 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2006-05-14 23:44
I'd like to know how good Peter Eaton Clarinet is.
That is intonation,tone quality,projection etc and of course craftmanship too.
Is English made clarinet really different from French,say Buffet R13?
Please post if you plays or played Eaton clarinet.
Thank you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2006-05-15 10:29
These are very different to Buffet clarinets - they're modelled on the old B&H clarinets and have the wide 1010 bore (the Elite) and a narrower bore (the International).
They are also heavy instruments (in terms of their weight as the joints are thick) in comparison to Buffets.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Koo Young Chung
Date: 2006-05-16 03:48
Thank you Chris.
The small bore clarinet(International) should be similar to the buffet,I think.
I'd like to know how the tone is different or the response etc.
That is, not just construction differences but playability differences
and tonal characteristics.
I assume not many people play this brand in U.S.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-05-16 09:01
I play an Eaton clarinet (two years now). Chris is right, they are different form Buffet, eben the smaller bore one (International) which I play. The keywork for me is more comfortable than my Buffet R13 (which is also very comfortable). I've only ever played one Eaton clarinet, but who knows how many Buffets, and the sound is different too, but impossible to describe the difference.
Hope that helps.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wodkowski
Date: 2006-05-16 09:04
I would say that the Eaton International clarinet is quite different than a Buffet, but much better in many ways, IMHO.
Peter created the International to be a small bore version of his large bore Elite clarinet. The Elite is his rendition of the Boosey and Hawkes 1010, with improved intonation, more even scale, etc.
I believe Peter was ingenius in creating his International, as he has truly created an intrument that mimics the qualities of the large bore instruments. The bore configuration is different than a Buffet, as he had to experiment to achieve the characteristics he was trying to mimic.
The result has been a very colourful, resonant, powerful instrument. In my opinion, the International is the finest small bore instrument available today, as it is incredibly flexible - capable of accomodating ANY sort of player, it is that friendly.
Compared to a Buffet, I find the Eaton a breath of fresh air. The intonation is firstly more even and centred - the high register is not sharp and the throats are spot on. The instrument is extremely even through all the registers and the response is fantastic. In terms of sound, it has a very broad, clear, ringing lively sound, actually the warmest sound I have felt with any small bore clarinet. It should also be mentioned that they are extraordinarily powerful in orchestra.
The only down side to them would be the keywork. Peter got his key molds from the Boosey and Hawkes instruments, and I hate to say it but it is not the most comfortable feel, although I have gotten used to it. The pad and key heights are much farther from the clarinet than Buffet or Selmer, which can slow one down if you are not used to it. The clarinets are also a bit heavy, definitely heavier than even a Selmer recital.
That being said, I have worked with these issues and love my Eatons. I have used them in orchestra professionally, sitting next to a wide variety of players, and have NEVER had any trouble blending or changing the colour and shape of my sound - something which would have been a real challenge with my Buffets.
It is a shame that they arent more widely used in the US, for some reason a lot of folks are still afraid of English clarinet related things, which is a shame if you ask me.
Post Edited (2006-05-16 10:28)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-05-16 10:57
"The intonation is firstly more even and centred - the high register is not sharp and the throats are spot on. The instrument is extremely even through all the registers and the response is fantastic."
I agree completely about the Eaton having all that, but I played Buffets that had all this too.I wouldn't buy an Eaton without trying it first just the same as I wouldn't a Buffet (or any other clarinet).
"it has a very broad, clear, ringing lively sound"
That is the main reason I decided to get it - the sound. When I played the Eaton it just had the most beautiful sound I ever got from a clarinet.
"The only down side of them would be the keywork. Peter got his key molds from the Boosey and Hawkes instruments, and I hate to say it but it is not the most comfortable feel, although I have gotten used to it. The pad and key heights are much farther from the clarinet than Buffet or Selmer, which can slow one down if you are not used to it."
This shows exactly why you have to try an instrument first, and why it is so individual. For me the keywork of the Eaton is so much more comfortable than the Buffet! That is the second reason I bought it.
It is like the left pinky keys were made specifically to fit my hand, and overall my hands just sit better on it than on the Buffet (or Leblanc, Selmer Yamaha).
Question for Wodkowski - what pads do you use with the Eaton? Mine with the dark and spungy pads. I will probably change to leather pads sometimes. Peter told me it is impossible to get the new resonator pads they make for older instrument, only for new ones that are sold with them. Is your clarinet new and came with them?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wodkowski
Date: 2006-05-16 11:23
Hello clarnibass, I use the leather pads in my Eatons. I have tried all three types of pads on different Eaton instruments (leather, black spongy and resonator) and prefer the leather. The leather just felt better to me, although there wasnt a whole lot of difference. The leather pads do hold a seal very well though, I have saved a bundle on repairman fees with my clarinets!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2006-05-16 12:04
OK probably going to change to leather soon. Have no idea how the resonator pads are, but the spungy pads are just awful!
