Talk:Subcontrabass clarinet

Untitled

There is a good (but slightly blurry) black-and-white photo of an octocontralto clarinet on the "octocontrabass" page at the website located at "wwww.contrabass.com." Only one real "octocontrabass " clarinet was made, and there are no existing photos.24.161.53.152 (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

George Leblanc??

The octocontrabass clarinet is now in the possession of Mr. George Leblanc himself.

I've seen this statement made in a few places, and have repeated it myself; but is it true? Does Mr. George Leblanc even exist? Apparently the octocontrabass was once owned by Léon Leblanc, whose obituary mentions only his wife, Mary Lambret, as a survivor. I can find no mention of any 'George Leblanc' on the Leblanc web site, though Léon's father was named Georges. Léon was succeeded in the leadership of Leblanc by Vito Pascucci and then Leon Pascucci.

I've removed the above statement pending verification. -- Rsholmes 16:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge -- Clarinets below B-flat contrabass

I'm wondering if octocontralto and octocontrabass will ever be able to emerge from stub status, and suggest a merger of the two articles. I look at the low flutes and see how many different pages there are for all the different large flute subspecies (contra-alto, contrabass, sub-contrabass, hyperbass flutes, etc.) and would prefer at least for the clarinet that we don't end up with articles such as "32' PVC clarinet," "64' PVC clarinet" etc. when I think one good article on clarinets below B-flat contrabass could be written. Thoughts? --Myke Cuthbert 18:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt if there'll ever be a proliferation of subcontrabass clarinet articles -- but I do concur that neither of the octo articles is likely to get much longer, and given the similarities in history, design, etc. of the two instruments, it makes a lot of sense to merge them. -- Rsholmes 20:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish you'd asked for some specific suggestions from others before going ahead and doing this. I think an argument can be made that the name should conform to usual Wikipedia practice by being singular -- I don't find the argument that there is no single instrument called a "sub-contrabass clarinet" entirely persuasive. One can point to an octocontra-alto and say, "That's an instance of a sub-contrabass clarinet". Furthermore, I believe the capitalization should be different: Sub-contrabass, not Sub-Contrabass. Would you be amenable, therefore, to moving this to "Sub-contrabass clarinet"?

Other comments: "Following the convention of sub-contrabass flutes, these instruments are named with the prefix octo..." Really? I had the impression the octocontra flutes came later than the octocontra clarinets.

"An experiment by Gregg Bailey has shown that it is at least theoretically possible..." To nitpick, an experiment doesn't show something is theoretically possible!

I'm going to edit those, and make one or two other tweaks. -- Rsholmes 02:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rsholmes for the good comments and suggestions--sorry about not spending more time waiting for suggestions; I thought two months with no comments would be fine. I'm trying to be more bold on Wikipedia, since (like most researchers) my general tendency is not to do something unless I'm sure I can back it up in front of an audience of experts, but maybe this was too much. I'm fine with moving from clarinets to clarinet. I also would be fine with "Clarinets below Contrabass" or something like that. Though perhaps in line with your suggestion, we should give a week before moving the article again to see if others have suggestions; if not we can go with yours.

At this point I'm no longer sure about the flutes coming first, but I didn't think that the terms "octocontrabass" etc., were Leblanc's. The real first "octo" instrument, I'm pretty sure, is the Octobass, an octave below the string bass or contrabass, but that also does not follow a naming convention of adding Octo. The main point on that section was to say what "octo" means for those for whom it's not obvious. --Myke Cuthbert 20:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't suggest an article name back in January... that didn't occur to me. I agree that waiting a few days for further comments before renaming again would be appropriate. -- Rsholmes 03:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I partially support the proposed rename to "Subcontrabass clarinets". "Sub-Contrabass" should not, I feel, have two capital letters; I would have thought the hyphen should be there, but Subcontrabass saxophone gives a clear precedence for not hyphenating (as does, I suppose, the old Octocontrabass clarinet article title). But I don't support it fully; I think the singular term "Subcontrabass clarinet" would be the better choice. -- Rsholmes 19:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Absent any dissent, I've gone ahead and done moved to Subcontrabass clarinet. -- Rsholmes 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Myke Cuthbert 02:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

audible 8hz tones?

i wonder who it was that could hear tones at 8hz, since it's well below the range of human auditory perception.

it makes me doubt the credibility of this gregg bailey. has anyone ever seen or heard this instrument?

