 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Caleb
Date: 2012-01-17 14:24
Is that any scientific or impersonal data to support, a wood clarinet is sound better than a same degisn clarinet by other materials?
I believe a wood clarinet must been better before, but after read the article below, I feel confusion.
http://bretpimentel.com/does-material-affect-tone-quality-in-woodwind-instruments-why-scientists-and-musicians-just-cant-seem-to-agree/
Before, I believe a wood clarinet is better because,
1. My teacher and the tradition around me said it is true. My teacher showed me the different by his playing.
2. I have played plastic clarinet and wood clarinets; I feel the different when I play.
3. I hear the different when my student changed his/her plastic clarinet to a wood clarinet.
But now, the above reason seem uncertainty, because,
1. The clarinet used to compare is not in same level. The wood clarinets are more experience and the producer spend more time on it .
2. The phenomenon of bone conduction may affect my decision when I was playing clarinet.
3. When my teacher showing me the different between a plastic and wood clarinet, he already have his view of wood is better than plastic. His mentation may affect his playing.
4. My student had told that a wood clarinet is more experience and better than plastic before he/she played it. Their mentations may also affect their playing.
Can anyone told me, is that any scientific or impersonal data to support, a wood clarinet is sound better than a same degisn clarinet by other materials?
Or a clarinet by ebonite/plastic/matel really is possible to sound good as a wood clarinet?
Thanks.
Caleb
Post Edited (2012-01-17 22:51)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CuriousClarinet
Date: 2012-01-17 15:04
I've played a variety of clarinets and have yet to find a plastic clarinet that equals a wooden clarinet's tone. However, like you I've always been told wood is a superior material to plastic, so maybe I am also baised. The only scientific evidence I have is that fact that wood is more dense then plastic... but after reading the article, I'm unsure why the density of the material would affect the air column...
I think, even if material might not be the perfect solution to finding a good tone, there is a certain element of what else goes into making the instrument. You're not paying thousands of dollars JUST for a wooden body, you're paying for the amount of time/labor it took to make it. Wood might possibly be the material of choice, because why would you want to spend countless hours creating an amazingly engineered instrument, on a 50$ plastic body? Seems a little silly... But that's just my uneducated opinion.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-01-17 15:47
Plastic instruments do cost more to make if the joints are machined using the same processes as wooden joints. The problem with plastic is it's more difficult to machine due to the heat generated by friction which can cause the joints to bow when held between centres, so machines have to work slower to prevent distortion or prevent the plastic melting as the swarf doesn't clear as it does when machining wood. Polishing machined plastic joints to a uniform gloss finish is more difficult than polishing wood. Pillars screwed in to plastic are more likely to strip the threads cut in the plastic.
You wouldn't get injection moulded plastic joints on pro level instruments - that's only reserved for beginner grade instruments.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2012-01-17 17:12
I recall reading this article a while back, and it was interesting to read it again.
Many years ago, one of my sons had to make a musical instrument for a class project. He had a woodwind background, and we tried to make a woodwind-like instrument out of PVC pipe. The idea was to create something that we could put a clarinet mouthpiece or oboe reed on. We carefully drilled holes, and started with a cheap oboe reed. We made sure that it was tightly sealed in place. We didn't expect miracles, but the results were much worse than expected (no, it wasn't the reed). The sound was very poor and difficult to produce. PVC has thin walls, and I'm not sure about its density. We concluded that perhaps the thickness of the walls and the material used does make some difference.
I've noticed that it's possible, with a good mouthpiece and reed, to produce an excellent tone on some student instruments. There are limits, though, and the difference becomes noticeable the higher one plays. I don't think I've ever heard a plastic instrument sound good in the altissimo register. Even if a student is doing everything correctly, these cheaper instruments always seem to have an unpleasant shrill sound in the upper ranges.
My daughter started on a plastic Bundy. It was a nice instrument, but it had its limitations. When she was a bit older we bought her a Buffet, and you could hear the difference almost immediately. There was no change in mouthpiece or reeds (that came a bit later). There wasn't a dramatic increase in her practice time. The Bundy had a pleasant sound, but there was no doubt that the Buffet had a superior sound.
I'm not a scientist, but there are probably a number of factors involved here. Perhaps the thickness of the walls is a major one. I wonder if thicker and more dense walls help to absorb the highest overtones, eliminating some of the shrillness of the higher notes. I also wonder if a polished plastic bore (see below) also fails to absorb some of these overtones, adding to the problem. I remember when Buffet came out with the lightweight and thin-walled Elite. I never tried one, but from all reports, it had a rather bright sound. In contrast, the thick-walled Selmer Recital is said to have a dark sound.
