Klarinet Archive - Posting 000600.txt from 1996/04

From: Teri Herel <EnsHerel@-----.COM>
Subj: Re: Prestige wood
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 23:01:00 -0400

My small contribution: When trying Eb's this December, out of seven horns,
there were three R-13's that I would have chosen over the two prestige models
I tried that day, based on even-ness of tone throughout the registers,
intonation, and overall tone quality. One prestige had a beautiful low
register sound, but went into the twilight zone around throat-G, and then
beyond the twilight zone in the next register. The other was mediocre at
best. They all "felt" the same in terms of key work. However, I will see
how my R-13 holds up over time. Hopefully, knock on it, it will not crack in
half.

In a message dated 96-04-19 10:06:18 EDT, nathan@-----.COM (Nate Burk) writes:

>>Do you really think that the extra rings on the Prestige make _that_
>>much of a difference. Buffet inisits that it is the better and longer
>>aged wood. Are they feeding us a line?
>
>As the wood for clarinets gets scarcer and scarcer, I think the companies
>start to use greener and greener wood and it's impossible to know how long
>they've aged it. However, I have a feeling that the Prestiges in general are
>made out of better wood.
>
> I played on two Prestige models when I was trying clarinets, and overall
>they sounded much better than most of the R-13's I played. The Prestiges
>(both an RC and R-13) projected beautifully and had a clear, "meaty" sound.
>I don't know if this is a function of the wood or a difference in the bore
>(and I suppose it could also have to do with the different pads they put on
>the Prestige models), but I don't think Buffet is feeding us a line when
>they say that Prestiges are fine instruments!
>
>Of course, I say all this after I ended up buying an R-13 because I didn't
>think the Prestiges were $1000 finer than the others!!! I don't think any of
>that answers the question here, but those are my thoughts on the Prestige
>nonetheless.
>
>--Nate