I haven't seen the instrument or heard 8hz tones--the lower limit of human auditory perception is generally given as between 8 and 20hz, but usually around 15hz. The lowest C on most pianos is around 30hz, while the low C on a Bosendorfer Imperial Grand is about 15hz. Yet if you sample any of these sounds and transpose them down on a computer, you'll be able to hear even lower tones. Why? Because of the overtones which imply a fundamental below the range of human hearing but which is still "heard". So, while I haven't heard an 8hz PVC clarinet, I have heard a clarinet tone in that general range, synthesized by taking a contrabass clarinet and transposing it down two octaves in Max/MSP. (FWIW, our ability to perceive pitch inflections as small as a half-step is gone by the lowest notes of the piano; we therefore hear chromatic notes on a low contrabassoon only through the overtone series; least that's my understanding from something I read years ago). -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first significant harmonics of an 8Hz note would in the case of a clarinet be 24Hz ;-), so yes, 8Hz can be sensed by humans. Clearly the 8Hz is not sensed through the ears (the first significant clarinet harmonic [24Hz] is) but the 8Hz vibration can be transmitted to a human body (have a look [Google] at devices especially designed for home theatres and designated with names such as "butt kickers"...). The next question, of course would be: Is the instrument mentioned capable of producing and projecting enough energy to be felt in this way (in the 8Hz range)? In the case of a clarinet of course the first important harmonic would be at 24Hz well within audible range, so maybe descending an duodecime lower than 24Hz can make sense? brian stormen 00:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

At the Atlantic City Convention Hall, there is a pipe organ capable of reaching 8hz. There is another pipe organ capable of reaching this note in Sydney Town Hall. I have heard the 8hz note on the Atlantic City instrument; the note is absolutely audible! The only problem is that, that like in all large vibrating objects, the octaves, 12ths, and 15ths tend to be louder that the fundamentals. You can still hear it however. You can tell which is the fundamental, because it is the sound that makes you feel somewhat sick! On any clarinet capable of reaching a note of that frequency, the fundamental would be so much quieter, because the bore of the clarinet (at most, five centimeters) is much narrower than that of the discussed organ pipe (about a meter in diameter). It would still be naturally audible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.53.152 (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can , you must know what is the fundamental of a wave (sound or other)

Actually we can hear a sound even if the fundamental does not exist. A wave sound has a spectrum of "sino (trigonometrical) waves", for example if the fundamental has 8hz then the others, called "harmonics", have 16, 24, 32, ... hz. Then we hear the sound even if we not heard the fundamental. Hence there are audible tones for every fundamental frequency as soon as they are sufficientlly high and strong "harmonics" in the spectrum of the instrument.

Most of the instruments are richer in harmonics for the lower notes. Flutes are poor in harmonics but lower flutes are richer. Bass and contrabass clarinets are very rich in harmonics in the loer notes, otherwise even the low notes of the bass clarinet are almost inaudible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.151.55 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How many were made?

The statement that three octocontra-alto clarinets and one octocontrabass have ever been made (all by LeBlanc) can be found in various places on the web; the original source for this statement may be an article by Francis Firth in the Klarinet mailing list archives, [1]. However an August 23, 2011 posting to the Contrabass mailing list (archive not available?) quotes Cyrille Mercadier: "The octocontralto was made in 1971, as a gift to Vito Pascucci... After his death, his son Leon decided to give it to the [music instrument museum of La Couture Boussey]... There is only one other [octo]contraalto, but it is really unfinished, it is also in the museum..." So his assertion is that only two octocontra-altos were made, and only one in fact finished. Both of these contradictory statements, I think, have to be regarded as unverified. No one seems to dispute that LeBlanc made just one octocontrabass, but on the other hand, this assertion too is supported only by Firth's Klarinet posting and I know of no published confirmation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.72.98 (talk) 14:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)