as good sound as wood, mainly described as "bright". What if a very high level manufacturer built a clarinet from high quality wood but designed it acoustically to be bright because that is what they think is good? Should it be very cheap because of that? Maybe expensive because of the wood...?
If you (or anyone) claim there is a definite difference in sound between wood and other material, which is unique to the material and not possible to "bypass" by acoustic design, then it must be recognizable always. I made double, single, and non-blind tests with different materials of clarinet and on average people (including clarinet players) couldn't tell the correct material. This says that either there is no difference, or that if there is a difference it is not necessarily just better with one material.
On of the tests was of some short clips I made of CDs I have, of players of both wood and non-wood clarinets. This is not a very scientific test, but it can clearly show there is no definite difference. Would you like me to send you the short clips so you can try to guess and see if you get them right (hopefully I can find the files!)?
I personally think a different material will give too small difference to be significant, but let's say there is a difference like you describe - please explain acoustically how this material produce this "bad" sound? The Greenline players I've heard so far didn't have this type of "bad" sound at all.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Saxismyaxe
Date: 2007-03-06 00:22
** Out of respect for Mark, his board, and keeping the peace, I've contacted Clarnibass privately.**
Cheers.
Mike S/Saxismyaxe
Administrator:
Saxontheweb.net
Vintagehorn.com
Post Edited (2007-03-06 00:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-03-06 01:09
Mike,
We sometimes give neewbies a hard time - just part of the initiation process - but we love you and need the varied opinions to keep the dialog fresh so stick around. We all have something to learn and also to teach.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
Post Edited (2007-03-06 01:23)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Saxismyaxe
Date: 2007-03-06 01:15
Why thank you for the kind words Mr. Henderson.
I went offline for my response to Clarnibass'... ahem...post, simply to keep the tone civil for the sake of the board and it's owner. I have issues with some of the generalizations and misinformation, especially as it relates to my resume, and felt that was the best course of action.
With the large number of members who are also active on SOTW, I didn't want to go public with my thoughts. No hard feelings there either, Clarnibass.
No, I am not easily dissuaded by a healthy debate, as an Administrator myself, I have developed a "skin" as thick as a rhino's. :D
Mike S/Saxismyaxe
Administrator:
Saxontheweb.net
Vintagehorn.com
Post Edited (2007-03-06 01:34)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2007-03-07 14:43
Kilo wrote- "I seem to remember that my first clarinet teacher had a Buffet that came in a long case and all the keywork was on one solid piece of wood, barrel and bell were separate. This could be done on a composite instrument not limited by the availability of suitably large timber. Wouldn't this allow for a better-working C#/G# and clean up some of the difficulties which occur in the crowded midsection? I wonder if this possibility was ever explored on the higher end metal clarinets."
I think one reason that they don't make one-piece clarinets with this material is the bottom line. They can use all the same keys and cutting machines for the Greenline as for the regular wood. (Yes, they have different machines to cut the material because of its strength, but the shape it is being cut into is the same.) If they made a 1 piece, they would have to reposition a few holes and and make new designs for some keys and make special cases for these one-piece instruments. In a business, it is not worth the trouble for a model that only a small persentage of the market would buy anyway. The hours in research to find the right place for the holes and retooling the machines is probably not in the interest of a large business like Buffet. Personally, I don't blame them for it one bit- I would probably do the same in their position.
-S
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: beejay
Date: 2007-03-07 14:44
It is a bit misleading to describe Greenline material as factory floor sweepings. It is nothing of the sort. I have nothing to do with BC, but I have been round their factory several times and have seen the Greenline machining process. The raw material comes from premium grade billets that have been rejected for one reason or another, usually for a small flaw or crack, and which would otherwise have to be discarded. BC developed Greenline not only to avoid wastage but also to address the problem of a declining supply of African blackwood. Wood suitable for making instruments typically comes from trees that are upwards of 80 years old, and according to BC there simply isn't enough in the pipeline to ensure continuity of production into the distant future. Another reason for using Greenline was a response to complaints about cracking from regions, particularly North America, with strong shifts in temperature and humidity. For this reason, I believe that oboes shipped to North America usually are made of Greenline. One of the design parameters in developing the material was to create something accoustically identical to wood. The material is extremely dense and, as Mark has pointed out, difficult to machine. Does it really shatter into tiny pieces when you drop it? I think this requires a reliable source in the interests of scientific accuracy on this BB.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2007-03-07 14:52
> Does it really shatter into tiny pieces when you drop it? I think this requires
> a reliable source in the interests of scientific accuracy on this BB.
I think this requires a volunteer in the first place. Hey, you could be YouTube stars! ![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: L. Omar Henderson
Date: 2007-03-07 17:04
(Disclaimer - I am seller of the Forte' Bb and C clarinets)
I too have been to the Buffet plant. Rejected billets, other unsuitable billets and cutting scrap, as well as machining tailings caught in floor bins are used to make the Greenline material. It is a point of discussion as to whether the acoustical properties of the resin, Grenadilla particles, and carbon fiber material are similar to wood or not (not objectively tested that I know of, only marketing script). No doubt the environmental stability and good reputation for the Greenline instruments are a plus to some buyers.
To my ear the Greenline clarinets sound a little different (no value judgment) than their sister instruments and not IMO uniformly "brighter". As with any spectrum of performance within an instrument line there are differences, with the Greenline probably in the minute machining differences and finishing steps, within a sample of instruments - much like in their wooden sisters.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
