 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-10-14 22:53
After um-ing and ah-ing - I finally decided to lash out and purchase an iPod. I'm not sure how many of you have downloaded your precious CDs to them yet, but I was blown away at the quality and the interface. I can now listen to as much clarinet music as I can tolerate in superb sound on a piece of technology smaller than a playing card in size.
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2004-10-15 01:16
diz:
Welcome to the wonderful world of Ipod. Someone with your musical ear might want to investigate coupling the Ipod with high-end earphones from Etymotics (used by Mark C) or Shure (which I use). The fidelity of sound produced is really quite amazing and these phones block out outside noise by 30db, further enhancing the experience of being immersed in the music.
I find it a great joy to be sitting on a beach or in the middle of a crowded subway train listening to Marcellus/K622 at full volume with indiscernible distortion. Clarinet so mercilessly revealed wow and flutter back in the (prehistoric) analog era.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Snowy
Date: 2004-10-15 01:47
Phar Cat said
" Someone with your musical ear might want to investigate coupling the Ipod with high-end earphones from Etymotics (used by Mark C) or Shure (which I use)."
But if you don't want to thin out the ranks of clarinettists too much just don't wear them when driving over railway level crossings <g>
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-10-15 02:18
I have one of the Creative Jukeboxes 10 gig and fill all 10 gigs of it w a variety of music.
Sony sound reduction earplugs I use with it and work out at the gym using it listening to the CBS Mystery Theatre from the 70's shows.
Lots of fun!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2004-10-15 03:39
DavidBlumberg wrote:
> Sony sound reduction earplugs I use with it and work out at the
> gym using it listening to the CBS Mystery Theatre from the 70's
> shows.
Any idea as to who we owe thanks for the bass clarinet line at the opening of that august show? I used to subject my wife to it every Sunday night, just so I could feel the bass clarinetness of it all...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-10-15 04:01
Phat Cat, Snowy ... thanks
David ... why does it surprise me that you had to have "bigger and better", you're soooo competitive!!
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2004-10-15 04:25
''An amateur built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic ...''
It's documented about the Titanic, couldn't agree more........don't know if the ark actually got built though.
Yes the IPOD looks interesting and have been unsure if it would be a good investment. Can one download from the record collection easily? I have a lot of vinyl, for example, and I don't know if the IPOD will interface with an analogue source.
thanks,
jk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2004-10-15 04:35
No, the IPOD is the step up, not the other way around.
I'd much rather have an IPOD, but they weren't compatible w/Windows at the time I got mine. The IPOD's have a much better interface and are smaller. Also the creative has a pain in the *&( battery which on a trip you have to recharge or have another $60 spare handy.
Cause it doesn't take AA batteries
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-10-15 06:03
One good feature of the iPod is that it will charge via your laptop/PC ... even tought it comes with a power adaptor ... it's a cool device and the sound quality is breath taking ... far better than MP3 ... (especially from CD). Oh, by the way, copying your CDs to the iPod is kosher because your making a personal backup copy of your collection. If you THEN get a buddy's iPod and copy your collection, that's naughty.
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ned
Date: 2004-10-15 06:25
IPOD sounds good - still unsure about copying vinyl..........can this be done, if so, how is it done?
thanks,
jk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Scorgie
Date: 2004-10-15 16:55
Phat Cat --
re your statement above that "Clarinet so mercilessly revealed wow and flutter back in the (prehistoric) analog era."
What's your take on the reason for this?
My theory is that while many other instruments are played with some degree of vibrato, the clarinet is typically played with a "straight" sound, which makes it one of the most difficult instruments to record faithfully.
I had the same experience as you did.
All of the cassette recorders I tried over the years had unacceptably high flutter when recording clarinet (and also solo piano on single sustained tones). The only nonprofessional R to R recorders which were acceptable were the old Tandberg and Revox, and my Tandberg had occasional problems because of its rather crude single motor transport mechanism.
