 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ralph G
Date: 2003-01-16 15:33
My Pomarico crystal mouthpiece arrived yesterday. I’m still giving it a shakedown cruise before I issue a final verdict on whether it’s my new primary piece. I used it in a rehearsal yesterday with the Patriot’s Band in a dingy VFW bingo hall playing standard issue flag-wavin’ music, so that may not have been the greatest test. Tonight, though, is my first rehearsal of the year with my chamber orchestra, which is what I had it in mind for when I ordered it.
At first blush it seems to give me a bit more mellow sound (it’s an emerald mellow) than my M13 Lyre. But are my own ears the best judges while I’m playing? What kind of difference in your sound might you perceive while you’re playing, after you’ve heard it filtered through your teeth, skull, sinus cavities, etc.? To me, I sound kinda thin overall, but one of the other band members last night told me I sounded great, and that I was really projecting well with the new mouthpiece. I couldn’t tell THAT big a difference, so I’m not sure what to believe.
I should record myself. For those of you who do so, do you have elaborate equipment setups, or can you get decent recordings using your computers? Any suggestions for using Windows recording tools and computer mikes?
Many thanks.˚
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike
Date: 2003-01-16 17:25
Don't use a computer because computer mics are usually poor. A standard tape recorder will do the job.
The M13 in my experience is a bright mouthpiece, but I can't imagine it being brighter than a crystal mouthpiece.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-01-16 17:34
A computer works just fine (assuming it's fast enough to keep up with a reasonable data rate) - however, as Mike says, don't use a cheap 'computer mic'. Splurge. Go to a large "guitar store" where they sell a ton of different mics, tell 'em you want to sample some in their "quiet room", and record yourself on some high-end digital recorder (that they'll have around). I did this at a Guitar Center with no problem at all. Didn't buy the best sounding mic 'cause I couldn't afford it, but it'll give you a good idea of the price/quality tradeoff.
The only problem I've encountered using my computer as a recorder is the amount of background noice it produces (fan hum, disk seeks, etc.).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2003-01-16 17:52
Try applying a mouthpiece patch to the beak --- much of your perceived sound result from mechanical vibrations transmitted directly from the mouthpiece through your teeth, and up your jaw. Crystal mouthpieces seem to be especially good transmitters of high-frequency buzzing to your teeth, and that will certainly affect your perception.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Keil
Date: 2003-01-16 20:27
i can't imagine using a crystal mouthpiece in a chamber orchestra considering the idea is to "blend" as oppose to standing out. Just my thoughts though. Hope it works out for you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal
Date: 2003-01-16 20:31
Keil, I've played many a crystal mouthpiece that can blend as well as anything else. As Ken Shaw wrote elsewhere, the sound you get comes 99% from the player. Maybe the other 1% comes from the mouthpiece facing and interior design with a fraction from the reed, and NONE comes from the material of which the mouthpiece is made. My opinion, backed up by some sound (no pun intended) physics.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2003-01-16 20:42
"NONE comes from the material of which the mouthpiece is made"
So why use crystal? Or metal or plastic for that matter???
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Elison
Date: 2003-01-17 02:30
The main reason I like crystal is because its shape will not change over time. Another advantage is that it's easy to clean. I've played the same Vandoren A-3 for 30 years or more (I can't remember when I bought it) and it plays exactly the same today as when it was new. I just wish I could find another one in case something bad should happen to it, heaven forbid. If anyone has an old A3 they want to get rid of, I'll be more than happy to give it good home.
Best regards,
John Elison
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jerry
Date: 2003-01-17 04:39
Ralph...
I'm in the process of buying a new instrument, and I wanted to e-mail sound clips to my brother, the retired band director, to get his opinion on tone comparisons of various clarinets I'm trying. I initially tried the microphone that's built into my computer monitor. However, the sound was more like a braying jackass...I KNOW I don't play THAT bad. After trying serveral other microphone options, I concluded that the monitor microphone, if purchased separately, probably costs just around $1.37.