Wodkowski, sorry to bother you again, but did you notice any change in sound (for better or worse) with the different pads? The spunge pads are (imho) horrible in how they feel, but the sound is so great I don't want to ruin it.... Sorry maybe this is a naive question but I don't have any experience comparing same clarinet with different pads.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: martinbaxter
Date: 2006-05-16 14:42
I have played a Peter Eaton 600 for a long time (with leather pads) and like it very much, but when I was doing a lot of theatre pit work it didn't always "carry" well. In the end I used my Leblancs for this work as the sound seemed to penetrate better without my having to play too loud. The Eaton was great for chamber/small group playing however and now I am retired and just play for pleasure it is the one I usually play.
Martin
Phone 01229583504
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: AndreClarinet
Date: 2012-04-29 17:42
Hello, I'm from Portugal and I'm visitor of the clarinet Bboard for a long time. I want to know what do you think about the Internacional Peter Eaton clarinet. Are they very different from Buffet? The sound, projection, keywork. I really love the English clarinet sound but I would like to continue to use french type mouthpieces( I use a B40 and I really like this mouthpiece). Thanks !
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2012-04-29 18:32
The international does not need a special bore mouthpiece (whilst the Elite does).
Any French style should work OK - all other things being equal etc..
I believe that Michael Collins actually used a B40 on his at one stage.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2012-04-30 09:57
I'm reluctant to disagree with someone of the stature of Ramon Wodkowski, and he undoubtedly has much more experience with Eatons than I do. But a couple of years ago I got a used pair of Eaton Internationals on approval, and played them for a week. I didn't like the sound at all: they were just dead, with no hint of resonance. I was really disappointed, since previously I'd had the chance to play a pair of the big-bore Elites, and thought they were fantastic. I hoped that the International would be a way of getting that big rich sound while still using a normal mouthpiece - but there wasn't a hint of it.
I don't know how to reconcile this experience with the enthusiasm that others have for the Internationals. Possibly my mouthpiece didn't suit them - but it works pretty well on Buffets, and also does a good job on Howarth S2's, which certainly do give a lot of the big-bore response while using a normal mouthpiece. I rather like the Howarth sound, and I play one sometimes as an alternative to Buffet - but there wasn't anything about the Eaton International that made me want to switch to that.
Maybe what this says is that Eaton is like any other manufacturer: allegedly identical instruments vary a lot and you can get good ones or not. As usual, it's essential to try things out rather than buying on reputation.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-04-30 11:17
Michael Collins played Internationals prior to recently endorsing Yamaha CSGIIIs.
The Internationals are more like B&H Imperial 926 clarinets than anything else - much larger bore than an R13 or RC but narrower than the 1010 bore. Some people find the B&H 926 clarinets very stuffy as well.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2012-04-30 16:18
If my memory serves me correctly then the International bore is about 14.8mm
This is about halfway between the R13 (14.65) and 926 (15.05) and is in fact almost exactly the same as the Leblanc LL.
However this dimension is only the central section of the bore and ignores the taper or polycylindrical sections of say the R13/RC.
The International has very little taper and the LL has none however the other aspects of acoustic design such as tone hole size and placement are also hugely important.
The post above is I am sure correct in infering that every instrument by whatever maker, no matter how illustrious, will differ from the next.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clancy
Date: 2012-04-30 17:08
Hi John - good to see you on here. I believe I owe you some mouthpieces......
I have pretty much withdrawn from this forum entirely, however am replying to this thread as it involves instruments that I use professionally on a regular basis.
I have been playing Eaton clarinets in the London orchestras for nearly 7 years now - started with the International and graduated to the Elite 3 years ago, with a year hiatus on 1010s in between.
Peter's clarinets are the perfect instruments for my personal style of playing in England, PLUS, they are the ultimate work clarinets for the London freelance environment - tuning, projection, blend, etc is wonderful - extremely versatile, great in any setting - principal, second, shows, chamber music, etc.
I have never had trouble making a very focused, clear sound with them and have sat next to many Buffet, etc players without any issues - on the flip side you certainly can open up the sound and make a massive Brymer style tone if you wish. Its all to do with your individual concept and flexibility....also getting the right mouthpiece/reed combination.
As for the stuffiness/deadness issue - I have noticed that problem with some of the Internationals. I did find my instruments to be a bit weighty at first, had to go to slightly softer reeds, wasn't a problem though after a while. I have had some friends whose Eaton clarinets did not clear up with time and lots of playing, who knows why. Best thing is to try more than a few if you can - don't buy anything that doesn't feel right.
Peter has always been willing to help and usually has some clarinets on hand to try. Worth exploring them as he's kept his prices low while Buffet and the others have risen.
Hope that helps
R Wodkowski
www.ramonwodkowski.com
www.facebook.com/wodkowskimpc
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2012-04-30 18:42
Hi Ramon,
Great to get your perspective on this. You're clearly in a settled relationship now, instrument-wise, but I'd be curious if you'd ever tried the Howarth clarinets - and how you found they compared, if so.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2012-04-30 19:24
The problem with Howarth clarinets is ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Buffet R13s.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2012-05-01 05:05
Woah... a bit weird to see my own posts from six years ago... a bit naive...
Anyway, I still use the same Eaton International clarinet. It's possible that some are not so good, just like any model. You can try one or you can try a hundred, as long as you find one you like it doesn't matter. I tried just one and it was love at first sound
Although it is supposed to work with most normal French mouthpieces, I found some mouthpieces to not work at all. I use the Eaton mouthpiece and prefer it. Other mouthpieces I've tried also work great.
Re the weight, IME the Eaton International is a bit heavier than some clarinets, but when I recently tried a Selmer Recital it definitely felt heavier than what I'm used to. So IME the Recital is heavier, but I haven't really compared.
I still think the keywork is not an issue and for me it is the most comfortable I've played. It did take some getting used to for a couple of weeks. When other players tried my clarinet some think it is very comfortable and some think it is not so comfortable. It is individual.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: John Peacock
Date: 2014-08-26 02:36
I'm revisiting this thread because I need to modify some experience I reported previously. It remains true that about 5 years ago I tried out some Eaton Internationals and didn't like them. But I have now come across a pair where I have a very different reaction. What makes the difference is open to conjecture. The "new" instruments are relatively early Internationals (from 1993), and they have traditional leather pads rather than the rubbery reflector pads being used on newer models like the last ones I tried. Or it could be just the barrel: I find the sound noticeably better with one of the barrels than with the other, so maybe I was unlucky with the barrels on the previous set. I continue to be surprised by how much difference there can be between barrels that are supposedly of the same type.
I find this reassuring, since I'd read many good opinions of these clarinets and was puzzled that my experience didn't match up. So now I'm happy to add to the reports that they can deliver very good results indeed.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-26 16:20
Had to ask since you mention the keywork being more a Boosey model:
Do all the keys use axles, or are the long keys 'pivoted' like everyone else?
Oh and while I'm asking, how about the 'acton mechanism.' Does this appear on the Elite?
............Paul Aviles
Post Edited (2014-08-26 16:31)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2014-08-26 16:40
Paul, if you are asking whether the long keys use pivot screws or rod screws, then they use pivot screws like most other clarinets.
I'm still playing the same Eaton clarinetfrom ten years ago. I still like it just as much. One criticism though is that the low note keys were designed by a contortionist. I don't mean the different than usual linkages, but if you need to remove all the keys for repair, etc. The rest of the clarinet has a pretty regular design.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-08-26 16:43
Peter Eaton keywork is mounted between point screws instead of mounted on rods like 1010s. They don't have the Acton vent fitted which is a shame as that makes for a very useful altissimo Eb with the (Sp. Th.) oxx|oxo (Ab/Eb) fingering.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-08-26 17:45
As there's no crow's foot, the linkage from the E/B is via an arm with an adjusting screw at its end which closes the F/C pad cup, but the linkage from the F#/C# key is via a sliding link which is an absolute pain when it comes to setting it up so there's no lost motion and so that it runs smoothly against the linkage piece on the F/C key (Teflon sheet glued to rubco works here provided the Teflon stays put, or just use rubco coated with graphite), plus removing the F#/C# key is a pain as the linkage piece has to run under the F/C key spring. What advantage has this over a crow's foot? None as far as I can see on both 1010s and Peter Eatons.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-26 17:47
THANKS guys for the answers!
I was always conflicted about the rods on the long key. When in regulation, they were smoother than any pivot ever hoped to be, but if the key got bent.....WOW was that a problem.
I recall cutting my teeth in the self repair trying to make those rods true by rolling them on a desk to find the "high" spots (not for the squeamish).
..................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2014-08-26 18:17
B&H thinned down the rods leaving only the ends the full width to ensure they didn't bind during use, but it's much easier to fit a long rod that hasn't been thinned down and have it work better.
Most 1010s I've seen had bent key barrels in all the long keys as well as bent rod screws - since the rod screws have the thin section, it's not possible to straighten out the key barrels by fitting the straightened rod in there and tapping the area where the bend is as that will only dent the unsupported key barrel. And straightening out the long rod screws wasn't exactly easy as the narrow section wasn't always concentric with the ends.
So using point screws is definitely much better than the rod screws B&H fitted.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2014-08-27 08:22
I straightened the rods 'by sight.' Actually more trial and error. Yes, mine were thinned, purchased new around 1977 in Toronto.
.............Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ruben
Date: 2014-08-27 13:10
Ramon: Will anybody take over Peter Eaton Clarinets when Mr. Eaton retires, which has to be in the not too distant future? Maybe you're the man for the job! Think about it.
rubengreenbergparisfrance@gmail.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clancy
Date: 2014-08-28 02:08
Hello Ruben
Regarding Peter's eventual retirement - I have only heard rumours. This issue has certainly crossed my mind, and is something I would consider, however not for a while as I am swamped with many projects….
Hopefully someone will pick up the torch when it is time.
R W
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
