 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2021-04-21 17:51
Hi,
I wondered if anyone had made a table showing the weights and dimensions of the different clarinets on the market?
I'm just wondering because I'm having to have two keys on my Yamaha Custom CX extended so that I can reach them. While that is happening I have been playing my old (1915-ish) E.J. Albert clarinet and I can reach all the keys on it just fine. I can also reach all the keys on the plastic Normandy Resotone that JDBassplayer kindly sent me when I was new on the list.
The Yamaha seems noticeably heavier and the right hand pinkie keys are nearly an inch lower down than in my E. J. Albert clarinet, which really surprised me.
However, the Yamaha is the one that really works well, which counts for rather a lot.
I wondered if anyone had measured clarinets to see how they all compare?
Thanks!
Jennifer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2021-04-21 18:14
Just thought I'd throw out the idea that if you hold the clarinet so that your right thumb is perpendicular to the floor or even a bit pointed upward (drawing a line from heel of thumb to tip) while supporting the clarinet, reaching the keys is not only a snap but you avoid most causes for undue strain on your hand at the base of the thumb (something I ran into after about 12 years but have since eliminated this way). Initially it is more "work" to bare the weight with your musculature but it actually is much more comfortable in the long run........then you'll find you may even have to curl your pinky!
.................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2021-04-21 20:34
Hi Paul. Perpendicular to the floor would mean pointing straight down at it or straight up away from it, no? Either one sounds like a very awkward way to hold a clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2021-04-21 21:41
SunnyDaze wrote:
> ...I can
> also reach all the keys on the plastic Normandy Resotone that
> JDBassplayer kindly sent me when I was new on the list.
>
I suspect a lot of student clarinets (like the Normandy) might be an easier reach than many high end "pro" level clarinets. The student lines, if they're targeted at young school-aged players, have been designed for smaller, less mature hands.
Also, some clarinets (like my 1960s R13) are designed with straight-in RH keys - perpendicular to the clarinet body, while others (like my 10Gs) have RH pinkie keys that angle upwards. In theory, the slanted keys should be easier to reach (though I've never found that to be especially true of the RH E/B on my 10Gs).
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2021-04-22 08:01
My Noblet is “smaller” than my Buffet was. Noblet, Normandy, Vito, and (I assume) Leblanc are similar.
IDK what the specific issue is, but some problems can be addressed with setup, like key bending, etc. In some cases small changes can make a horn feel very different.
Any standard clarinet can be made to work well (respond like it’s supposed to), but they need maintenance. If a horn hasn’t been adjusted in years it’s leaking and out of regulation.
- Matthew Simington
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2021-04-22 09:14
I just measured a Yamaha 24II, Noblet “DN”, Normandy 4, and Vito 7314. The Noblet is from the ‘40s or ‘50s. The rest are ‘70s or ‘80s. Note, the Noblet and Normandy have undercut tone holes.
I measured the distance between the lower joint holes, from the top of the top hole, to the bottom of the bottom hole:
Yamaha: 2.227”
Vito: 2.219”
Normandy: 2.181”
Noblet: 2.212”
From the top of the top hole, to the lower edge of the F/C key:
Yamaha: 3.117”
Vito: 3.114”
Normandy: 3.077”
Noblet: 3.094”
From the thumbrest to the tip of the E/B key -.5335” (measured parallel to the bore):
Yamaha: 3.443”
Vito: 3.381”
Normandy: 3.374”
Noblet: 3.394”
The first measurement is pretty accurate, the second less so, the last not so much, but they were all very carefully done. The Yamaha was the largest for 3, and the Normandy was the smallest for all 4. However, the difference was LESS than 0.100”, which is less than 1/8” or 2.5mm. That would make a difference, but nothing compared to the difference between your Albert and the Yamaha.
The diameter at the tenon ring is about the same. The pinky keys are all about the same height, 0.500”.
- Matthew Simington
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Michael E. Shultz
Date: 2021-04-22 14:16
Here's the clarinet weight thread:
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=291463&t=126320
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2021-04-23 00:29
Attachment: P2140001.JPG (673k)
Attachment: P2140002.JPG (679k)
Attachment: P2140003.JPG (693k)
Attachment: P2140004.JPG (692k)
Attachment: P2140005.JPG (684k)
Yamaha clarinets DO require a fair old stretch for the RH pinky key touches compared to others and that's not just pro level clarinets as the 200 series also have the RH pinky touches a fair distance from RH3.
I've had to modify some Yamahas to bring the RH pinky touches in to a more comfortable position for players who find them a real stretch, but who have no problem reaching the same touches on Buffets, Leblancs and Selmers when I had them try them to see how their fingers lie naturally instead of having to stretch and accidentally uncover the other RH fingers from the tonehole chimneys.
See attachments - here's a description for each photo:
1. RH F#/C# and E/B touches in their original positions.
2. RH F#/C# and E/B touches brought in closer.
3. RH Ab/Eb and F/C keys added with the touches in their original positions.
4. RH Ab/Eb and F/C touches repositioned.
5. All RH touches in situ and in their new positions.
Just because touchpieces are where they are doesn't mean they have to be where they are if you can't reach them comfortably. I'm surprised Yamaha have such wide spacing for these touches when the keywork on their older clarinets from the '70s were more like Selmers of the same time.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2021-04-23 01:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2021-04-23 01:00
Attachment: P2150009.JPG (687k)
Attachment: P2170010.JPG (710k)
And this is the finished article - see attachments.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2021-04-23 01:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MichaelW
Date: 2021-04-23 15:27
"I wondered if anyone had made a table showing the weights and dimensions of the different clarinets on the market?":
https://www.musiktreff.info/instrumente/17564-wie-schwer-ist-eure-klarinette/seite9.html
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2021-04-24 14:14
Attachment: IMG_9735.jpg (522k)
Attachment: IMG_9736.jpg (482k)
Thank you for all of the comments. That gave me a lot of useful perspective on it.
I have attached two photos of the modifications that have been made to my yamaha. They really transform my playing.
I now don't need to think about getting my fingers to the keys. I just think "Eb" or "upper register" and it happens on reflex.
Previously, I had to think hard about moving my whole hand to reach the keys, and then moving it back afterwards. Now my hand can stay in one place.
The register key adjustment was £25 (I think) and the Eb key was £50 because the pad had to be redone afterwards.
Thanks!
Jen
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BethGraham
Date: 2021-04-24 18:39
Hey, Jen --
I'd be interested in seeing a few pictures of the modifications "in action," that is, with your hands and fingers.
Hooray for having changes done that make your playing easier!
Beth
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2021-04-24 22:08
LOL! Beth, I think I am not a smart enough player yet to expose my genius in public. Sometimes I think I should pay my teacher danger money to listen to me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BethGraham
Date: 2021-04-25 19:56
And that, my dear Internet friend, has been the genius of pandemic Zoom lessons: my teacher can't tell just how bad I sound! (Well, not *bad*, exactly; let's just call it "inexpert.")
Seriously, could you get your husband to take a few photos of your fingers on the keys (preferably while you're playing)? I'm interested in seeing your finger position.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2021-04-25 23:55
Attachment: P4120004.JPG (702k)
Attachment: P3010001.JPG (696k)
Attachment: P3010002.JPG (673k)
Attachment: P5180002.JPG (679k)
I've done the same on a couple of Leblanc LL full Boehms (both Bb and A) as reaching the low Eb key was a stretch on them and also on a Ridenour C clarinet which required cut-outs on the inside edges of the RH F#/C# and E/B touches to make clearance for the crow's foot. And on a Jupiter bass clarinet for the same reasons.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2021-04-26 00:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2021-04-27 16:07
Regarding weights, a point that may be of interest is the tendency for things to get heavier with time. You can see this in the following time series of Buffet and Selmer Bb's. These are total weights in grams including barrel but not mouthpiece. These are all instruments I've weighed myself; either ones I've owned at various times or had on trial etc.
More recent instruments have the extra weight of the alternative Eb key. There are strongly held views in both directions as to whether this addition enhances the instrument or vandalises it, but we can all agree that the extra weight is unfortunate. If you keep it, a modern Buffet is about 10% heavier than the pre-War norm, and still 8% heavier if you take it off. Selmers are worse: the Recital I trialled was 18% heavier than a BT, and it didn't even have the Eb key. I couldn't cope with all that weight. I wonder why no-one makes instruments in the 720-730 range any more, as they feel much more comforable to play.
Buffet:
1938 714
1959 734
1974 755
1979 748
1982 749
2010 785 (770 without Eb key)
Selmer:
1946 710 (BT)
1956 718 (CT)
1981 743 (S9*)
1983 840 (Recital)
1985 756 (10G)
2009 832 (Privilege) (817 without Eb key)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2021-04-27 17:27
Attachment: thumb.jpg (1489k)
Attachment: pinkie.jpg (1611k)
Hi John,
That's really interesting to realise the changes over time, and fits with my experience. My full boehm E.J. Albert is just 690g and my Yamaha Custon CX is 766g
Beth - good idea - I have attached photos of my fingers on the key extensions. It's pretty clear from the photos how much they help me out.
Thanks!
