 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: krawfish3x
Date: 2003-04-27 03:02
Is an R13 Prestige clarinet worth it? what is the difference in it compared to a normal R13? how about price?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: icecoke12
Date: 2003-04-27 03:51
The wood is supposed to be of a higher quality than a normal R-13's. Plus the better Gore-tex pads which will last longer than normal pads, but of course you can repad a normal R-13 with those pads too.
The Prestige instruments I tried generally seems to have a more focused tone than a R13, but then with so much variations even between clarinets of similar models, its hard to say. It also seems to be slightly easier to get a nicer tone out of a prestige as well. This is just my own opinion. Different people with different mouthpiece setups will probably have different things to say about the instrument.
Anyway my friend bought a new R13 Prestige last year for about $1700. But that was last year... totally different prices from now it seems... with the euro dollar going up and other stuff.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2003-04-27 07:33
As for the wood - a Prestige is made from heartwood, an r13 isn't.
Is case you don't know, heartwood is the wood used from the middle of the log cut. It is said to be more compressed, last longer, less likely to crack. A lot of this is speculation. Someone else might be able to post more on this, I'm no expert.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fmadison
Date: 2003-04-27 10:02
Hi,
This reminds me when I used to work in the produce section.
Here is an experiment you can try.
Buy a complete watermelon.
Then cut it in half.
Cut a piece of the water melon that is near the green edge and taste it.
Then cut another piece from the watermelon that is from the center.
Which piece tastes the best?
My conclusion is that nature tends to put the best stuff near the center of anything.
-Frank
It's the wood that makes it good!
Post Edited (2003-04-27 11:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2003-04-27 11:31
I'll certainly remember this the next time I want to munch on a clarinet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-04-27 12:28
Wow.
It's amazing how advertising hyperbole displaces fact.
Read Benade.
Try the double-blind test with a hard rubber clarinet in the hands of a seasoned player.
******
Taking this sort of commentary as definitive will separate you from cash faster than it will 'produce' results.
Last time I checked; Nature also put seeds in the middle of peaches, mango, Durian....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fmadison
Date: 2003-04-27 12:34
Hi,
I would like to know how many 1st Chair Clarinet players use hard rubber Clarinets instead of wood?
-Frank
It's the wood that makes it good!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-04-27 13:32
fmadison wrote:
> I would like to know how many 1st Chair Clarinet players use
> hard rubber Clarinets instead of wood?
And this proves what? Your logic is flawed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fmadison
Date: 2003-04-27 13:42
Hi,
Come on now....
I did say the following:
"My conclusion is that nature tends to put the best stuff near the center of anything."
You see the word "near" it is not the word "at". Big difference....
What about hard working 1st Chair Clarinet players who have families and bills to pay. How many do you think will keep their jobs if they show up to work with hard rubber Clarinets?
Simple questions.
-Frank
It's the wood that makes it good!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-04-27 14:00
fmadison wrote:
>
> What about hard working 1st Chair Clarinet players who have
> families and bills to pay. How many do you think will keep
> their jobs if they show up to work with hard rubber Clarinets?
You think that if Larry Combs, Ricardo Morales, Ted Oien, Frank Cohen, Stanley Drucker et al. would be fired if they showed up with hard rubber clarinets and played as beautifully as they do today? Or if they showed up with Greenlines vs. wood? The woodwind section might notice that the clarinets looked a little different, that's about it.
> It's the wood that makes it good!
Show me your proofs. Please.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2003-04-27 14:14
Is a Lexus ES300 worth the difference in price over a Toyota Camry? They are both well made by the same company on the same frame. They both handle and ride well. Neither will get you to places the other won't. One is more "refined" in its appointments and costs considerably more.
The answer to your question is that you have to test drive both and decide if the difference is worth it to you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2003-04-27 15:15
The Prestige sop clarinets that I have played all seem "tubby" in sound to me. I much prefer the focused tone quality of the R13s. However, I'm very satisfied with my sound of my Prestige bass (low C) clarinet.
Bottom line--what's good for one, does not fit all. You have to decide what plays best for you.
