The Stowasser...oh my..

kymarto

kymarto

Content Expert/Moderator
Staff member
CE/Moderator
The instrument arrived today. Now I understand the mystique of the Stowasser. It is wonderful.

First I was very lucky. This instrument is 100 years old, and it looks all but new. The keys look like the instrument just left the factory. The wood has the odd dent, but it is in very good shape. The only thing I was concerned about was a crack in the top joint, but it has been well pinned. It plays effortlessly top to bottom.

The first thing that surprised me was the weight: it is really light. The wood is about half the thickness of the Remenyi--no wonder these things crack!

I have yet to adapt the new mpc to the Remenyi, but I can already sense the differences in playing. The Stowasser has a much more open, larger sound, and brighter. The Remenyi is dark and somewhat resistant--probably because of the small holes. I haven't yet done any bore measurements, but I guess there are some differences there as well. They are both lovely, but very different. The Remenyi is more like an English horn, the Stowasser more an oboe.

The intonation is amazingly good. Much better than I expected. The only issue was a sharp side Bb, easily corrected with a small hole insert. Second octave D is perfect, to my great surprise, because this is where so many taragotok fall into difficulties I think.

It also came in a beautiful original Stowasser case. The original mpc is worn: I am building up a chipped tip rail and will reface, and need to fill deep tooth marks. It looks like this mpc will be much darker, judging by the inside geometry. More on that to come.

Well, all I can say at this point is: if you have a chance to buy a Stowasser. Go for it. I will post some pix and sound files later.

Happy new year everyone.
 
The sound difference is likely more about the thickness of the wood you mentioned versus the size of the tone holes. The effect of tone hole size is minimal in comparison to the actual volume of the bore itself, not to mention it's quality.
I've played several tarogatok and noticed the ones with smaller holes were indeed slightly more "resistant" but only to a degree in which an experienced musician would notice. I observed differences in a couple other ones with the same size tone holes and much "thinner" wood, and voila, the sound opens. The resonant frequencies in which the thinner walls absorb are less "muffled" or "darkened", versus with thicker walls, in which the frequencies and vibrations have more to be absorbed by as the resonate through the wood.

BTW - each of the aforementioned instruments were made of the same rosewood.

Good to hear you like your new instrument!! Happy playing.
 
PrincessJ said:
The sound difference is likely more about the thickness of the wood you mentioned versus the size of the tone holes. The effect of tone hole size is minimal in comparison to the actual volume of the bore itself, not to mention it's quality.
I've played several tarogatok and noticed the ones with smaller holes were indeed slightly more "resistant" but only to a degree in which an experienced musician would notice. I observed differences in a couple other ones with the same size tone holes and much "thinner" wood, and voila, the sound opens. The resonant frequencies in which the thinner walls absorb are less "muffled" or "darkened", versus with thicker walls, in which the frequencies and vibrations have more to be absorbed by as the resonate through the wood.

BTW - each of the aforementioned instruments were made of the same rosewood.

Good to hear you like your new instrument!! Happy playing.
Click to expand...

I think it's probably the greater depth of the holes in the thick walled instrument rather than the greater mass of wood which darkens the sound.
 
MrDibbs said:
I think it's probably the greater depth of the holes in the thick walled instrument rather than the greater mass of wood which darkens the sound.
Click to expand...

That was my first thought also. I wouldn't think the thickness of the walls would be relevant otherwise, unless they are reeeeeally thin. But I'm not an expert and it is only a guess.

My only relevant experience comes from building Romanian panflutes, where after a certain point (around 2mm), the thickness of the walls has 0 influence on the sound. But with something like the taragot, I'm sure there is a lot more going on.

George
 
It could easily just be, "This one's made better than the other one." For whatever standard you use for "better" that is :).

Of course it could also be that manufacturer A builds the horn in a specific way to bring out a specific characteristic ("freer blowing," "better intonation," etc.) and manufacturer B tries to emphasize a different characteristic.

Just a theory. Hey, if sax players have an ongoing debate as to whether a specific finish affects tone, I don't mind seeing debate as to whether overall wall thickness on a taragato affects tone (I did post that article about flutes and wall thickness, someplace).
 
I've been following these posts with interest, and I don't know why. I actually get deeply involved with early and rare saxophones, and that is all I can afford to do. Rare stuff gets expensive.

But I've never heard a tárogató, and I want to, both in its own
traditional context and also using the instrument in a a"regular" western ensemble (Is there really such a thing?)
 
Groovekiller said:
But I've never heard a tárogató, and I want to, both in its own
traditional context and also using the instrument in a a"regular" western ensemble (Is there really such a thing?)
Click to expand...

You mean in person? If not, there is plenty on youtube. For the traditional setting, look up Romanian players like Luca Novac, or Hungarian ones like Csavas Attila.

There is a video by a Romanian jazz player using the taragot in a performance (I'm thinking Canada), and an absolutely horrible video of Peter Brotzmann abusing the hell out of the instrument. I would not even call it "playing".

George
 
tictactux said:
These two are stuck in my ears. Dunno if they're "typical", but hey.

With closed eyes, I'd think the 2nd example could as well have been played with a soprano saxophone. Not really surprising, somehow...
Click to expand...

