 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2007-08-03 14:54
Many factors influence it, some of which depend upon the clarinet set-up and you. But one which is seldom mentioned is the acoustic environment you are playing in. For example, if you play in a space with a reverberation time of about 1.5 seconds you will likely sound much better than one where it is less than 1 or greater than 2. Those lovely clarinet sounds on recordings are sometimes greatly enhanced and improved with electronic, synthetic reverberation. Even I sound great in a lively hall but mediocre elsewhere.. Comments please.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dano
Date: 2007-08-03 15:10
My main music room has hardwood floors, wood paneling and large windows. I sound best when playing there. I always have claimed that I need to adjust to the acoustics of the environment whenever I leave my music room. I just don't feel that my tone is what I want when I leave that room. I think acoustics of the room are very important.
I hate to mis-quote but I think it was Pete Fountain that said something along the lines of, "My sound man is the one that deserves the credit for the way I sound."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Clarinet
Date: 2007-08-03 15:10
Absolutely. I work for an acoustic research outfit, and we have an acoustically dampened room (not a full-blown anechoic chamber). I sometimes use it during the lunch hour to do some practice. It shows up every flaw in my tone, every time my fingers are sluggish and don't move together, every under-tone when changing register in a sloppy way. Occasionally, everything works and I think I sound almost reasonable. The room that my community band practices in is a school hall with a very lively acoustic. I sound amazing in there, but it is just in comparison. ![[rotate]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smiley25.gif)
(edited for smelling pistake)
Post Edited (2007-08-03 15:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-03 15:16
Reverb doesn't affect the tone of any instrument, regardless of whether it's artificial or natural reverb that the instrument is heard to play in. A squeeking clarinet or a sour note played on a cheap violin will sound exactly as so described even in a reverberant space. They'll just sound "wet" as opposed to "dry".
Post Edited (2007-08-03 15:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2007-08-03 15:19
I use two rooms in my house for practice. One is a "great" room with 20-something ceilings a large volume and a big box on the floor that contains the powder room. My small ensembles and I sound just wonderful in that space.
The other space is a large walk in closet. It has an 8-foot ceiling is about 12-feet square, and the walls are lined with clothing on hangers. DEAD.
I had such a good reed in the big room this week when it became necessary to relocate to the "hole". SAD! My reed died right there.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: marcia
Date: 2007-08-03 17:05
I think I sounded my very best on the occasion I had to practise in...the bathroom, yes bathroom. Was in the hotel room in Singapore. (We were there with PSWE for teh WASB concferenc in 2005) My roommie (a horn player) and I decided we needed to practise so she set herself up in front of the picture window, complete with spectacular view. She was using her silent brass so I could not hear her, but I thought if I sat beside her I might disturb her...so....I used the only other room. I never sounded so good!
Marcia
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tobin
Date: 2007-08-03 17:18
I remember working away in my undergraduate practice room and thinking things are going well.
Walk down the hall and around the corner to my Prof's office...dead. Everything exposed. It was impossible to be (very) pleased with anything that I performed there.
Our recital salon was very wet. Complete opposite...you'd play and think to yourself...so that what I sound like!
My current room has very little reverb, but it's big enough that I wouldn't call it dead. I prefer working in this room. Of course I have to make adjustments when I perform, but I'm always pleased with HOW I sound even if I may not execute as I intended.
James
Gnothi Seauton
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2007-08-03 17:40
In general I find it more profitable to practice in a dry acoustic. In this environment you have no choice but to create all your note connections, shading, dynamics etc. However, it doesn't hurt to vary the room/acoustic from session to session to serve as a tool to keep your aproach to style flexible.
For those of you who don't really have a dry room, play outside on the lawn.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John O'Janpa
Date: 2007-08-04 00:02
The Wind Symphony I'm in, is at a college that has a new Cultural Arts building, including a new recital hall. The reed auditions last semester were in the recital hall. I sounded better than I ever had, and everything I played popped out effortlessly. What a revelation.
I practice in a den with carpeting and upholstery. If I can make it sound decent in practice, it sounds even better during performances.
Post Edited (2007-08-06 13:06)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Aussie Nick
Date: 2007-08-04 03:06
I also choose to practice in a dry acoustic if I can so I know what I really sound like. Makes me work harder, then it sounds better in a performance venue.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clariphant in Bb
Date: 2007-08-04 03:39
I too choose to practice in a very dampened room. Sounding better than usual is an extra confidence boost when I'm nervous about a performance. Also, I've never had any reeds sound good in my practice room and bad on stage (though the other way around has happened quite often).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Old Geezer
Date: 2007-08-04 15:54
I like to practice in the den which has a lot of sound dulling stuff, and then when something is about learned take it to the spacious living room with it's lively acoustics and be overwhelemed with glory!...a little hyperbole there.