When Leblanc came out with the composite Bliss, the company claimed it had developed a new material, superior to plastic. Perhaps Leblanc is really onto something. The instruments are lightweight (I'm assuming thin-walled), and perhaps the sound is a bit on the bright side. Still, they have a very pleasant tone, even up high, which I think is superior to the tone quality found in most inexpensive plastic clarinets. I wonder if Leblanc has thought about making a professional model, perhaps with thicker walls, using this material.
In one of the comments to Pimentel's article, Dan Kennedy made some interesting comments about the polished bore in plastic instruments:
I was wondering if the way in which breath moisture condenses on the bore of a clarinet affects the sound. I coated the inside of my Selmer Series 10 clarinet with a 50/50 mixture of liquid dish soap and water. I did not like the way it played. Removing the coating and re-oiling the clarinet returned it’s fine sound.
Plastic Clarinets are sold with a mirror like bore. I have found that removing this mirror like finish with very fine (0000) steel wool improves the sound. (I only do this when I am repadding the clarinet.) Perhaps clarinet makers hobble plastic clarinets so as not to interfere with the sales of “Professional” wooden clarinets. If I was buying a new clarinet it would be a Buffet Greenline.
Then I could say to players with a traditional clarinet:
“That sounds good; too bad it’s made of wood”
Post Edited (2012-01-17 17:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2012-01-17 17:24
The issue about the materials gets rehashed here quite often. Typically it results in a big argument and ends with no clear winner. Personally I think that a properly designed clarinet made from any material will sound just as good as a properly designed clarinet made from any other material.
Things get tricky when you try to actually test this theory unfortunately. In principle you would want to have a set of dimensionally identical clarinets made from different materials to test. Unfortunately due to the mechanicals properties of the different materials typically used this is not really feasible. For example, wood tends to be more dimensionally stable when exposed to changes in temperature than metal or plastic but is much less dimensionally stable when exposed to changes in humidity.
These different responses would need to be taken into account when fabricating the instruments such that all of them would be dimensionally identical when fully warmed up and at controlled humidity but not necessarily identical when at room temperature. Possible, but very difficult to achieve with a high level of precision which is why I doubt that any truly scientific tests have been carried out.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bret Pimentel
Date: 2012-01-17 18:02
Hi, I'm the author of the linked article.
SteveG_CT wrote:
> Can anyone told me, is that any scientific or impersonal
> data to support, a wood clarinet is sound better than a
> same degisn clarinet by other materials?
This is a great question to ask. And the answer, in my opinion is "sort of." That is to say, there are published findings that conclude that, yes, material does make a difference.
HOWEVER:
I've read probably dozens if not a hundred articles on this topic, and have tried my best as a non-scientist to determine which are reliable, and which aren't. So far I haven't found *ANY* that are "reliable" (in my opinion) that support the idea of material affecting tone.
When I reject one as being unreliable, it's almost always because of uncontrolled variables. To really put this argument to rest, you would need to compare clarinets where the *only* difference is the material--no differences *whatsoever* in dimensions, finish, padding, mouthpiece, reed, player, embouchure, voicing, breath support, room temperature... plus use double-blind testing to eliminate the possibility of any bias from those involved. You can see how this would be very difficult to accomplish.
If anyone has seen research, preferably by qualified scientists and published in a peer-reviewed journal, that suggests that materials do make an audible difference, I invite you to share! Really, and without any sarcasm, I would be very curious to read them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-01-17 18:31
Bret Pimentel wrote:
> When I reject one as being unreliable, it's almost always
> because of uncontrolled variables. To really put this argument
> to rest, you would need to compare clarinets where the *only*
> difference is the material
I wrote here a long time back that it's much simpler to test than it appears, but I've yet to do it or hear of someone else doing it.
Create a clarinet "instrument" composed of some reasonably thick walled substance with an attached mouthpiece. No tone holes, we don't care what it sounds like. Use a plastic reed and permanently attached ligature. Using a blowing mechanism, allow the instrument to produce a sound and record it on suitable equipment.
Now remove stock from the instrument. Using the blowing mechanism, record the sound again. The bore would need to be re-measured (removing stock might distort it), the room temp/humidity would have to be controlled, etc.
The removal of stock & recording could be done some number of times until the bore is affected.
If the recorded sound is different ( using standard statistical controls) , then since the only change was the amount of material, we can safely say that the amount of material affects the sound, and we might be able to conclude that material is affecting the sound and other materials would have effects on the sound ( but nothing more - not whether or not the sound is "better").
If nothing changes we cannot safely say anything.
But it's a start.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-01-17 20:46
I tried a PVC bodied Howarth S2 clarinet a while back and it played just as well as a wooden one - maybe even better due to plastic being more airtight (or less porous) than wood. Looked pretty good too with the silver plated keywork and high gloss black plastic joints.