IMHO, digital recording / playback (when properly done) is several quantum leaps forward from the analog days.
I hope that some of the really computer literate contirbutors to this BB will tell us more about how to use these great new miniature devices.
My daughter has a mini music device (possibly an iPod?) which came with her Mac but since she is away at college I haven't had a chance to play with it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2004-10-15 19:16
John:
I think that there were two main causes for the problematic nature of clarinet sound reproduction in the pre-digital recording age. First, as you accurately point out, the clarinet and piano are two instruments that use no vibrato, which is predominantly a wavering in pitch. Thus, the “wow and flutter” resulting from inconstancy of rotational speed in mechanical sound reproduction devices (e.g., tape and records) was noticeable as a waver in pitch for these instruments. The lower frequency variations (wow) sound like a slow oscillation of pitch above and below true pitch. The higher frequency variations (flutter) are particularly problematic for the clarinet, since a piano tone decays fairly rapidly once the string is struck by the hammer, whereas the clarinetist must often sustain the tone. In extreme cases of flutter (not that rare) it actually sounds almost as if the clarinetist is flutter-tonguing. Converting the sound wave to a bit stream completely eliminates wow and flutter, even though the underlying storage device (e.g., CD or DVD, hard drive) may still spin during retrieval (or storage). This is because the bit steam is retrieved into memory where it is reassembled and converted into an analog wave form using a digital clock that is independent of the rotation of the storage medium.
Second, the unique overtone structure of the clarinet makes its tone particularly vulnerable to distortion. The characteristic timber of the clarinet is largely due to the fact that its even harmonics (partials) are significantly reduced in the chalumeau register, and to a lesser extent in the throat tones; this gives the clarinet its identifiable “woody” or “hollow” tone. Distortion in a musical tone amounts to a change in the relative presence of the harmonics and is heard as a change in timbre, provided the distortion level is relatively low. Adding distortion to a clarinet tone will, amongst other effects, cause even harmonics to appear where there should be none. A change to the weighting of the lower even harmonics (i.e., the 2nd and 4th harmonics--the first and second octave above the fundamental) from zero to an audible non-zero value is perceived as a qualitative change in the timbre away from “clarinetiness”.
The human ear normally finds odd harmonic distortion more disagreeable than even harmonics; in fact, there are claims that the ear actually prefers a small amount of additional even harmonics, sometimes called “enharmonic” distortion. But for the clarinet, in contrast to other instruments, the ear does not find the addition of small amounts of even harmonic distortion benign. Instead, as we have seen above, when the distortion level increases, the ear will perceive a tone that deteriorates to a “non” clarinet sound.
Fortunately for today’s recording clarinetist and listeners, nearly all modern amplifiers and D/A and A/D converters have distortion levels well below audibility. This does not, of course, prevent some “golden ears” from proclaiming that they can hear vast differences, none of which have been confirmed in controlled, double-blind testing.
One final note. With a really good set of headphones or earphones on digitally re-mastered older recordings, you can often hear the analog artifacts that were present in the original mastering equipment, as well as other intrusions such as breathing and key clicks that were probably not noticeable on the old studio monitors and home speakers.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Scorgie
Date: 2004-10-15 21:18
Phat Cat --
What a great explanation of the problems in recording the clarinet.
Thank you.
Just one more question if I may.
I agree that the most revealing reproducers are high quality headphones. For many years I preferred Koss ESP-9s, then changed to Audio Technica electrostatics which I find to be more comfortable if not more accurate.
Are any of the newer dynamic headphones (e.g. Sennheiser or Sony) comparable in quality to these older electrostatics?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Phat Cat
Date: 2004-10-15 22:01
As noted in my original post above, I've switched from headphones to high-quality earphones from Shure; Mark C. uses similar phones from Etymotics that are also excellent. Both these lines are superficially similar to the earbuds supplied with Ipod (barely decent) and other portable players (awful), but are engineered and manufactured to professional standards. You can even have custom ear molds made for your own ears for a not outrageous price.
Since these phones reside in the ear canal, the designers don’t have to worry about the reflections due to the intricate and variable geometry of the outer ear. And because they are tightly coupled with the ear canal, there is much less work to produce a given sound pressure level, so they can be extremely efficient. The high-end Shure E5c model which I use actually has separate bass and treble drivers in each phone (yes, they are really small), resulting in very flat and extended response with very low distortion. Here is a link to Shure’s web site:
http://www.shure.com/earphones/
This design is gaining widespread acceptance with performing musicians who no longer need deafening monitors blasting into their faces to hear themselves. In fact, using a relatively simple mixer set-up, every performer can now hear themselves as loudest within their own head and they don’t ever have to hear the drummer or bass! And all this is wireless too, with receivers/amplifiers the size of a cigarette pack clipped on a belt.
The trade-off for the high degree of accuracy and acoustic isolation is that you must get used to the phones being inserted into your ear canal. Some people just can’t, so these puppies come with a full 30-day trial. They are not cheap, but the sonic experience is revelatory.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Scorgie
Date: 2004-10-16 17:41
Thanks, Phat Cat and Mark.
I was totally unaware that the technology for these tiny "earbud" phones had progressed so far.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2004-10-16 22:09
PH -- can't you get custom ear molds for the Shures now? Could've sworn I saw that at their booth a while back. It is the one regret I have about my Etymotic ER4Ps. Sound great -- not terribly comfortable for my ear.
Another alternative is from Ultimate Ears, who just started offering a line of IEMs that work with portables like iPods at a price point that is slightly less hard on the wallet than their pro monitors. Ultimate makes the phones from a mold of your own ear, so it is a guaranteed fit.
www.ultimateears.com
Mark.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2005-01-28 11:28
I didn't see too much of a problem with the iPod's default earphones. I think they just produce a lot of high-end sound, resulting in sharper and clearer pop sounds while on the train, bus, etc. for the average user.
This is why they're no good to classical musicians.
I just plug my Sennheisers in. Noice.
__________________
Don't hate me because I play Leblanc! ![[down]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley23.gif) Buffet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2005-01-28 14:22
To use analog (vinyl and non-digital tape) recordings, you need to digitize the music first. I haven't done this myself, but one approach I think would work would be to buy an audio card for your computer that takes analog input and has RCA jacks for input. (RCA jacks are the are for the cords you usually connect your stereo equipment with, the ones with the white and red ends.) You would plug your turntable or cassette or other tape player into the card and the card and software that comes with it should convert the analog input into a digital file.
You might also look at video cards that would allow you to digitize video from a camcorder or VCR. Just be sure that it has stereo capabilities if you want to have good audio or convert your analog recordings.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LarryBocaner ★2017
Date: 2005-01-28 14:39
Facing some abdominal surgery last month, I went out and purchased a Creative Muvo Slim 256MB player to listen to during the 1-hour procedure (with local anesthesia and "sedation"). Worked just great: I ripped some Sabine Meyer harmoniemusik along with wonderful vintage Michel Legrand jazz CD (with Miles Davis, Phil Woods, John Coltrane, Ben Webster and others!). Supplied ear-buds were OK for this venue, but it sounds even better with my Sennheisers.
Player uses WMA technology; sounds better than MP3 but uses only half as much memory. (8 hours playing time from 256 MB). Also incorporates an FM radio and memo mike. I've used it as a flash memory to take a slide show to a friend's house! Included L-ion battery charges through USB cable from my computer. Everybody who has listened to it has found the sound awesome.
256 MB model cost me less than $100 at Staples; I've since seen a 512MB version for only about 30 bucks more. The money I saved not investing in an iPod is illusionary--I ended up buying 2 more of the Creatives for my wife and my daughter!