BTW--Larry Combs would probably sound just as good playing a Bundy Resonite as he does playing his LeBlanc Opus--however, he would have to work harder doing so.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2003-04-27 16:19
Look into the greenline too. These clarinets fascinate me being so durable, much less worries (don't worry about oiling, cracking) and have sound equal to that of an R-13. And if you pick the right one, better.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Corey
Date: 2003-04-27 16:33
I may have no proof to back this up but I still think A pro player like Larry Combs would not sound the same on a resonite clarinet as he would on his Opus! No matter the mouthpiece, the reeds or anything like that. I have played plastic clarinets and they don't compare to wooden ones in tone quality, flexibility, roundness, or "darkness" to their tone. How did this post turn into an "argument" about wood v.s. plastic anyway?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2003-04-27 17:18
Corey, it turns into an argument about wood vs. plastic because posters confuse materials with quality of construction. When materials other than fine wood are available only on clarinets of lesser quality construction, then of course the result is an inferior clarinet. This has been the case in recent decades of clarinet production with one notable exception (one that I am familiar with - Greenline; and there may be others with which I am unfamiliar).
But when materials other than fine wood are used on clarinets made using the same quality of construction (ie, Greenline), the results are clarinets of similar quality, even though different construction materials were used compared to their wood counterparts.
And I personally don't think much of an argument can be made for Greenline and natural wood being "the same" just because ground up wood was used in the Greenline. I believe the two products are distinctly different.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wjk
Date: 2003-04-27 19:41
I played several Prestiges and R13s---I was very under-impressed with the Prestiges. I found an R13 that really spoke to me, but I had to try several. The Prestige also has an auxillary Eb-Ab key--- I found it cumbersome.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ctt489
Date: 2003-04-27 23:40
I had my repairmen repad my Bb with leather pads on the bottom joint. I notice the difference and like it a lot. I'm getting my A re-padded with leather sometime this Summer. Players in the Boston area use them to (not mentioning anyone in particular...but I'm speaking of the professionals.
Gortex is good but I find I like leather much better.
I also agree to the statement along these lines...a good player can sound good on anything even a plastic vito or bundy or least expensive equiptment. That mindset gets thrown around a lot lately. To back it up, I've seen in person a situation where a excellent player demonstrated this and convinced me its possible.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Corey
Date: 2003-04-27 23:51
Why don't you see Pro players using Vitos and Bundy's? If they can sound as good on one of them then why not save alot of money and buy one of them and use it in pro settings? I still say it's not possible, otherwise you'd see alot of pro's using them. Would you rather spend $3,000 on a horn or $300? I know some players get instruments for free when they endorse their products, but what about the pro's out there that don't do any endorsing or play handmade clarinets?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-04-28 00:06
Corey wrote:
> Why don't you see Pro players using Vitos and Bundy's?
Because they're not manufactured to the standards of professional clarinets, for one. The material used in the manufacture of a clarinet are not all that expensive; at one time you would have had to pay a premium for the plastic clarinets.
There are 4 reasons professional clarinets cost as much as they do:
1) Research and development
2) The cost of the materials
3) The amount of hand finishing and setup required
4) The marketing
I put them down in the order I think contributes the most to the cost, from lowest to highest.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wayne Thompson
Date: 2003-04-28 17:12
Morrigan said something simple but true. The 'Prestige wood' is heartwood. Francoise Klok says clearly that this wood is denser; he does not say better. (By the way, comparing a clarinet to a watermelon is one of the most amazing things I've read here!!)  My Festival (using the same 'Prestige wood') is 10% heavier than my R-13 (although, I have no way to measure a bunch of R-13's to find their average). I know that some of the marketing says 'better' but I respect Francoise more than the literature. Francoise and some of the literature says that the denser wood feels different, that it takes more of something (air, support, time?) to sound a tone. This last point is one I would like to hear your opinions on, those of you that have played both. For myself, I like my Festival and I seem to have a good sound with it, but I can not say how much the wood contributes to that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: wyatt
Date: 2003-04-28 22:53
Maybe at the fest I'll ask someone (i.e. eddie daniels to play one after the other and see if we could tell the differance.) that woule be fun.
bob gardner}ÜJ
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: D Dow
Date: 2003-04-29 01:55
Interesting posts above, and I agree with Mark on this one. Firstly, as a solo and 1st chair clarinetist I cannot get the sound I like either from a plastic, rubber or Greenline clarinet.
When I tested a greenline in orchestra once my colleagues looked at me and said "What happened?" A few went on to say I too bright or my sound was too shrill...as for myself I thought the tone too hard and penetrating to be enjoyable as a performer.
Another thing, all wood is alive, and therefore matures and plays differently. A bad wood clarinet is a bad clarinet. A fine wood clarinet is a joy to play on, and this because of its pliability and resonance.
David Dow
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-04-29 02:21
D Dow wrote:
> Another thing, all wood is alive, and therefore matures and
> plays differently.
No, the wood you're using to play on is dead - we kill trees for wood. It may move a bit from moisture, but it's as dead as a doornail.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarence
Date: 2003-04-29 02:26
>Morrigan said something simple but true. The 'Prestige wood' is heartwood. Francoise Klok says <
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that all wood clarinets are made out of heartwood. This could be just a marketing ploy.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wayne Thompson
Date: 2003-04-29 02:59
First, I won't say that the material of a clarinet makes a tremendous difference in feel or tone. I'm of the school that believes it probably does make some difference, but that skilled players have a concept of their tone and can get pretty close to their tone on any material insturment. And of course the mouthpiece and so on make a big difference, too. I've said nothing new there.
Clarence, there can be a big difference between density and ring spacing and quantity of imperfection in any log and between two logs and between logs from trees grown in different places. Of course the instument makers grade their wood according any number of characteristics that they deem important. Also, of course, they will try to pay as little as possible to get the wood that meets the characteristics that they think important. I'm not a clarinet manufacturer, but I'm sure it's not all 'heartwood'.
Mark, of course it is dead wood, but it was alive. It is organic and I assume that David Dow is implying that it has all this variation that I'm talking about. I trust a professional that says, "A fine wood clarinet is a joy to play on, and this because of its pliability and resonance." as D. Dow did, despite that it's near impossible to support such a statement scientifically.
The point, I think, is that Buffet uses a denser wood for their Prestige and Festival. Maybe this is marketing and superstition and it makes absolutely no difference. My question is, and I think it is part of Krawfish's original question, does the dense wood make a difference? I bet that more experienced players, willing to be a bit touchy-feely, will admit to some difference. Icecoke said that the Prestige instruments seemed more focused and easier to make sound 'nice'. William thought the Prestiges seemed 'tubby'. Good feedback; obviously the choice is personal. D. Dow gave us information that is very interesting. He quoted what other musicians thought about a material. Anyone else out there?
PS The WWBW catalog says, "With Prestige wood, the playermust fill the clarinet with a bit more air due to the delay in vibration." This is similar, I think, to what Francoise told me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-04-29 03:19
Wayne Thompson wrote:
> Mark, of course it is dead wood, but it was alive. It is
> organic and I assume that David Dow is implying that it has all
> this variation that I'm talking about. I trust a professional
> that says, "A fine wood clarinet is a joy to play on, and this
> because of its pliability and resonance." as D. Dow did,
> despite that it's near impossible to support such a statement
> scientifically.
Would you trust a number of accomplished professionals that endorse and play on the Greenline series? Those people are not all that hard to find - they're listed on the Buffet site.
They're playing on little tiny pieces dead pieces of wood embedded in a resin, with no chance for it to be "pliable and resonant", but those clarinets are just as "pliable and resonant" as the ones made of regular wood - at least to them.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2003-04-29 03:31
Just a thought - I really don't think you can attribute the material to a better quality instrument at all. Most flutes are metal. However there are also proffessional wooden ones (if I recall correctly). They both sound great, and both are wonderful, but it's the manufacturing process that counts.
If a company decided to take as much care into a hard rubber clarinet as they did with a pro-level grenadilla clarinet that it would sound JUST as good. While the wood may produce a different tone (just like the difference between a metal flute and a wooden flute), it would be JUST as topnotch and I am sure that it would be widely sought after (since tone is a subjective issue anyways).
Also, for the record, I think the industry is headed this way anyway. Look at the greenline. They are experimenting with other materials since the blackwood trees are getting scarcer and scarcer. They manufactured clarinets from clarinet by-products, and that one company (keep forgetting it) is making a pro-level titanium clarinet. In a number of years (I bet in my lifetime which will hopefully last another half century or so) I think many pro-level clarinets will be synthetic or at least from the "waste" of making other clarinets.
Or maybe other woods (rosewood? Cocobola? Boxwood I've heard of, but it's not supposed to be great for endurance qualities).
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarence
Date: 2003-04-29 04:47
< PS The WWBW catalog says, "With Prestige wood, the playermust fill the
< clarinet with a bit more air due to the delay in vibration." This is similar, I
< think, to what Francoise told me.
Wayne,
I don't think WWBW is correct here. The clarinet isn't vibrating. The increase in resistence is likely related to the type of pads used.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cyso_clarinetist
Date: 2003-04-29 06:01
Corey-
This may be late in the post but oh well. One has their sound, eventually they will get back to it no matter what they play as long as it seals perfectly and such. I don't think a vito clarinet worked on by the brannens (haha, i made a funny!) would hold him back from making the amazing music he does.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wayne Thompson
Date: 2003-04-29 06:19
Mark, I trust any professional who says he likes his kind of clarinet, whatever it is. I trust him to decide whether Greenline, or dense wood, or non-dense wood, or metal, or whatever, works for him. And if a pro says he truly doesn't care what the material is, then that is good, too, for him. If someone says a certain material is best, period, that I would not accept. And I doubt if you would disagree with any of this. Always I'm assuming a well made horn.
Alexi, I'm agreeing that material doesn't make a better quality instrument, but I think it makes a different quality instrument, that an artist can then use in some personal way. A glance at a catalog show flautists to have more material choices than we dream of. Doesn't that help prove what we are saying? People like choices and will prefer a certain material for themselves. You're right that rarity of black wood may push it out, but we'll never settle on one solution. Rereading your note and looking at the flute page in WWBW, do you think high quality metal clarinets will come back?
I did say that I think that material makes some difference, and I know that many argue that it doesn't at all. I don't know that it is possible to prove this, and I am not experienced enough to say for myself that I must have one certain material. I chose 'dense' wood, as in my Festival, because it's pretty, because I'm susceptible to a little bit of marketing, and because it is the traditional material and I'm kind of conservative.
I believe that material makes some difference because it makes sense to me. Yes, a clarinet vibrates. It is not designed to be resonant like a violin, but it is not dead. I have heard that Benade says that the contribution of the vibration of the body of the clarinet is minor, on the order of a few per cent, and that by putting lead tape in different places he affected the sound to a small degree. These points have been argued and discussed a lot, I know. My thought is that a few per cent is a big deal in sound. We hear logarithmically, and 1% power is only 20 dB down, and that's easy to hear. I think an artist can feel and hear and integrate subtle components like that, whether he understands the math or not. Having said that, I realize again that I need more theory. Just before I started this chatty note, I ordered Benade's Horns, Strings, and Harmony. Yes, it makes sense to me that the material contributes to the nature of a clarinet, but I need to study up more, too. If I have misunderstood Benade, give a holler, and let me study up for a week or so.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-04-29 11:13
Wayne Thompson wrote:
> We hear logarithmically, and 1% power is
> only 20 dB down, and that's easy to hear.
The wall vibrations are in excess of 60 db down from the air vibrations.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Synonymous Botch
Date: 2003-04-29 11:27
Uh -oh.... math
To repeat, Benade (and others) mentioned the primary contributor to tonal quality in a clarinet as the transition from the central bore to the tone hole.
That's on the INside of the instrument.
Relieving this transition requires some skill in forming the bevel, either by judicious CNC (machine) control or by a practiced hand.
I have had too many top players try out my horns for hours and prevaricate over something ineffable to believe in things I can't hear or measure.
