 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Chuck
Date: 2000-01-10 03:28
I play/practice on a 1962 Selmer centertone which I understand is a large bore clarinet. If I were an experienced clarinetist. (I'm not) What difference would there be in playin a large bore clarinet vs. a small(er) bore clarinet, both being considered equal as to the quality of manufacture.??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: George
Date: 2000-01-10 05:26
Chuck,
I am certainly no expert, but based on postings that I have seen, there is a pro/con issue regarding bore sizes/types.
The large straight bore clarinets of the 50s-70s such as the Selmer Centered Tone, Balanced Tone, Series 9 and Leblanc LL and Pete Fountain models seem to be generate a large sound that is suited for jazz. On the flip side, the intonation of large bore instruments is suspect and in ensemble playing, it may be hard to blend with the group.
When Buffet came out with a small bore polyclindrical design of a .577 bore vs a .582 or .590 straight bore, intonation was better. Most of the other manufacturers had to offer a polcylindrical model in order to compete. Now, most pro horns are polyclindrical. The majority of student/intermediates are not. I think there will always be a market for the large bore instruments-jazz musicians seem to like them a lot.
My two cents,
George
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mario
Date: 2000-01-10 13:15
Actually, the reality is getting a little more subtle. Several top of the line builders (Rossi, Fox, Heaton) now produce large bore polycylindrical instruments whose intonation is as good a small bore instruments. The engineering breakthrough of Buffet in the 50's was the polycylindrical bore design, not the size of the bore. It is more difficult to design a bore configuration that has good intonation with a larger bore, so Buffet and all the others took the easy way out and shrank the bore. But that was an artificial engineering constraint which, since then, has been lifted by new knowledge and R&D.
It seems to be a case where large bore instruments were replaced by smaller bore instruments whose bore had simply better design (starting in the 50's at Buffet). With R&D applied to the large bore instruments the way it has been on small bore instrument for over 40 years, we now can buy a large bore horn that leaves nothing to their smaller bore cousin.
The color characteristics of new large bore models are simply excellent.
Several players of top of the line custom clarinet have now switched to large bore (most professional users of Rossi for instance used large bore models), since the instrument projects much better without loosing color and intonation while maintaining super pianissimo capability. This means that the dynamic range of the instrument is extended with modern large bore.
Large bore instruments also tend to be more flexible. This is an elusive quality that describes the potential variations in pitch, dynamic and color that the musician can achieve at a given level of effort and skills. Modern clarinet playing is multi-dimensional and a good musician will use a palet of colors well suited to the music at hand, and varying constantly during the piece. For instance, one will oscillate between dark and brillant, will adjust the pitch to match the harmonic context, will extend his dynamic range upward and downward in subtle increments. It is easier to accomplish all of that on quality large bore instruments (since small bore instruments, for all their "tone compactness and centeredness", actually enforce a tone trajectory that require more effort to alter - small bore instruments are unidimensional and less flexible).
But what I say here is true only for top of the line models, not to be confused with large bore student level models whose purpose is to allow beginners with weak diaphragm to play loud.
I use a small bore Rossi. Should I be in the market for a new Rossi at the moment, I would probably go for a larger bore.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2000-01-10 15:04
Attempting to compose a post on a complex subject while listening to the Mozart on NPR is, for me, challenging! The two above discussions are excellent, I can add little. I suggest studying the ICA "Claranalysis" columns by Lee Gibson , collected in "Clarinet Acoustics", in particular the comparisons, page 38, of the R13 and Selmer Recital [of about 1990], velly interesting! Also many of our good "Clarinet" books at least touch upon these design considerations, complicated! I generally play a "medium-bore" LeBlanc poly-cyl [about 14.85 mm "nominal" - I prefer meterics!] but have had the opportunity to play both '50-60 Selmers and Buffets and really like them all, adjusting to their differences I can produce all the volume I wish. I'm sure we all would appreciate discussions from experts in our 4 major and xx less-well-known makers, however, except for a few public-record patents, most of this info is probably involved with trade-secrets. Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tim
Date: 2000-01-10 19:15
I concur, with the previous posts. Two characteristics I've noted is that large bore instruments are more free blowing, but less stable. What this means in practice is that though it may appear to play easier, in many ways you must work harder (or at least more carefully) to maintain pitch and tone color. This is NOT the fault of the instrument, that is, it is not by nature less in tune than a small bore instrument it is just easier to play out of tune.