Next I tried a wireless Audio Technica headset mike (a la Garth Brooks) I had laying around. The tone was better, but the hook-up was cumbersome and the output poor. That is a highly unidirectional mike, requiring the sound source to nearly swallow it to get good output. Like most unidirectional mikes, it's designed to avoid feedback during live performance. Next I tried a $40 Radio Shack mike. Again, it sounded better, but, again, it needed to be too close to the instrument to get good pickup in a uniform manner - again it was unidirectional to avoid feedback. Avoiding feedback is why most performers who have more money for mikes than I do purchase a pair of high quality unidirectional mikes to mount on their instruments, one in front of the bell, and one over the right hand to pick up tone hole tones.
By now the light bulb starts to come on. I said to myself, "Self, you're not performing live. You're just trying to record yourself. You don't have to worry about feedback and don't have to spend a lot of money for fancy pickups." About this time I read about the concept of ambient mikes - microphones that pick up sound in a whole room, like around a conference table used for business meetings. These are an extreme version of "omnidirectional" mikes. And then another bulb came on. I have this video camera in the closet, that, as I recall, has a really sensitive microphone integrated with it. I remembered that this unit sold for over $1,000 when the model first came out (ten years ago) so it must have a decent quality mike. So, I hooked a cord between that video camera and my computer's sound card mike input and tried that. VIOLA. With the mike several feet away, I get enough output to overdrive my sound card - I had to back off the microphone volume control in Windows to about one quarter to stay just below saturation. I used CoolEdit (that you can download for free) as the recording software. Everyone should own something like that on their computer - it shows a waveform that can reveal tonal differences in a variety of ways.
So, I recorded a series of audio clips of different register arpeggios and chromatics of the three clarinets I tried and e-mailed them to my brother who did finally render his opinion: At least no braying jackass this time. Hope this helps.
But all of this leaves me with a question for whoever has advice. While it was good for my testing, I don't want to use the videocorder for my mike forever because there is no monitoring function without having the tape running. Can anyone suggest a brand/model or specification of a reasonably priced, good quality omni-direction/ambiance mike that would have similar characteristics of a good videocorder mike? I don't know about 'ol pros, but for us beginning- to intermediate-players wanting to improve, regularly recording ourselves to critique our performance is a great learning tool! The simpler the hookup, the more often I am likely to use it.
Jerry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Stringer
Date: 2003-01-17 13:09
Hi Jerry,
<<Can anyone suggest a brand/model or specification of a reasonably priced, good quality omni-direction/ambiance mike that would have similar characteristics of a good videocorder mike? >>
Radio Shack used to carry a PZM (pressure zone) mic that was very good. It got discontinued, but I see that they now have an "Omnidirectional Boundry" mic that looks like a replacement. I would make sure that they have a return policy, though. Sometimes the replacements for popular catalog items stink.
In any event, avoid dynamic mics anywhere near a computer monitor... they respond magnetically to the scanning yoke in the monitor. Stick to condenser mics. I hear everyone raving about the newer large-diaphragm condenser mics at the music stores for $100-$200. Haven't heard 'em, though.
David
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph G
Date: 2003-01-17 13:28
Wow, good advice from all. Jerry, thanks for the mike story. Something like that may work for me.
With the computer so in vogue, I forgot all about the component stereo system I have in my office/den/practice room/football-watchin' room. My tape deck has two 1/4" jack inputs for mikes. At one point a few years back I had an all-purpose mike with two jacks that worked fine. That was when I lived alone in an apartment. Now I'm married, in a house, and Lord knows what happened to the mike since I moved. If anyone has a suggestion for a replacement mike(s), I'll listen.
The crystal mouthpiece worked well with my chamber orchestra last night. We did Mozart Symphony 40 and Dvorak's Slavonic Dance #8, both for Bb clarinet. I haven't really given it a try on my A clarinet yet. So the field trials continue. But it's a keeper either as my primary or backup.a
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-01-17 19:26
I wonder if you can hear a clear sample while playing into a corner?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