Off thread, I see that Paquito d'Rivera and the Assad brothers are appearing in DC next Tuesday, at Lisner Auditorium. Along with Sabine at the Library of Congress in a couple of weeks, makes for a rich musical month in our area. If anyone's interested, I'm playing alto sax on "La Creation du Monde" at the Westmoreland church on the 6th--I think it's free.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Morton
Date: 2005-01-28 14:53
Diz, what do you mean when you say "sound quality much better than mp3"? Which format do you use? I see by the specs that AIFF is supported. I suppose that's the best, but if that's what CD's use, it requires 30 Mb per tune.
Personally I'm waiting for the recording side to catch up with the listening capability. A gap seems to have opened up here. Very few minidisk models can now record, and in solid state I only know of a $700 Marantz field recorder. My suspicious side tells me the development of portable digital recording is being suppressed in order to sell more canned music.
John Morton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2005-01-29 00:14
To me, the highest quality codec is Apple's Lossless encoder, which, under iTunes, just states 'Automatic' but I believe this is a variable bitrate and I've had AAC files from 700kb to 1.4mb per sec. of audio.
__________________
Don't hate me because I play Leblanc! Buffet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2005-01-30 00:51
For those who have considered the iPod but are put off by its cost and "excess capacity", there is a new alternative. The new "iPod Shuffle" is a full flash memory device about the size of three sticks of chewing gum, and it offers most of the capabilities of the other device combined with long battery life and a low price.
The large version retails for $149.00 and works with iTunes (Apple's Mac and PC "home base" music software) in the same fashion as does the hard drive based larger iPod. It only accepts the ACC format in uploaded files (iTunes does this for any other format sent into it from a CD. However, you have to tell it to do so; this caused some initial problems for me when I started setting it up.
Connection and battery charging is handled through your computer's USB2 port; a small cap on the bottom pulls off and you plug it into the port (or into a USB extension cable). Four hours to charge it completely, although I've not had the occasion to do so as I've never run the thing down far enough. Standard iPod controls on one side (small version), but no scroll wheel, just the four surround buttons around a central play and pause button. Back side has an "on-off"/shuffle/repeat slide switch and a battery level test switch. In addition to the normal functions of each control, there are a few double press options. All are listed on a small card, which also lists the various light signals sent by a "cool looking" multi-colored LED that shines through the translucent case of the device.
The device ships with the newest version of iTunes (required for this device), the Shuffle, an end cap, a set of the horrid Apple standard ear buds and cushions, and a nice little neck strap that pops onto the USB end and allows you to wear the little thing around your neck. There is no graphic display showing what you're listening to, but most folks who use these things aren't really looking for affirmation as to what they are listening to.
You set things up with a playlist on the iTunes software (when you can also arrange the order in which the tunes are played by dragging them up or down the list) then load that playlist (one only, not hundreds like the regular iPod) into the iPod shuffle. Then, it's a matter of "Push the button, monkey", just like the other device. You can play through the list, skipping back and forth with the controls in linear order. You also have the option to return to the "head of the line" with one control option.
There is also an option in the software that allows you to have it choose the songs that are loaded, based upon random numbers and the frequency of your listening habits and so forth. It's not something that I would use, but the pop crowd likes to be able to do this sort of thing.
I used the iPod for "interval music" at band jobs (pre-recorded tunes to fill our union mandated 10 minute breaks), and that's what this was purchased for as the huge capacity of the hard drive iPod was really overkill for those purposes. Just like the big device, you plug in a mini-plug to two RCA cable and then feed the output to the PA head and through the speakers. Fidelity is at a par with the regular iPod, and the simple control system makes it easy to put you where you want in the play list.
The listed capacity is something like 340 tunes, although this will vary with the length, obviously. (The cheaper .5 GB version holds half as much.) And, as it is all electronic, the battery will go a long way.
All in all, it's another alternative to the less intuitive flash players offered by other manufacturers (the iTunes software is a real boon for non-geeks), and a seamless way to carry a lot of music around for very little money. (The documentation and ad materials also make a big deal out of the "signature" white ear buds which "mark you as the user of the coolest player on the planet", or something similar.)