The first piece is VERY Hungarian:)

The second is a really good example of the taragot being used in non-Hungarian/Romanian music.

Here is a Romanian example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpXvaK0S1c0&feature=related

And here is one from Transylvania (technically Romania at this time in history, but unique place nonetheless with very large Hungarian population/influence): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_WV6N5ilVc

Nice microphone acrobatics also.

George
 
At some point we can debate the issue of wood thickness. The bottom line, scientifically speaking, is that it does not and cannot make a significant difference. The issue of both hole size and hole depth is important.

After adjusting mpcs for both instruments the actual sound difference is not that great. Interestingly, the bore angle is quite different. The Stowasser starts smaller, about 9.5mm, and has a greater cone semi-angle: about 8 degrees as opposed to 6.5 for the Remenyi, which starts at the top at 10mm.

I've uploaded an album of pictures of the Stowasser, you can find it here:

http://s471.photobucket.com/albums/rr78/kymarto/Stowasser tárogató/

I've set up for audio recording, and am hoping to have some sound samples up in the next couple of days. Hopefully.

The difference between mpcs is interesting. The Stowasser had tooth marks almost two millimeters deep on the beak. I spent some time filling them with repeated applications of cyanoacrylate glue, then sanded and polished smooth. I am not happy with epoxies for oral exposure because of the chemicals they contain. The mpc had a very closed tip, and an extremely small throat. The sound was muted, resistant, small and tubby. Taking a clue from the mpc of Ioan Scaunas (brilliant!), I enlarged the throat and the chamber, and opened the tip way up. That caused the mpc to play sharp, so I added a slightly restricted spacer at the back of the throat and now she sings quite beautifully. The Scaunas mpc is very modern--HUGE sound, very open tip. A bit too bright for me, I cut down the baffle some, but very well in tune and smooth and responsive from top to bottom, and free-blowing. For softer, more intimate stuff, I think the Stowasser would be better, but for ensemble playing it will be the Scaunas.
 
kymarto said:
At some point we can debate the issue of wood thickness. The bottom line, scientifically speaking, is that it does not and cannot make a significant difference. The issue of both hole size and hole depth is important.

After adjusting mpcs for both instruments the actual sound difference is not that great. Interestingly, the bore angle is quite different. The Stowasser starts smaller, about 9.5mm, and has a greater cone semi-angle: about 8 degrees as opposed to 6.5 for the Remenyi, which starts at the top at 10mm.

I've uploaded an album of pictures of the Stowasser, you can find it here:

http://s471.photobucket.com/albums/rr78/kymarto/Stowasser tárogató/

I've set up for audio recording, and am hoping to have some sound samples up in the next couple of days. Hopefully.

The difference between mpcs is interesting. The Stowasser had tooth marks almost two millimeters deep on the beak. I spent some time filling them with repeated applications of cyanoacrylate glue, then sanded and polished smooth. I am not happy with epoxies for oral exposure because of the chemicals they contain. The mpc had a very closed tip, and an extremely small throat. The sound was muted, resistant, small and tubby. Taking a clue from the mpc of Ioan Scaunas (brilliant!), I enlarged the throat and the chamber, and opened the tip way up. That caused the mpc to play sharp, so I added a slightly restricted spacer at the back of the throat and now she sings quite beautifully. The Scaunas mpc is very modern--HUGE sound, very open tip. A bit too bright for me, I cut down the baffle some, but very well in tune and smooth and responsive from top to bottom, and free-blowing. For softer, more intimate stuff, I think the Stowasser would be better, but for ensemble playing it will be the Scaunas.
Click to expand...

Very cool stuff! Glad to hear the mpc has such large influence. Are both mpc ebony? If so, using CA glue with ebony dust will get the job done quicker (like, instantly). I think it's the acid/base thing. It works the same way with baking soda, but I doubt you want white marks on the mouthpiece:) I've filled nut slots on a viola this way, and the baking soda makes the superglue harden instantly, to a rock hard consistency.
 
Ioan's mpc is hard rubber, the Stowasser some African hardwood. I found that the thicker "gel" type cyanoacrylate was not as clear--probably retained some air bubbles, but repeated thickish coats of thin glue made a beautifully clear, rock-hard surface: no need for wood powder at all, as the wood can be seen under the plastic. Except that it is smoother, you would not know it is there. You can see some lighter colored areas where the tooth marks were deepest, but nothing drastic. The coats set in about ten minutes, and after each few I filed smooth, sanded with 150, 400 and 1200 grit paper, and finished with a polish using jeweler's rouge. It took extra coats on the side where the tooth marks were deepest, but it turned out well, and also reinforces and protects the tip.

The difference mpc configuration made to response and intonation really surprised me. Opening the throat raised the pitch more than 20 cents, and highly changed the octave relationships. Changes in the baffle and in the throat opening have a profound effect on response in the high upper register. This doesn't seem to follow the patterns of mpc volume matching that I learned in theory, as overall pitch, register relationships and sometimes even tuning and response of individual notes is significantly affected by volume distribution in the mpc--much more than on sax IME. I have some theories about that, but too much to go into now. I also find that reed strength has much more effect on all these parameters than on soprano sax. More investigation is needed. I plan to upload audio samples with both mpcs. Overall throat diameter and configuration seems very important.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom