 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: John Gould
Date: 2001-07-30 08:09
Does anyone have any experience about whether or not certain makes of clarinet record "better" than others? For example, there are some players on the LA studio scene that play Eatons, but I suspect they bought the instrument for as much how it sounded to THEM and then considered the suitability for recording. I like the Eatons myself, but I also like Buffets. Isn't it also as much of a question of how you're miked, who's the engineer, etc? Thanks for any feedback. John G.
P.S. If you've recorded, and were happy (or unhappy) with the results, would you mind sharing the setup, mics, instrument, etc? Thanks.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2001-07-30 09:41
check on the Klarinet archive for posts by Benn Maas, a professional recording engineer and clarinetists (and a sponsor of Sneezy.Org - 5th Circle Audio)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: HAT
Date: 2001-07-30 14:40
It is unlikely that you could ever reach any kind of consensus on an issue like this.
As in any question of equipment, the answer is: 98% is the person playing, 2% is the equipment being played.
David Hattner
www.northbranchrecords.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: willie
Date: 2001-07-31 02:15
I've been told that in the 20s and early 30s a lot of studio musicians liked to use Pedlers because they came out better in the live broadcasts of the day. But then you have to look at what they had for microphones and the type of radios the general public had to listen in on back then. Radio was still in its infantsy. Today we have state of the art equipment with all different mics for different types of instruments. AND even though sound engineers have made tremendous progress in the last few years, they still can't figure out why a ducks quack doesn't echo.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