I, for one, won't affirm or deny the existance of any phenomenon so far below the noise floor while playing. I will say that any contribution something this close to inaudible makes is pretty much noted by the player...
and not worthy of an additional $1000 from my wallet.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2003-04-29 13:10
Mark_C - Moderator or Purely Argumentative?
All quelms aside, my teacher is a former student of Larry Combs. The fact is that Larry's Opus can achieve a higher resonance than a plastic Bundy can. Therefore, he would not sound exactly the same, maybe similar, but not the same; a good conductor would notice these things. The intonation would be difficult to correct, the keywork awkward. Basically, he would have to work SO much harder than what he already does.
Someone bought up a good point - why isn't he playing on Bundy then, if it could produce the same results? I think you're all argusing for argument's sake.
_____
Morrigan: NEVER QUOTE ME.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-04-29 13:59
Morrigan wrote:
> Mark_C - Moderator or Purely Argumentative?
Excuse me? I'm sure you notice the difference between my moderating and my contributing to a discussion. However, I'm not being "argumentative", but I am presenting factual information.
> All quelms aside, my teacher is a former student of Larry
> Combs. The fact is that Larry's Opus can achieve a higher
> resonance than a plastic Bundy can.
And you know this how??? You've tested this stuff???
Look, we all know that a Bundy and its keywork are not up to the standards of a Leblanc Opus. That's a given. Let's not be stupid about this. No one is saying that a Bundy is the equivalent of an Opus.
What is being said, and what has been shown, is that the material of a clarinet body is a lot less relevant than people want to think - it's of such a small order as to be insignificant in listening tests.
Why doesn't a Bundy sound like an Opus? Because it's not built to the same specifications as an Opus! If an Opus was made out of the same material as a Bundy? Science and experiments tell us it will sound like an Opus. (The material must meet some rather loose guidelines as to how much of the energy is reflected rather than absorbed, and there are some mechanical limitations now that we put so many keys on the clarinet.) Our experience screams at us "This can't be true!" because all we've seen is Bundys made out of this material. We think it can't happen. It must be due to that premium wood!
What I've noticed over the years is that the more expensive the material, the better people think it (looks/sounds/feels/etc.). When bakelite was expensive, it was all the rage - look at the amount of art deco jewelry made of this formerly expensive pre-space-age material. People thought plastic was better than the real stuff.
Look at the prices of clarinets in old catalogs. The hard rubber clarinets once exacted a premium over the wood ones.
You know, marketing works, too. None of us likes to think that marketing works on us, though - it's just the other guy/gal that gets influenced by it. Pah! We all get influenced by it - or all the marketers would lose their jobs. If you didn't notice - most marketers still have jobs, even during the current marketing downturn.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-04-29 14:20
Amazing what astute opinions some have and its always impressive to throw in a few technical terms to make it sound even moreso. I agree with Mark regarding the cost factors. With many players and teachers willing to believe what they read it's no wonder that some clarinets cost as much as they do. Let's make everything out of titanium since its so magical and we can raise the profits even more. Bushwa! Dense wood machines cleaner.....period, every tree trunk and limb has only one center....period.
Pro players use the horns they do because,based on experience, they know they are dependable and repairable when necessary.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wayne Thompson
Date: 2003-04-29 16:00
Hands up in air.
Mark, thanks for the 60 dB number. That is completely relevant to my argument and changes how I view this. I believe I have ordered the 'light' version of Benade. If it doesn't go to this level of detail, I'll come back to the list or bulletin board for help understanding this number.
These last notes from Mark, Synonymous, and BobD together make a clear case for material making little difference, while acknowledging the factors that make people want different materials. Good arguing!
BobD, I hope you don't think I threw in a reference to 20 dB simply as a technical term to sound impressive. Technical terms, used correctly, clarify issues for me. In a perfect world, people would use technical terms and math side by side with feeling, expressive language to make points. Both have their uses.
Maybe I should have studied up before I expressed myself, but then I would have missed the fun of having this conversation.
(I'm now thinking wonderful questions about wall thickness in flutes, and the marketing of new, quality metal clarinets... I'll be looking at archives and watching for new threads about these questions. [I'm not suggesting going there now.])