It's really annoying and disappointing to hear a clarinet CD with the sound obviously enhanced, reverberated, etc. A case in point, a recent recording of the Rose 32 with a shamelessly altered sound; I won't mention any names but his initials are Sean Osbourne. He did list the equipment used to do the deed. It really doesn' t matter, his take on them is hopelessly affected and self indulgent...sorry Sean?!
Clarinet Redux
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grifffinity
Date: 2007-08-04 17:17
Quote:
I won't mention any names but his initials are Sean Osbourne.
Anyway, if you want to hear a dampened recording, Harold Wrights Music Minus One of the Rabaud Solo de Concours sounds like it was recorded in a coat closet. It's absolutely amazing to hear that kind of quality from a recording...it sounds as if he is in the room with you. Perhaps its considered bad recording quality, but there is absolutely no fluff enhancement.
Indeed, I have practiced in closets while living in apartments so as not to disturb neighbors - it's a unique experience and different from playing outside, but still quite dead.
Post Edited (2007-08-04 17:18)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-04 17:22
Old Geezer,
The degree to which recordings are enhanced by artificial reverb and other sound-enhancing processing rests with the degree of talent, caring, and even budget on the part of the producer or artist. Sometimes an inexperienced artist doesn't know how to listen critically to a studio recording (or studio-enhanced recording) and is more enthralled by an initial and seemingly luscious addition of artificial reverb than they are at determining if it's of good enough quality, or whether there's even too much of the darn stuff! It's a common foible.
But then again, like with anything, there are matters of taste on the part of the artist and/or producer which can subvert the most skilled mix engineer's ability to tastefully apply the most realistic and expensive studio effects.
My point is that sometimes, "they get it wrong". Other times "they get it right" and you wouldn't be able to tell if the reverb or other processing was natural or artificial. But surely, when they get it wrong? EeeeeeYOUCH!
:)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kev182
Date: 2007-08-04 20:11
I have always been taught that you should practice in a dead room... it does expose everything. If you think you sound good in a large hall, you will sound even better if you sound good in a dead one. There is no excuse to blame your surroundings.
I have noticed if I practice in a large hall for a few days then move back to a dead practice room I'm shocked at the things I have ignored and bad habits I have went back to.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mike Clarinet
Date: 2007-08-06 07:40
Can someone who uses the terms explain 'wet' and 'dry' acoustic please? I am familiar with the terms 'lively' (lots of reverb from the room) and 'dead' (no room reverb). Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ski
Date: 2007-08-06 07:53
Mike,
Wet = lively (reverberant)
Dry = dead
In recording studio/recording engineering parlance, the dry signal is that which comes directly from an instrument (or mic) and is unprocessed by artificial reverb, delay (echo), etc. It is sometimes called the "direct" signal.
The wet signal is the sound of the signal processor itself without any of the dry signal mixed in.
On reverb units, there is usually a knob to control the wet/dry balance.
"Wet" is likely derived from the overuse of artificial reverb, as in "dripping with reverb" when too much is applied.
Some instruments, like a pipe organ in a large cathedral, have a sound which is inherently "wet". Sure, it would be possible to place microphones very close to the pipes themselves to attempt to pick up the "dry" (direct) sound of the pipes and not the reverberation, but chances are that such a recording wouldn't sound entirely natural to the listener. And it's unlikely that the mics won't pick up any of the reverberation. So a microphone can only pick up a truly "dry" sound if the space in which the instrument is played isn't very reverberant or "live" to begin with.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2007-08-06 09:48
rtmyth wrote:
>>...if you play in a space with a reverberation time of about 1.5 seconds you will likely sound much better than one where it is less than 1 or greater than 2.>>
Most people would agree with this statement, but it's worthwhile emphasising the the bit about 'GREATER than 2': although your sound quality may still seem enhanced by an over-resonant acoustic, the details of your performance may be obliterated for the distant listener. One note overlaps another, and tonal nuances are no longer perceived. In fact, you need to play DIFFERENTLY, and often choose a different setup, depending on the acoustic and the size of the auditorium. (It's one reason why it's horrible to encounter a large hall AND a close-miked recording or radio relay -- you can't satisfy both constraints simultaneously.)
I remember coaching on a Spanish chamber music course. There was a choice of venues for the concerts: a cathedral, where everything 'sounded' wonderful to the players -- but unfortunately, in the audience, you couldn't HEAR anything; and a school hall that made everything clear -- but was much more uncomfortable to play in.
The students, of course, wanted the cathedral. I think under such circumstances the choice is almost a MORAL one, and you can guess which I pushed for. Interestingly -- and shamefully, I thought -- not all the other coaches were in agreement.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grifffinity
Date: 2007-08-06 16:47
Tony Pay
Quote:
There was a choice of venues for the concerts: a cathedral, where everything 'sounded' wonderful to the players -- but unfortunately, in the audience, you couldn't HEAR anything;
Very true. A fellow clarinetist at conservatory held her recital in a church and to the audience it was a mush of sound - especially the Brahms Op. 120 #1. Her solo clarinet work carried OK, but with piano - oy!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
