ClariMate device installed on a clarinet

ClariMate review follow-up

ByBret Pimentel

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.

Almost two years ago I posted a review of the ClariMate digital clarinet mute by Buffet-Crampon. My conclusion at that point was that the ClariMate was an interesting concept, but with some technical issues.

At that point the ClariMate seemed to be positioned mostly as a tool for practicing the clarinet silently. I found that to be a bit of a stretch, maybe having limited usefulness for practicing fingerings but far less helpful with matters of tone production.

At that time, some of the promotional materials also suggested that the ClariMate could be used as a MIDI controller. That turned out to be incorrect, and a Buffet-Crampon confirmed that the feature was “not publicly available yet.”

There is now some MIDI functionality available. A dual purpose of silent practice plus MIDI capability is reflected in the current advertising copy (found at the ClariMate US website as of mid-September 2024): “Silent Practice, Digital Play,” “ClariMate is a Reversible Hybrid Instrument and Digital Practice Mute for Bb clarinets,” “Opening the door to silent practice and the world of digital music.” This is bolstered with some videos of prominent clarinetists using the ClariMate as a MIDI controller.

Reliability

As I mentioned in my full review, I had some issues with my unit, including sporadic inoperability and a persistent failure to complete the “reed calibration” process in the apps. (Calibrating the reed ostensibly makes it possible to bend pitch by applying more or less pressure to the reed. This is a common feature of many wind controllers, though I don’t think it’s an accurate reflection of how pitch is manipulated on the clarinet.)

To their credit, members of Buffet-Crampon’s ClariMate team have stayed in touch over the last couple of years, and ultimately offered to exchange my ClariMate for a new unit. I have spent a little time with the new unit and I do find it to be more stable, though it’s not clear to me whether that’s due to a defect in the previous one or to improvements to the firmware and apps.

I did manage to complete the reed calibration process in the Windows app, but only after many attempts with the new unit. And I still find that I do not have any real control of pitch bends. Most of the time the pitch is completely unaffected no matter how much or how little pressure I put on the reed. I do hear very occasional small bends while playing, but they are not intentional and I can’t figure out how to make them happen on purpose.

MIDI features

I also experimented a little with the new MIDI functionality. The ClariMate website now offers free “MIDIMate” software, a rudimentary soft synth for Windows and MacOS with a handful of sounds. I was also able to use the ClariMate with another Windows soft synth, and with a music notation program for note entry, though both were considerably more glitchy than MIDIMate or the ClariMate apps.

In researching the new MIDI capabilities, I did a web search for “ClariMate manual” and clicked the first result, a PDF hosted on the ClariMate EU website. It contains this text: “MIDI will work in USB or bluetooth mode via Windows or MacOS, and in bluetooth mode via Android and iOS. We recommend using MIDI in USB mode to reduce latency as much as possible.” I was unable to get ClariMate MIDI working with my Android device, and a representative has now confirmed that MIDI is “not yet available on Android, but should be soon.” He also pointed me to a more up-to-date version of the manual, which does not include the misleading text. (If you are looking for a current manual, you should visit the ClariMate website to make sure you aren’t looking at something outdated.)

The fact that MIDI capability was falsely advertised at the ClariMate’s launch, and that Android MIDI was falsely mentioned in a recent user’s manual, seem consistent with an apparent pattern of over-promising and under-delivering. That’s concerning when selling a not-inexpensive gadget to tech-savvy clarinetists, a finicky bunch if ever there was one. The older manuals should probably be removed from the ClariMate websites so they will disappear from Google results, and it would be responsible of Buffet-Crampon to be precise and truthful about which features are and aren’t available.

Use cases?

My ClariMate has mostly stayed in its case. I am fortunate to have a space where I can practice out loud, and if that were to change I don’t think the ClariMate’s silent practice functionality would suit my purposes. And the MIDI compatibility pales in comparison to the capabilities and reliability of my Akai wind controller. If you are a professional or semi-professional musician and finding good uses for the ClariMate, I would be curious to hear about them.

I’m grateful to the ClariMate team for their ongoing communication and support, and I hope this device will be a first step toward continuing innovation.

Similar Posts

  • Review: Hercules DS538B woodwind stand

    ByBret Pimentel

    After my recent glorious victory in the Saxquest trivia contest, I had a gift certificate burning a hole in my pocket and I decided to get a new stand to hold my saxophones and perhaps some other woodwinds in my office and on gigs.