Jen
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: seabreeze
Date: 2021-04-27 19:17
So where is all the extra weight coming from? Do earlier wood clarinets weigh less because they are made of 1) less wood, 2) lighter wood or 3) lighter metal keys and metal rings or 4) for some other unstated reason? In the case of the Selmer Recital, the comparative heaviness most probably comes from the unusual thickness of the wooden walls at least in the top and bottom joints, and perhaps also in the barrel and bell. For each vintage model clarinet, how much of the weight is determined by one section of the clarinet only; for example, the bell, or the barrel that came with it? Mazzeo famously promoted a very thin, light-weight bell as an important component of his Mazzeo system clarinet. Of course, after-market barrels and bells, made of materials such as Delrin or ABS can noticeably lighten the weight of a wood instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2021-04-27 19:56
With my two, I feel as though the wood of the new one is thicker, but the keys are also noticeably thicker, as though they were designed to look luxuriant. The keys on the old one by comparison look thinner and a bit utilitarian. I will take photos to show you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2021-04-27 20:07
Attachment: IMG_9752.JPG (883k)
Attachment: IMG_9753.JPG (893k)
Attachment: IMG_9754.JPG (1532k)
Here are some photos of the top parts of the bottom joint of my 1918-ish and 2019 clarinets (Albert and Yamaha).
The keys of the two look the same from the outside, but when I look underneath the Albert keys, some of them have been scooped out on the inside so as to be thinner and presumably lighter. I put an arrow in to show. Some of them are genuinely just thinner, though both look lovely from the outside.
I measured the diameter of the top of the bottom joint, and the thickness of the walls and I can't see any difference at all, even though they look different in the photos.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2021-04-27 20:10
Having said that, the 1918 one is also high pitches so is actually a shorter instrument. That probably does make a difference doesn't it?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony F
Date: 2021-04-27 21:11
Before around the early 1900's there was no real standardization of pitch. Generally, instruments tuned either to what was termed high pitch or low pitch. These were sufficiently far apart that one could not really be tuned to match the other, so musicians who moved around would have two sets of instruments. Eventually pitch became standardized at what had been called low pitch. Instruments of that period will often be marked HP or LP, or H or L. High pitch instruments will not tune with modern instruments and are really only usable by musical historians, players of period instruments or lamp makers. A on a HP clari will be around 457. Even now there is not complete standardization of pitch. Some of the world uses A=440, some use A=442. These are close enough that pulling the barrell will generally bring it in to tune.
Tony F.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2021-04-28 00:21
High Pitch is 452-453Hz which isn't compatible alongside Low Pitch instruments built to 440Hz.
Instruments built between 438-442Hz can be played alongside ones built to 440Hz with some adjustment. Instruments built to 443-444Hz are going to sound very sharp.
Many flutes on the market today are built to 442Hz which is why flutes are usually on the sharp side or get increasingly and painfully sharp as they go higher which is mostly down to the player's ineptitude as a musician to play the thing in tune, but still not helped by a flute that's already wanting to be sharp. They can be brought into tune with themselves by adjusting the headjoint cork position and pulling out the headjoint as well as listening.
Horns are often built to around 445Hz to cover all eventualities, but they can be tuned down to 440Hz by pulling out all the slides by the required amount.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fuzzy
Date: 2021-04-28 02:56
I found this article to be interesting: https://capionlarsen.com/history-pitch/
A friend shared it with me a few years ago. I don't have the knowledge to say whether it is entirely factual (as the sourcing at the bottom of the page is a little less than overwhelming), but nevertheless, it opened my eyes to the changing history of "high" and "low" pitch.
Fuzzy
;^)>>>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SunnyDaze
Date: 2021-04-28 12:20
I'm not sure what my Albert clarinet is tuned to, but it sounds nice with a Buffet R13 barrel on it.
It's not really in tune with itself though, and the keys are slow to move, so it's really more for fun playing than any kind of serious work.
It has an absolutely beautiful tone on the low notes - playing them is practically a spiritual experience.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2021-04-28 13:08
I always assumed that the trend to greater weights reflected thicker walls - certainly the Selmer Recital is notorious in this respect, with the extra thickness obvious to the eye. I measured a Recital's outer dimensions while I was trialling it, so let me add some new Buffet measurements. Here are diameters of the upper joint in mm at top and bottom, and total instrument weight in g:
1938 Buffet 30.08 28.88 714
1982 Buffet 30.26 29.09 750
1983 Recital 32.16 32.00 840
All other things being equal, you might expect the weight to go as the square of the diameter. Dividing weight by square of mean diameter, I get 0.82, 0.85, 0.82. So that's not completely universal, but it does show that much of the 1938-1982 Buffet weight difference comes from the thicker walls. My previous measurements indicated that modern Buffets are heavier still: a 2010 RC Prestige I trialled was 770g even taking off the extra Eb key. That predicts the diameter of modern upper joints will be 31.07 - 29.87 top to bottom, scaling from the 1982 Buffet. Can anyone produce measurements of a recent instrument?
As to why walls have got thicker, I'm guessing it affects the sound in a direction that suits the taste of the age. Buffet tried a thin-walled departure with the Elite; I've never had the chance to play one, but I've read the sound described as small or lacking body, and it didn't prove popular. Anyone know what they weighed?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BethGraham
Date: 2021-04-28 18:22
Many thanks to you, and Chris P. and Tony F. for educating me! Really cool stuff.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