The instability of the large bore instrument increases as you move higher in the registers. This is an acoustical phenomenon related to the fact that the diameter of the bore must be small in relation to the wavelength of the note being played. This also effects the tone color, often making high notes harsh and edgy, but on the other hand giving a full and dark middle and lower register.
One reason these remained popular with Jazz musicians, was not some much their intrinsic tone color, but the ability to freely alter that tone color and bend pitches to extremes.
I personally find the narrow bore instruments better all around instruments, easier to control and keep in tune, even though they offer more resistance. I find their tone quality works better in traditional ensembles and projects well on solo passages, but I must admit that the big bore clarinets are indeed fun to play.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Duke
Date: 2014-03-27 07:27
For a novice player, everything else being equal, which is easier to play( the amount of air required) the small bore or the large bore?
For example: Selmer Center Tone 14.95 mm (.588")
Selmer Signature 14.60 mm (.5748")
Selmer Recital 14.30 mm (.5629)
Thank you all for your help and very informative contributions.
Post Edited (2014-03-28 21:55)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-03-27 07:39
Thank you for this interesting subject. 14.6O seems to be pretty standard these days (Buffet, Selmer, Yamaha...). If this is the case, it must be pretty optimal. I insist once again that the size and distribution of tone-holes changes sound and response rather radically. At JL-Clarinettes, we have two different models; identical bores, but different tone-holes and the two models are like siblings that neither look nor act alike.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-03-27 15:44
I agree with Tim wholeheartedly on the issues with the larger bore instruments. Yes, you have more variety of sounds you can make, but this means you need to ensure (at least as a classical player) that you hit the CENTER of whatever timbre you want within each register you are playing. This is where the WORK and LISTENING comes in.
I would harken back to an issue with the august Herbert Wurlitzer clarinets back in the 80's. They introduced a bigger bore on their top line clarinet that met with a lot of negative feedback from their staunchest supporters. In short order the bore was brought back down a bit for a nice compromise.
To each his own though.
............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2014-03-27 11:57
I do have difficulty with some of this discussion. For example, consider Tim's comment: "The instability of the large bore instrument increases as you move higher in the registers. This is an acoustical phenomenon related to the fact that the diameter of the bore must be small in relation to the wavelength of the note being played". We're only talking about a 3% shift in bore diameter - which is less than one semitone. So the stability of most notes should be unaffected, according to this argument.
It's well known that the response is affected by other factors than bore size, particularly tone-hole diameter and undercutting. As a result, some small-bore clarinets can be much more free-blowing than others.
So it must be possible that an archetypical big-bore clarinet like the B+H 1010 sounds (and feels) as it does owing largely to factors other than the bore dimension, and that subsequent designers who liked those characteristics just adopted the big bore without experimenting with all options.
For example, the Howarth S2 uses a standard-bore mouthpiece, and yet has a distinctly big-bore character. I wonder just how much effort on the part of other designers has gone into trying to create instruments of this type.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-03-27 16:00
I'm surprised that in reference to big-bore clarinets, nobody has mentioned Boosey and Hawkes 1010s. They were an integral part of that very distinctive English sound: Jack Brymer, Gervase De Peyer, Reginald Kell. I imagine the Peter Eaton big-bore clarinets are based on the old 1010, with much improved intonation.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-03-27 16:05
John Peacock: What do you personally think of these Howarth clarinets? I'm not sure they are made any more and for some reason, they never really took off. Are they to be had second hand in Britain?
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2014-03-27 16:07
I do have difficulty with some of this discussion. For example, consider Tim's comment: "The instability of the large bore instrument increases as you move higher in the registers. This is an acoustical phenomenon related to the fact that the diameter of the bore must be small in relation to the wavelength of the note being played". We're only talking about a 3% shift in bore diameter - which is less than one semitone. So the stability of most notes should be unaffected, according to this argument.
It's well known that the response is affected by other factors than bore size, particularly tone-hole diameter and undercutting. As a result, some small-bore clarinets can be much more free-blowing than others.
So it must be possible that an archetypical big-bore clarinet like the B+H 1010 sounds (and feels) as it does owing largely to factors other than the bore dimension, and that subsequent designers who liked those characteristics just adopted the big bore without experimenting with all options.
For example, the Howarth S2 uses a standard-bore mouthpiece, and yet has a distinctly big-bore character. I wonder just how much effort on the part of other designers has gone into trying to create instruments of this type.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-03-27 17:18
Howarth S2 clarinets have a 14.75mm bore and the S3 has a 14.65mm bore.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2014-03-27 17:19)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2014-03-27 18:39
Ruben: I've become a big fan of the Howarth S2's. I first came across them about 5 years ago when I started playing with Richard West. He was 2nd clarinet in the Academy of St Martin in the Fields for at least a couple of decades, going back to the days when Brymer played for them. Richard used to play on 1010s, but now uses the Howarths - and he makes a wonderful sound on them, which certainly would make you think he was using a big-bore instrument.
So this got me curious and I ended up buying a 2nd-hand pair of S2's last November. I've now done 5 concerts on them, and I'm convinced that I've made the switch from my long-term R13s (but with the same mouthpiece). I feel the sound is warmer and smoother than the Buffets, but it's easier to sing out with projection in an orchestral setting - a wider range, in short. The tuning is good, too.
Regarding bore dimensions, I measure 14.75mm at the bottom of the top joint,
identical to my R13. But this rises to 15.20 at the top of that joint, as against 15.01 for the R13. So they are a sort of big bore instrument, although who knows if that's why they sound as they do.
I got mine from Howarth's in London, and they have 2 other Bb's on their current 2nd-hand list. I was actually in there yesterday and blew those, although I didn't like them as much as mine: the tuning wasn't as good. Howarths also have quite a few of the preceding S1 model. The design of these is similar, but with some tweaks that seem to give the S2 a more uniform sound quality.
I gather Howarth's stopped making S2's in about 2003 because they are of hand-built quality, and they couldn't do that for a price that competed with Buffet. It's a pity, as they do have a unique character. Given the number of different models that Buffet produce these days, it's perhaps surprising they haven't tried out something of this sort.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-03-27 19:09
The S1 clarinets are pretty much the same instrument as the S2s, but they have a longer top joint upper tenon and deeper lower barrel socket to maintain stability (less likely to rock) when the barrel is pulled out.
There were plans on making a 1010 bore and German bore clarinet, but these never made it into production. The S3 was aimed at the Buffet buying public as an English answer to the R13, but with the comparatively lower price of Buffet clarinets, they swayed some but not all Buffet fans.
Howarth among many other former small volume pro level clarinet producers such as Marigaux simply can't compete with Buffet. But they do have the market share when it comes to oboes, so it's not all bad - apart from clarinettists wanting a new set of instruments from them.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2014-03-27 19:23
Chris: Peter Eaton keeps going with small volume production, and his prices are less than for some Buffet models. If he can do it, how come Howarth and Marigaux couldn't? Might it be because they can switch the clarinet-making staff to oboes, where the profit margins are higher?
Regarding S1 vs S2, I can see quite a few significant albeit subtle difference in the diameter of toneholes, particularly on the lower joint.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-03-27 16:38
Peter Eaton's clarinets aren't aimed at the small bore buying market, so that's the reason for his success - offering a complete alternative to what's on offer from the big makers for players who want something different. Besides, Peter Eaton only makes clarinets whereas Howarth and Marigaux don't really have to if they're not profitable and their oboes will always be popular, so best concentrating on them than something that won't sell.
With Howarth clarinets as with all their instruments, changes in tonehole diameters are a constant thing.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2014-03-27 20:45)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-03-27 17:11
From some of the dimesions I've seen of Viennese clarinets, they come pretty close to the Boosey 1010.
....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2014-03-27 23:50
This is based entirely on personal experience.
I played a Selmer Centered Tone from the 9th through the 12th grade and did quite well on it. I also tried many other CTs, which consistently played like mine.
I liked everything about the CT except for a glare in the tone, which I couldn't get rid of by changing the mouthpiece, the reed or my embouchure.
In my college freshman year, I switched to an R13, which eliminated the glare and let me make many different sounds. The improvement became even bigger after I met Kalmen Opperman, who made a mouthpiece and reverse-tapered barrel for me.
I put up with the R13's intonation problems, which I find manageable, in order to be able to do things I couldn't do on the CT. For example, several times I sat in with a string quartet whose violist was ill. The R13 let me imitate a pizzicato and other string effects, which I couldn't have done on a CT.
It's 99% personal preference and 1% hardware.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-03-28 00:54
John: Thank you. Buffet has, it is true, a wide variety of models, but essentially two basic bores: the RC bore and the R13. The Tosca bore is R13; the new Divine: RC. The Prestige; probably RC. So they are not as adventurous as they seem. Mostly the frills are different. I love the Howarth Oboe sound. If their clarinets are anything like that, I will go for them. I look forward to trying some of their second-hand instruments the next time I'm in London.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-03-27 21:06
Ruben, the Prestige is available in both R13 and RC versions.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-03-28 01:10
John: The late Lee Gibson, who wrote a book on clarinet acoustics and many articles on the subject, told me he reckoned the Howarth clarinets were the best that ever came out of Britain. I didn't have the presence of mind to ask him whether he'd tried out the Peter Eaton clarinets.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sax panther
Date: 2014-03-28 03:06
I used to play in a clarinet quartet with a lady who played howarth clarinets. I don't know which model, but I tried one and it felt and sounded really nice. You occasionally see S2s come up on the auction website.
Hanson music in Yorkshire offer a choice of four bore styles - English, French, jazz and symphonic. I've not had the opportunity to try their clarinet s, but their saxophones are excellent, and really good value.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-03-28 03:58
The Reform Boehms made by Schwenk & Segelke are definitely a large bore design, very close to the 1010 diameter.
I think one reason why Peter Eaton and Louis Rossi survive in clarinet making where Howarth failed is that they do not have the sort of corporate overhead that Howarths carry. OK I know Howarth is not in same size league as Buffet but they still have a major factory and logistics organisation to cover.
Buffet are sufficiently larger to be able to swallow that overhead in their prices.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sonicbang
Date: 2014-03-28 18:40
I switched to a Leblanc LL and a Dynamic 2 from my RC Prestige. The LL has the most compact, deepest and most beautiful sound I ever experienced. Intonation is spotless. That is my no.1 Bb clarinet. The Dynamic is pretty close to it but I had to make minor tone hole adjustments (mostly filling a few) to play in tune.
I think vintage big bore instruments had some issues only because the machinery of that time was not so accurate as today. They require some adjusting/finishing work, but it well worth the effort.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cyclopathic
Date: 2014-03-28 19:43
sonicbang wrote:
> I think vintage big bore instruments had some issues only
> because the machinery of that time was not so accurate as
> today. They require some adjusting/finishing work, but it well
> worth the effort.
there are other reasons also, for example many big bores were tuned to different "big bore" MPC and they don't play well in tune on modern ones. B&H used to sell a reamer to enlarge french-style mpc to make their clarinet play in tune.
Other reasons are old instruments could be "blown out" of spec dried wood, chipped toneholes, harden pads, small leaks, re-opened cracks, built up, etc. And then if something 50-80+ years old from pawn shop or "that site" you can't really know who did what to it. Even a fallen off key cork replaced with wrong thickness could have a considerable impact on intonation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-03-28 16:58
Sonicbang: I have a Leblanc LL that belonged to Jimmy Hamilton of the Duke Ellington Orchestra for about a dozen years. After what you've said, I think I'll take it out, doctor up the intonation on it a little and start playing it again.
Chris: A very interesting point you have made about Peter Eaton surviving by producing something that is quite unique. That's what we at JL-Clarinettes have to do: try to assert our originality. I feel that Selmer, for example, is not as different from Buffet as it used to be. There is unconscious pressure to conform, especially with clarinettists sounding more and more alike in this globalised world of ours.