    I had been tempted previously by SaxRax stands, which I continue to hear good things about but haven’t been able to try out seriously in person. I find it difficult on SaxRax’s website to find out exactly what products they are currently making; I had to use their contact form and wait for a response to determine that their single alto and tenor stands can no longer be joined with a special connector, and the double flute-clarinet peg is no longer made (though some old stock are apparently still available). I had hoped to buy a single saxophone stand and eventually build onto it with a second, but now you have to buy a combo alto-tenor stand, and that is currently out of my price range.

    Click for larger.

    Next on my list were the stands by Hercules, which are more expensive than the various cheap stands but considerably less costly than the SaxRax. Hercules’s website is very clear about what products they make. I settled on the DS538B, which holds alto and tenor saxophones, and includes a soprano saxophone peg and two flute-or-clarinet pegs. Saxquest currently sells them for USD $69.95, plus a fairly steep shipping charge (the stand is a little heavy, I guess).

    Many moons ago, I did some mini-reviews of various stands, including the Hercules DS543B flute-piccolo-clarinet stand. I had a complaint about it, that holds true for the DS538B as well:

    It has yellow trim. Not on the pegs, which might be useful in the dark, but on the base, where its only function is to call attention to itself (and perhaps provide a little free advertising).

    I got in touch with a Hercules representative, who pointed out a functional reason for the bright trim on the base:

    The reason we make the yellow trim eye-catching is to prevent stumbling over the stand or instrument on the dark stage.

    The DS538B appears as though I could disassemble it with an adjustable wrench; it’s tempting to attempt this and spray-paint the yellow parts black. (I can only assume that attempting something like this voids applicable warranties.) Read More “Review: Hercules DS538B woodwind stand”

  • |

    Anatomy of a bad bamboo flute

    ByBret Pimentel

    Bamboo flutes and other “world”-type woodwinds of true musician quality can be difficult to find, and if you’re not experienced with them it can be nearly impossible to tell if an online seller’s wares are genuinely playable or more like souvenir items. I’m going to share an experience of mine in which I gambled and got burned, in case it is instructive to anyone out there.

    Recently I needed a bamboo flute in a specific and unusual key (high B-flat) on very short notice for a gig (a performance of the Duke Ellington Nutcracker Suite). My favorite trusted flutemakers don’t currently make flutes in that key, so I placed an order with a flutemaker that I hadn’t bought from before. (I won’t identify the flutemaker here, but I will say that he and his staff were very nice to me. When there was a totally-understandable wrinkle in getting the flute shipped on time, they even overnighted it plus threw in a very nice flute bag at no extra charge.)

    Ability to ship quickly was certainly a factor in my choice of vendors, but I was also reassured by the fact that the maker sells flutes in three grades: student, intermediate, and professional. I ponied up the money for a professional flute, and expressed to the flutemaker my need for excellent intonation and a strong high register.

    Here is what I received:

    cute, right?
    cute, right?

    Now, the proof of a flute is in the playing, and there’s no way to know for sure if it’s any good without giving it a try. But here are some immediate visual warning signs:

    • Uh-oh
      uh-oh

      The embouchure hole is strangely shaped. I don’t know for sure what the flutemaker intended, but round-ish is pretty standard. Since bamboo is an irregular material, a certain amount of air noise (vibrational inefficiency) is to be expected, but this flute is very airy, and I suspect the oddly-shaped and roughly-finished embouchure hole is a contributor to this.

    • This is an extremely wide-bored flute. Often for flute-like instruments we see a length-to-diameter ratio of something around 30:1, but this one is closer to 15:1. To oversimplify the ramifications of this a bit, a wider-bore flute (a smaller ratio) will generally tend to be stronger in the low register and weaker in the high register. For this gig, I needed a flute that could play just to the second octave above the fundamental note—not an unreasonable demand for any common variety of bamboo transverse flute. I couldn’t get this flute to do it. A smaller-diameter bamboo would improve this flute’s upper range.
    • The finger holes are fairly large, and about the same size. Generally, similarly-sized holes leads to more even tone across the instrument’s scale, but also means that the right hand index and middle finger holes are placed very close together for a simple-system major-scale flute, and on this one the holes are uncomfortably close for me. Larger holes decrease the likelihood of finding usable cross-fingerings; I needed one good cross-fingering for this gig, and couldn’t find one that worked—couldn’t even “lip” the chromatic note into tune. A well-designed flute strikes a balance between large and small holes, and similarly- and differently-sized holes.
    • The second octave is quite noticeably flat. This is a common problem of bamboo flutes (or any cylindrical-bore flutes), but this one is particularly difficult to wrangle into tune. Really excellent bamboo flutes are sometimes made from bamboo carefully selected to have just a bit of taper in the embouchure-hole end, like a concert flute’s headjoint, or have some bore work done to create an internal taper; this helps to bring the upper register into tune with the lower.

