The Clarinet BBoard

The Clarinet BBoard The C4 standard

New Topic | Go to Top | Go to Topic | Search | Help/Rules | Smileys/Notes | Log In

Previous Message | Next Message

Re: Buffet vs. Moennig Barrels

Author: shmuelyosef
Date: 2017-03-14 06:56

Karl, this is a question for you potentially (as Hans cannot answer)

A corollary question to Karl's is:
I hear conflicting stories about the barrel function, and have been testing in the context of an old Leblanc Dynamique that is missing it's original barrel...the conflicting views are:

1. in one scenario about what barrels can do...a barrel that is diameter-mismatched to the bore (of the mouthpiece at the input or the LH joint at the output) provides acoustic reflections. Like any 'transmission system' a diameter change provides an opportunity to bounce some of the frequencies back. This can happen at both ends of a mismatched barrel and set up the opportunity for a standing wave...capturing some specific bands of the acoustic spectrum and effectively isolating the frequency response of the "mostly cylindrical" section of the bore. This is supported by the 0.589" - 0.580" taper that we often see. Interestingly, I recently measured a 2006-era R-13 and the top bore of the LH joint is exactly 0.589". Most mouthpiece bores in the 50s (at least in the USA) were about 15mm or 0.591"...close to the 0.589" in the barrel top

2. in another scenario, custom barrels are made by matching the mouthpiece diameter at the top and matching the LH joint bore at the bottom. This would be consistent with reaming the barrel in situ with the LH joint. Presumably you would line up the logos and ream through to assure the bores match exactly...if the grain were lined up as well in the wood, these pieces would shrink and distort simultaneously. If the top of the barrel ended up at ~0.590" it would perfectly match common mouthpieces. Intuitively then, this would minimize reflections/disturbances in the transmission of acoustic waves down the bore as there would only be gradual transmissions (lossy, but much less reflective).

Some examples from horns in my studio/workshop:

My personal Series 9...great intonation and free-blowing
Barrel has a linear taper from 0.593" - 0.582". Original HS* mpc has exit bore of 0.590". I use a Fobes piece with an output bore of 0.592" (measured). At the bottom, there is a discontinuity as the LH joint upper bore is 0.582". Perhaps one reflection is better than two? In that case matching the Buffet at this interface is brilliant as the mouthpiece mismatch is up to the customer and can't be controlled.

I also have here a modern Selmer B015 clarinet made in 2008. The barrel is nearly cylindrical but measures 0.575", much smaller than any plausible mouthpiece and also much smaller than the 0.590" input bore on the LH joint. This clarinet has very good response and intonation, but plays a bit flat with my Fobes (need to use the 65mm barrel provided for 440 intonation), however is awesomely in tune with a Grabner K-14.

I have notices that some custom barrel vendors actually do ask that you send them your clarinet. This would lend me to believe that there is, in fact, some consistent art involved...maybe even some science!

Reply To Message | Avail. Forums | Flat View

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Topics

Author

Date

Buffet vs. Moennig Barrels new

Elise W.

2004-08-07 16:48