But the prejudice is always there with plastic being considered inferior or cheap (or not considered 'professional'), even though they had undergone the same manufacturing processes the wooden ones had.
But they all sold, so someone's obviously buying them.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caleb
Date: 2012-01-17 23:06
To Chris:
Thanks for your share. It seem the economic reason is the main reason why nowaday main company don't produce professional clarinet by other materials.
To Mark Charette:
I agree with your method. But unlike a plastic or metal clarinet, a wood clarinet never have a real circle bore and it may affect the result.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2012-01-17 23:13
In a few days or perhaps a week I will be buying a Buffet Bb clarinet. I'll try out the Greenline Buffet clarinets. Without playing the greanline horns I have to say I feel grain plays a part of the sound. We will see.
I would consider playing Ridinours plastic horns, if I couldn't get ahold of a Buffet. They play pretty well. The sound is good and the upper register pops out very well. The upper register actually easier to play then a Buffet. There are a few stuffy notes, but I'm sure Tom could fix this.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2012-01-17 23:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Barry Vincent
Date: 2012-01-18 00:08
Tom Ridenour's RCP-146 Clarinet is made of ABS plastic with a Ebonite barrel.
The RCP-576 is made of Ebonite (Hard Rubber), not plastic.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2012-01-18 01:33
Caleb wrote:
> But unlike a plastic or metal
> clarinet, a wood clarinet never have a real circle bore and it
> may affect the result.
The whole point of the method I describe is so it doesn't matter a whit. We never change the bore, and if the temperature and humidity are controlled the internal bore will remain the same (at least measurably so).
But ... If a difference is noted even using a more stable substance than wood then a material (thickness/elasticity/something) made a difference ... And that means that materials do make a difference. Period.
We will, of course, have to determine some cutoff for wall thickness - at a certain point greater than paper thickness the walls are going to most certainly affect the sound since the pressure wave will be able to measurably deform the wall. I leave that calculation up to the experimenter ... Along with determining what makes a useful material. Somehow I don't think that a rigid foam tube is going to work all that well as a demonstration ... But I could be COMPLETELY wrong.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2012-01-18 02:30
I've often wondered why fine clarinets could not be constructed from metal like the finest flutes are. I have an old Noblet metal Bb that sounds very good with my Chicago Kaspar. Same goes for oboes.....why??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2012-01-18 03:12
William wrote:
> I've often wondered why fine clarinets could not be constructed
> from metal like the finest flutes are. I have an old Noblet
> metal Bb that sounds very good with my Chicago Kaspar. Same
> goes for oboes.....why??
You absolutely can make a top quality clarinet from metal. Hanson does list a titanium version of their T7 clarinet on their website although I've never actually seen one or heard of someone using one. It costs over 40% more than the grenadilla version of the same clarinet so it is possible that the cost of manufacturing a good metal clarinet is quite a bit higher than the cost of making an equivalent wood model.
edit: Of course the cost difference could just be due to the use of titanium which is a real pain in the arse to work with. It probably would have been easier to just use silver like Haynes and P-M did for their flagship metal clarinets many years ago.
Post Edited (2012-01-18 03:15)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2012-01-18 11:13
Yes, interesting comments about metal. There's the famous story about Gaston Hamelin playing a fine Selmer metal clarinet, a clarinet that Selmer later stopped manufacturing.
Many years ago, someone showed me one of these old clarinets which had been in her family for many years. I didn't know anything about them at the time, although I was surprised to see a metal clarinet with a left hand A-flat/E-flat key. Looking back now, I wish I had made her an offer to purchase it!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-01-18 11:40
Selmer made metal clarinets in a variety of keywork configurations, from simple/Albert systems right up to full Boehms. Even metal clarinet mouthpieces that look similar to their classic series metal sax mouthpieces but with a wide diameter tenon so they fit all Boehm system clarinets.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2012-01-18 12:00
The problem with metal clarinets is their stigma. Back in their day, many of them were mass produced instruments of sometimes questionable acoustical merits.
It'd probably take a considerable effort (not to mention money and business risk) to improve their bad rap and successfully selling a top notch metal clarinet.
Manufacturers of hard rubber instruments appear to fight a similar struggle, as the "wood=good, other=bad" opinion seems to be deeply ingrained in potential customers' minds.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2012-01-18 13:26
The principal of the Allentown Band, Ray Adams, played a metal clarinet. His timbre was most attractive, similar to that of David Weber. My first clarinet was a chromium plated Greville Paris (cost $18 in 1934). Formants of clarinet bodies vary somewhat and are all much above the normal range of the instrument, but to sensitive hearing they likely have a slight effect.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2012-01-18 20:06
I remember seeing some pictures of the University of Michigan marching band from the early 1950s. All of the clarinet players were using metal clarinets. I wonder if this was a common practice in marching bands of the time.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