    When I realized that the flute wasn’t going to be usable, I packed my piccolo and a B-flat pennywhistle as possible alternatives. As it turned out, we didn’t end up playing the movement in question, so I was off the hook.

    Shop smart!

  • Review: Multiple-woodwinds works by Darren Lord

    ByBret Pimentel

    I heard recently from Paul Saunders, whose compositions and publications for multiple woodwinds I have previously reviewed. He called my attention to an astonishing number of recent multiple-woodwinds compositions by Darren Lord, a musical director, keyboardist, and more who has worked on London’s West End theater scene.

    At the time of this writing, Lord’s music for multiple woodwinds includes:

    • Five volumes of mostly musical-theater-style pieces for multiple woodwinds soloist, with piano or downloadable fully-orchestrated backing tracks (with synthesized orchestra). Most or all of these pieces can also be purchased individually. (I got to look in detail at volume 2 for this review.)
    • Five recital-type pieces for multiple woodwinds soloist with piano.
    • Six pieces for quartets of multiple woodwinds players.

    All can be purchased on Lord’s website. There are also extensive audio demos, some played by Saunders and some synthesized.

    These are high-quality, worthy additions to the multiple woodwinds repertoire. And the sheer quantity and variety of available material should make Mr. Lord’s website a certain stop for anyone looking for pieces for study or performance.

    I’ve made a substantial update to my Music for woodwind doublers page to include these pieces. Please continue to keep me updated on new or rediscovered multiple woodwinds repertoire!

  • Review: “Double Troubles” by Paul Saunders

    ByBret Pimentel

    A few months ago I wrote a review of So You Want to Play in Shows…?, a book of woodwind doubling etudes by Paul Saunders. Recently Paul sent me Double Troubles, a new collection of etudes. Like So You Want, the new volume includes a piano part plus access to downloadable backing tracks. As I said in the previous review:

    This is an elegant solution to one of the problems of woodwind doubling etudes: how do you enforce quick instrument switches? … Saunders’s book, used with the recordings, provides a simple way to work out quick switches alone in a practice room.

    Like in the previous book, these etudes are musically interesting and in styles typical of contemporary musical theater. Double Troubles is overall somewhat more challenging, including some saxophone altissimo and flute third octave up to C (though most of the extreme high register playing on both instruments is marked as optional—Paul clarified to me that the upper register is preferable, and the optional 8vbs are to make the etudes more approachable if needed). The book also incorporates soprano and tenor saxophones on some etudes, in addition to the flute/clarinet/alto used in the first book.

    Two of the etudes are by guest composers, Darren Lord and Jennifer Whyte. Here’s a quick-and-dirty demo of the tune “Disco Nap,” which is Darren Lord’s contribution:

    I had fun playing through these, and recommend Paul’s doubling etude books as one of the best sources of practice material for the flute/clarinet/saxophone doubler.

  • Review: Rico Reserve clarinet mouthpieces

    ByBret Pimentel

    I was pleased to hear from a representative of Rico about their new “Reserve” clarinet mouthpieces, which they seem to be promoting very heavily and which are generating some buzz (no pun intended) among curious clarinetists. She was kind enough to send me a few to check out for myself and to review here, and to put me in touch with Robert Polan, Rico Product Manager, who answered some of my questions during the process.

    Initial observations and thoughts

    The mouthpiece is currently available in three models. Rico sent me one of each:

    • X0 (which has a 1.00mm tip opening)
    • X5 (1.05mm)
    • X10 (1.10mm)

    I’m a fan of connecting model numbers to actual relevant measurements, as Rico has done here, rather than assigning seemingly arbitrary codes (take note, Vandoren), though of course the tip opening is only one of many measurements that affect a mouthpiece’s playing characteristics. Dave Kessler speculates that we might see some larger tip openings from Rico in the future, but it does seem that Rico has boxed themselves in on any smaller openings with this naming scheme; naming the mouthpieces something like X100, X105, and X110 might make more sense if future offerings were to include a sub-1.00mm tip opening (X095, etc.). Mr. Polan responded noncommittally to my question about future offerings:

    Since the product is so new, it’s too early to know which additional models clarinetists will want. We are carefully evaluating the response to these three models in order to determine what is next.

    Mouthpiece diagrams on boxes

    The boxes’ design includes some faux-technical-drawings of the mouthpieces—which I initially thought was a cool touch, showing the precise dimensions of the mouthpieces—but the drawings are actually identical on the different models’ boxes, so they are probably mostly decorative.

    The mouthpieces themselves are etched with the text “Reserve Rico,” a six-digit serial number (the first three digits are zeroes at this point), the model number (such as “X5”) and additional numeral 2 (I don’t know what the 2 means, and I couldn’t seem to get a response to my question about it). It seems a little unusual to see a serial number on an inexpensive, mass-produced mouthpiece (the Reserves seem to be going for a street price of about $100). I asked Robert Polan about this, and his response was:

    Adding a serial number was an important feature for us. We are planning to offer online tools and future promotions for Reserve mouthpiece owners who register their mouthpieces on a soon-to-be released “Owners Area” on our website. Again, more to come on this in the coming months.

    Serial number

    Model number, and mysterious “2”

    The mouthpiece is also bedazzled with a painted-on dullish-silver “R” logo on top, which I expect will wear off quickly; I think it would be a classier (and more permanent) touch to etch the logo. I am pleased to see the other identifying information etched into the mouthpiece; my old Vandoren mouthpieces get difficult to tell apart once the painted model numbers wear off. The Reserves also have the usual latitudinal lines which can be used to gauge ligature position.

    One of Rico’s big claims about the Reserve mouthpieces is the extreme precision with which they are made, using a process of milling, or carving, the mouthpieces out of solid material, rather than pouring liquid material into a mold. In fact, Rico touts “Zero handwork for maximum consistency” as a feature of these mouthpieces. This seems like a daring choice; in the past, I’ve always seen mouthpiece makers anxious to point out the hand-finishing of their mouthpieces. Rico’s implication seems to be that other mouthpiece makers use hand-finishing because their manufacturing tolerances aren’t exact enough without it, and that Rico has found a way to improve those tolerances to the point that they can eliminate the extra step, cut costs, and take potential human error out of the picture. Mr. Polan clarifies:

    Using the CNC technology to fully machine the Reserve mouthpiece allows us to control consistency to a very high level, resulting in greater repeatability than with hand-finishing. This is especially true with high volume production. One of the smartest operations experts I know once put it to me this way: “When you ask a human being to perform a task repeatedly, he or she will get it right on average about 80% of the time.” While a mouthpiece craftsman like Lee Livengood can no doubt produce results that rival our machines, finishing hundreds of mouthpieces a day would make maintaining repeatability challenging for even the most skilled hand-finisher.  Considering that many competitors’ mouthpieces in the Reserve price range are finished by factory workers, most of whom do not even play clarinet, the attention to detail with the finishing steps is not the same as it is with someone like Lee Livengood, nor does it come close to matching the consistency we achieve with the Reserve mouthpiece.

    [Ed. note: Lee Livengood is a clarinetist with the Utah Symphony, a mouthpiece maker, and a past president of the International Clarinet Association, and a technical consultant to Rico on the development of the Reserve mouthpieces.]

    Rico claims that they can machine-mill mouthpieces to tolerances of 0.0005″. Kessler suggests that Rico is perhaps stretching the truth with this claim; when I mentioned this, Robert Polan responded:

    Regarding the question about our machining tolerances, we are indeed holding tolerances as tight as .0005” in areas of the mouthpiece that require that precision. We do not claim to hold .0005” with every dimension; that would be both costly and unnecessary. But we are holding to that tolerance where it counts. Ultimately the player will judge any claims about tolerances and quality. We did our homework with the Reserve mouthpiece and we are confident it stands up to the most discerning players.