And, while most who purchase these little things will load them up with modern "mixes" and the like, you can use it for our kind of music as well...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2005-01-30 01:15
"the iTunes software is a real boon for non-geeks"
Yeah, that's true I guess. Sometimes I am left unsatisfied by iTunes because it's so simple. Like many other programs, I keep expecting to find more and more advanced options, but, nope.
__________________
Don't hate me because I play Leblanc! Buffet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JoeMich
Date: 2005-01-30 14:52
I'm interested in recording my practice sessions for my own use. From what I've been able to learn by reading 'search' results, iPod, iRiver, Creative MuVo, etc will record MP3, AM/FM radio input,etc. Do they also have the capability of recording mic input?? The impression I have is that only Sony MD recorders have the capability to handle mic input ..... true??
Any/all comments, suggestions, info appreciated.
Joe.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2005-01-30 16:12
As it stands today, the only recordings that you can make with an iPod product (and then only with some of them) are made with a little add on microphone that plugs into the top of the original style player.
I initially had hopes that this would allow for decent (if not high fidelity) recordings, but I rapidly learned that it was not the case. Single instruments playing alone were recorded well enough (but not faithfully in the high and low ranges), but two instruments playing together, or a piano, or (God forbid) drums pumped into the cheap microphone provided give you a mishmash of sound that resembles music but would not be willingly listened to by a musician with any taste.
From my research into the matter, the best way remains a mini-disk recorder with a quality microphone. (Sony makes both, but the microphone is both a rare item and eats batteries like a forklift.)
Sad news, but news at least...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SimpsonSaxGal
Date: 2005-01-31 02:57
You know, as I read this thread, I thought of one thing. I will probably never get to experience really good headphones. Not while wearing my hearing aids, anyway. I could always take them out when I listened to music, but then I risk the chance of losing or damaging the hearing aids.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavieCane01
Date: 2005-01-31 03:30
If you're going to spring for the Etymotic ER4's, why not go crazy and get a Headroom Corp headphone amp. I use mine with my ER4's when I travel and my Sennheisers at home. I wouldn't think of listening without it anymore.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Terry Stibal
Date: 2005-01-31 03:49
" Sometimes I am left unsatisfied by iTunes because it's so simple. Like many other programs, I keep expecting to find more and more advanced options, but, nope."
In keeping with this line of thought, I was poking around in iTunes today, picking some non-AIFF tunes to load, when I blundered onto the "advanced options" in the Get Info box for each tune.
One gets there by selecting a tune's name line in the iTunes window, then holding down the Command (Apple) key and typing an "i". The advanced options are listed on the upper edge of the Info window for the tune.
Once you enter the nether world of the advanced options, there are all sorts of things that can be done. There's a virtual page for your notes on a particular tune, a rating system, plus all sorts of sorting options that I only dimly understand. For the really obsessed, there is even a way to display the album art for the song. It also maintains some sort of play counts and stuff like that.
All of this is way beyond my ken, since I don't normally listen to the radio or CD player in the car, much less tote thousands of songs around with me to mask out the sounds of the world. But, I figure that there are those who are deadly serious about what music they listen to when and where. All this extra stuff is right up their alley.
My estranged brother (I've seen him for precisely 1 hour and twenty minutes in the past 20 odd years) is a recognized authority on the life and times of one Robert Zimmerman, aka Bob Dylan. (He was part of the infamous "Armpit Tapes" episode that Dylan fans go nuts over.) For someone like Bryan Stybl, all of this rating stuff would be the start of an obsessive data base mentality that would consume his very considerable spare time. There's something in the software world for everyone...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: LeWhite
Date: 2005-01-31 07:10
Terry - yeah I've found all that stuff, but I wouldn't really call them advanced options; it's a simply right-click operation.
__________________
Don't hate me because I play Leblanc! Buffet
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
