I don't think it can be said better. thanks for that. There are those who hype their product, making false claims, and getting some famous player who has a lot less character than talent, with no compunction about making $$$ to help the hype an overpriced piece of eye candy. It's sad to see. I really hate seeing people lied to and their ignorance being taken advantage of. I try my best never to do it. I believe that's the best long term policy for both me and those who put their trust in me. Besidesl, I have to look at myself in the mirror each morning. And no amount of $$ is enough to pay for a bad conscience.

Exactly. Hard rubber clarinets are better in EVERY way: Logistically (they don't crack and remain stable dimensionally), they're more consistent, they tune better, they sound as good if not better, their response is more even, the tone is more live and resonance without being bright, and the upper clarion and third register is more beautiful---and this kills the snobs, they're less expensive--by a LOT!

me too

@Milan Joseph no-one cares...

but lack colors imo

@@tabbywarrior get some coloured markers then 😋

When you see loose rings and rings dropping off you can imagine what's going on with the bore dimensions. One HUGE advantage with playing a hard rubber product from the tip of the mouthpiece to the bell is year round you greet Dr. Jekyll each morning. He doesn't seem to transform into Mr. Hyde in winter. Consistency in performance requires consistency in your equipment day to day, season to season. Wood fails that standard.

The rectangular bore acts as a low pass filter, reducing the higher frequencies. This is normally regarded as "pleasant" to most clarinetists, especially those obsessed with what they call a "dark" sound. I haven't tested them for tuning, but years ago I checked them out, and some might regard using them to be fine---but I found them to be seriously problematic. The cutoff frequency not only cut out the high frequencies, it also affected the "ring" in the sound, reducing resonance, and also (and here's my point) significantly reduced my ability to play softly and at softer dynamics. Playing a long diminuendo became hard work when you got softer than a mezzopiano. For the way I played (and still play) the limited ability to nuance the sound expressively, and the tendency toward monochromaticism caused me to decide its advantages cost too much sacrifice in other things that are equally important. Having said that if you only play MF to F such a barrel would be okay. Myself, I prefer being able to play the entire dynamic range.

@@avarmadillo Thank You for You'r answer and the helpful info

Good question. I've not had the opportunity to test stability, but I don't think there's any doubt the hard rubber sleeve dimensions would be more stable.

Lots of materials on the market remain untested and un-investigated. At this point I'm certain hard rubber is superior to wood clarinets. The secret to making better and better clarinets is not materials, but a combination of materials and design, and getting the objective, measurable aspects of the clarinet as perfect as possible. Subjectively, you're never going to please everyone. Especially, since playing on bad equipment has ruined so many (successful) players, that the defects in their tone production is so bad they can't recognize good, efficient playing equipment when someone hands it to them. Regarding reeds, Legere's early reeds were better. I think Guy listened to too many "experts"---and when I tested the result the reeds were much less vibrant, less consistent, and less responsive---on the dead side. But at the beginning IMO he had a great product, something I could have played and certainly something I would have recommended to younger players if they would be careful and not break the reed.