    It’s fair to point out that I don’t really have a concept of what kind of tolerances are necessary for mouthpiece making, but, on close visual inspection, the precision of these mouthpieces does indeed appear very impressive. The rails and tips appear to my eye to be very, very symmetrical and even. This is something that I definitely haven’t seen in mass-produced mouthpieces before. Held in the right light, the tables reveal some visual evidence of the tooling process: some subtle lengthwise lines. However, the tables feel glassy-smooth to the touch.

    I mentioned that it would be interesting to compare several of the same model and see if any variation could be spotted with the naked eye (my bet is: not much). Mr. Polan immediately offered to send me several more to compare, commenting:

    We don’t claim that every mouthpiece we make is identical; offering identical measurements is impossible. We do, however, feel confident that there is a noticeable similarity between every mouthpiece we make, thanks to the control in our process.  As Richie Hawley put it when we had him test our consistency, the Reserve mouthpiece has a “comfortable and predictable similarity” from one to another.

    Though demand for the mouthpieces has delayed getting the additional mouthpieces to me (I understand Rico is currently backordered by 5oo units), I think it speaks to Rico’s faith in their product that they are willing to offer samples up for side-by-side scrutiny. I will post a follow-up when the additional mouthpieces arrive. [Update: read the follow-up here.]

    The proof is in the playing

    But of course the real question on everyone’s mind: how do they play? I’ve been playing the Reserve mouthpieces over the last few weeks. Read More “Review: Rico Reserve clarinet mouthpieces”

  • Low reed stand showdown: K&M vs. Hercules

    ByBret Pimentel

    Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, at no cost to you.

    I’ve had a König & Meyer bassoon/bass clarinet stand for years now, and recently picked up the Hercules version and tried it out on some gigs. I was hoping to form a strong opinion and make a nice clear recommendation here between the two. But the bottom line is that both are really quite usable.

    left: Hercules; right: K&M

    The exact model of K&M stand that I have doesn’t seem to be in production anymore. There is a newer one with a black finish (nice for onstage use) and slightly different hardware. I would be interested to hear if anyone is aware of any significant difference between the older and newer models.

    The big question of course is stability. I spent some time knocking both of these around to see what it would take to tip them over, and based on that non-scientific approach they seemed about equal. (No instruments were harmed.)

    I don’t have any concerns about either stand scratching my instruments. The K&M has a rubbery cup for the bottom of the instrument to sit in, and a felt-covered brace at the top. The Hercules has a harder (but not hard) plastic cup and a foam-covered brace.

    The K&M’s large, soft, and somewhat grippy cup is a nice feature for quick instrument switches. The Hercules’s I wouldn’t trust quite as much—I would need an extra moment to be sure the instrument is secure. The Hercules has room to add a couple of additional instrument pegs, which is a nice feature for doublers.

    Note also that the Hercules’s cup can be rotated 180° from the way I have it oriented, if desired. It is mounted on a leg that is adjustable, which I suppose you could use to change the angle of the instrument on the stand. I like it at full extension for maximum stability at the base.

    For quick switches, I like to be able to play bass clarinet with its peg still in the stand if needed. Both stands accommodate this without any trouble.

    Upper braces on both stands are height-adjustable to about the same height. At around full extension the braces are out of the way of keys on the bassoon’s long joint (the bell key is on the side where the braces don’t touch it). Neither quite adjusts as high as I would like for a low C bass clarinet (with the peg extended a little), so unfortunately for me the left index A and A-flat keys rest against the brace.

    Both stands fold up, but neither is tiny. The Hercules is more portable if you remove the cup, but that means fussing with a wing nut and then having one extra piece to carry around (or lose).

    The Hercules does win on price, at about 60% of what the K&M costs.

    Overall, I guess I lean toward the Hercules a little for bass clarinet, mostly because I could add, say, pegs for B-flat and E-flat clarinets and be ready for a utility clarinet gig. And I like the K&M slightly better for bassoon because its larger, softer cup makes a better target during a quick instrument switch. If you’re still torn, the Hercules’s lower price point may be a good tiebreaker.

One Comment

  1. Hi, I have a samsung tablet with android and i can’t connect the clarimate on midi mode in the app.

    Do you know if it is compatible with android?

    Thanks

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments that take a negative or confrontational tone are subject to email and name verification before being approved. In other words: no anonymous trolls allowed—take responsibility for your words.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.