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt Locker
Date: 2003-04-30 11:59
I had a hard rubber Buffet that sounded beautiful. I'm sorry I sold it as I never had a chance to compare it side by side with my SEV.
MOO,
Matt
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DezzaG
Date: 2003-04-30 12:28
I just have one point:
The Greenline R13 is supposedly made the same as the wood R13 Buffet-then how come the Greenline sounds brighter(to my ears as a professional and a lot of other peoples comments)?
Wouldn't this disprove your point Mark C that if a Bundy was made the same as an Opus(but in Plastic) that it would sound the same?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-04-30 13:09
DezzaG wrote:
> I just have one point:
> The Greenline R13 is supposedly made the same as the wood R13
> Buffet-then how come the Greenline sounds brighter(to my ears
> as a professional and a lot of other peoples comments)?
To my knowledge there is no consensus on whether an R-13 is "brighter" or "darker" than a regular R13. The artists I have personally talked to have made mention that the variance of tone color produced on the Greenlines is similar to the variance on regular R13s. I have talked to a number, but I have not made a statistically significant survey.
> Wouldn't this disprove your point Mark C that if a Bundy was
> made the same as an Opus(but in Plastic) that it would sound
> the same?
No, it would not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DezzaG
Date: 2003-04-30 13:34
Mark, Maybe we should have a vote to see whether there is consensus, because to me and all of the people that have commented on Greenlines they said there IS a difference(mostly people say they are brighter), so how about you start a poll!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2003-04-30 15:56
"most people" including me have never heard a Greenline therefore no relevant consensus is possible. As before I think the Greenline experiment is admirable for a number of reasons but I question the ability of the manufacturer to make them identical to the wood equvalent horn. There is probably no way to insure uniform distribution of the wood filler in the horn sections for openers. The current crop of wood horns made by this mfgr. aren't even uniform based on innumerable comments on this BB.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wayne Thompson
Date: 2003-04-30 16:31
Mark, where does the -60dB come from that you quoted? Do you know if the Benade reference will go this deep?
Putting this in perspective (for us middle aged folks, anyway), isn't 60dB approximately the best signal to noise ratio of an LP recording? In other words, if the player is sounding a note that was as loud as it would be from an LP on a good sound system, the sound intensity resulting from the body of the clarinet vibrating would be about the same as the surface noice or the quietest possible recorded sound on an LP.
In terms of the question, 'Does the Greenline sound different?', would that amount of sound be enough to be perceived by the player through his fingers or ears? Maybe, maybe not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-04-30 17:21
Wayne Thompson wrote:
> Mark, where does the -60dB come from that you quoted? Do you
> know if the Benade reference will go this deep?
It's in a few references; a good place to start (besides the Benade Principles of Musical Acoustices) is at http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/marl/
> Putting this in perspective (for us middle aged folks, anyway),
> isn't 60dB approximately the best signal to noise ratio of an
> LP recording?
I believe (but can't find a reference handy) that vinyl can be > 100 db s/n
[ edited - I can find references to moving magnet phono cartridges with 88 db s/n, so vinyl technically would be at least similar ]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BARRY
Date: 2003-05-14 09:20
The price of $1700 is increedible.
Over here in France, where they make them, you'll be lucky to get one for less than twice that price!
Good luck
barry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BARRY
Date: 2003-05-14 09:24
I use a Leblanc Ambiance - equivalent price and status to the Prestige.
Wishing to change over to a Buffet I tried a number of Prestige and was seriously underwhelmed.
However I loved the Vintage.
barry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: fmarq
Date: 2003-05-14 18:38
What do you think about this clarinet model ? It is good or not ?
Which are the advantages and the good and bad things ?
Thank you very much
F. Marques
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-05-14 19:13
Please read this thread! It already has many opinions. There's no need to start it over again.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2003-05-14 23:58
Just last night, I had all the keys off the upper joint of my R13. To my surprise, the wood was VERY light!! MUCH lighter than the time I took all the keys off a plastic Yamaha...
Is wood used in pro horns to bring weight down? Or is a material like wood used in R13s for better resonance, i.e less sound is absorbed, more is reflected?
(This entire thing is becoming confusing!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
