QUOTE(Roseau @ Feb 4 2012, 04:56 PM)
What was quite surprising (to me anyway) about the 1894 article is how much knowledge we take for granted these days.
Wm Rowlett developped his theory about the reeds because he wanted to disprove what appears to have been the most popular theory at the time: that clarinets overblow at a 12th because they are not stopped pipes whereas oboes are. He argued that neither the clarinet nor the oboe can be stopped pipes because they both have air coming out of the bottom.
He began by examining the keywork, thinking that perhaps what he calls the "chalumeau" key held the secret but quickly abandoned this idea, concluding that it just made the overblowing at a 12th easier but that the instrument naturally overblew at the 12th. Since the keywork didn't appear to change things he then looked at the next most obvious difference: the reeds.
The end of the article has something written by another person who is unconvinced by the clarinet overblowing at the octave with a bassoon reed saying that when he tried to replicate the "experiment" he obtained harmonic octaves not "proper" notes. He goes on very tentatively to suggest that perhaps the different form of the bore might play a role but he can provide no proof, it is just an intuition.
Unfortunately I can't post a link to it because it is on a restricted access site.
um... clarinets overblow a 12th because they ARE stopped pipes, and flutes overblow an octave because they are open pipes.
Oboes overblow an octave because the conical bore does something peculiar to the waveform. (spot the physicist)
QUOTE(katica @ Feb 4 2012, 11:08 PM)
I'm still puzzled but this bassoon-reed-in-a-clarinet thing.
Like anacrusis, I thought it was all about the bore.
I know a guy who is trying to design, with a friend, a bassoon mouthpiece that will take a clarinet reed.
A bassoon that's not in the doublereed family sounds like a rather sad development to me!
Sounds like a bass saxophone to me. Or possibly a b**tardised ophicleide or something. Either way, not good!
I read a very interesting paper about 25 years ago which "proved" by using an artificial mouth to play a bassoon that buccal cavity shape/size had no effect on tone production. The authors were honest enough to reference another paper that had used an artificial mouth to play a clarinet that came to the opposite conclusion...
(nb it was a long time ago and I could have mixed the two papers up, but the point was that acoustics is an empirical art far more than it is a science!)