I hope this large bore discussion has not become a big bore!
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Duke
Date: 2014-03-28 18:07
John, will you please answer this question for me?
All other factors being equal, which of the following bores would be the easiest to play, that is which would require the least amount of air?
Selmer Center Tone 14.95 mm (.588")
Selmer Signature 14.60 mm (.5748")
Selmer Recital 14.30 mm (.5629")
Thank you.
Sal
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-03-28 23:43
Duke: Selmer Recital 14.30? That doesn't sound right. I've got one and I'll measure it. I would say 14.50 or so. The design of its bore is very similar to that of German clarinets: cylindrical and only flaring out towards the bell. A fine clarinet it is too, if you are willing to put up with the added thickness and weight.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-03-28 23:56
With bores of 14.95 - 14.60 - 14.30 things could never be equal.
Bore size is only a single factor and is interdependant on many other factors such as tone hole size/position/undercut, bore flare and conicity etc. to make a workable design.
Change bore size then you have to change most of those other factores too.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-03-29 00:00
According to Selmer's own literature, Recitals have a 14.30mm bore - they have the smallest bore coupled with the thickest joints of any clarinet.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2014-03-29 00:41
Sal,
I've never played a Centered Tone, but I'm familiar with the N series, which came just before, so I'll assume the response is similar. If that's so, then the Centred Tone would be the most freely blowing. But I found the Signature more resistant than the Recital, which would argue against things just going in order of bore size. Again, I strongly suspect that variation in size and undercutting of toneholes has much more of an effect than simple bore size.
I'm not sure how you'd do the experiment of "all else being equal", unless you got some instruments made to order. You could learn something if you were willing to ruin an instrument. Say you take two Signatures and rebore one to CT dimensions, while with the other you open out the toneholes to CT size. The latter shift is much the larger. Your CT bore size is only 2% larger than the figure for the Signature, but I bet the finger holes are much bigger. I can't do a CT-Signature comparison, but the lowest RH finger hole on my N series is 10.5 mm across, whereas a Buffet is 8.5 mm - a 24% difference. The old Selmer holes are so huge, you feel your finger's going to fall into it. If you drilled the Buffet holes that large, I bet it would play radically different - anyone fancy the experiment?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-03-29 01:10
Send me an R13 and I'll drill out all the toneholes to CT spec - it won't play in tune afterwards, but I bet it'll be very free blowing!
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Duke
Date: 2014-03-29 03:06
Thank you all for your help and insight. I think the best thing for me to do is to
play the different Selmers. Being a novice, I did not think about the differences in tone holes. I am just trying to get the best sound I can.
Thank you all again.
Sal (Duke)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Duke
Date: 2014-03-29 03:09
By the way, I got my data on the clarinet bores from ClarinetPerfection.com
Duke
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jonok
Date: 2014-03-29 20:36
It is my understanding that Kell did not play on 1010 style big bore clarinets, and did not even like them.
Jon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SteveG_CT
Date: 2014-03-30 04:09
jonok wrote:
> It is my understanding that Kell did not play on 1010 style big
> bore clarinets, and did not even like them.
Not exactly true. There was an article about Kell that appeared in "The Clarinet" many years ago where it was stated that he originally played on Martel clarinets (thought to have been marked "Hawkes & Sons"). Once those clarinet wore out he switched to the B&H 1010 and played them for pretty much the rest of his career. It was stated that he was never as happy with the 1010's as he was with his earlier clarinets but that's not exactly the same as saying he didn't like them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jonok
Date: 2014-03-30 11:44
I can't argue as my information is second hand: I had referred Peter Eaton to a review of his international clarinet (an A) where the reviewer had made a similar comment about Kell using wide bore instruments and Peter picked up on that and made effectively the comment I posted.
Jon
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2014-03-31 02:40
I had similar face to face discussion with Peter Eaton some years ago and recall same comments as Jonok.
Peter was a practising orchestral professional in UK back in the 60s and has done significant research on, and probably has more knowledge than most of the equipment used by British players of the 20th century.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
