 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-01-09 20:34
Many of us, particular those who do orchestral type work, are concerned with our sound being heard. We devote time to practicing techniques (e.g. long tones) and trying setups that promote our ability to be heard above other members of an orchestra when the music calls for it.
But what is it about our sound that allows it to carry to the back of an auditorium?
I understand that ambient air pressure and temperature play a role, as does other noise competing for our ears' attention. I understand that decibels are a logarithmic representation of air pressure, which closely correlates with a listener's ability to hear us, but that the two don't always equate. For example, frequencies beyond our ability to hear may be transmitted with enough intensity to break windows, much as it may only be the sound of the after effect: the shattering glass, that causes us to take notice and seek to identify what caused such a situation to occur.
If one defines sound projection as the ability to be heard (and one may not) certainly the prior example may have registered plenty of decibels, but had little projection, and perhaps little loudness, if like projection, loudness deals more with what our ears detect (i.e. what we feel) from that air pressure, than the level of that air pressure examined alone.
And of course musical sounds have many notes in them, that can work in some non-trivial ways to enhance or detract from the base sound.
====
But back to my question. Some have claimed that two clarinetists, each playing the same note with equal decibel readings might not project, or be as loud (i.e. be heard) from the same istance away.
"Okay," I say, "so how can I be heard better?"
To which I've often been given the reply "pitch, color, and shape of sound," in a tone of voice that suggests "don't ask me any more. I may not be able to explain more, so don't put me on the spot."
So please explain it to me. What beyond decibel measurement, gets what I play, that the normal human ear can otherwise detect, to in fact be heard, and heard at a distance?
Reasonably simple to understand science is preferred to more feelings based explanations.
Post Edited (2015-01-09 20:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dan Shusta
Date: 2015-01-09 22:58
I just did a search on "projection" and came up with numerous threads dealing with this subject.
So, IMO, there already exists a tremendous amount of stored knowledge in the BB archives. Wonderfully written responses given by Gregory Smith and other well known symphony and orchestra players and well as a professional recording expert.
I hope you find what your looking for in the archives.
Post Edited (2015-01-10 09:33)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomS
Date: 2015-01-10 04:27
IMHO, it's the ratio of loudness of the fundamental pitch to it's total overtones and more importantly, the weighting or amplitude distribution of these overtones.
Nothing magic going on here. An audio spectrum analyzer will show all of this.
There are other factors such as surrounding structures (music stands, music and people), clothing, floor reflections, the angle the instrument is held to the body, etc. All of these will effect the amplitude ratio and phase relationship of fundamental pitch to overtones.
So, brute high SPL of the fundamental pitch on one clarinet might be trumped in "projection" by another instrument that has less power in the fundamental but more/different/better shaped overtones.
My four cents worth ...
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-01-10 05:44
Thanks Tom. I appreciate the scientific view of things.
(tongue in cheek)
.....and the creation of the right mix of overtones is accomplished how?
.....Knowing you're not on the hook for explaning such things because methods differ for players and setups, don't come easily, and aren't otherwise easy to articulate (no pun intended), or.....
...through my examination of the threads I was presumed to not read prior to my query...which are by no means clear or consistent, where I've been told to:
work on "pushing air down," grabing the reed with only a portion of my lower lip, aiming my chin down, play to the back of the room, no...playing to a particular audience member, listening to great players and figuring out what they do, mimicking a double lip embouchure upper palate with my single lip, holding the mouthpiece like my mouth was a rubber band, getting the orchestra to play quieter, and told to both project and expressly not project because projection is nonsense.
I guess it's good to know, if nothing else, that I'm not the only one confused or tempted to do things without understanding if they're backed by the science I seek.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomS
Date: 2015-01-10 06:41
The right combinations of overtones is achieved by being possessed by the ghost of Harold Wright ... otherwise, I haven't the foggiest how to do it!
Just emulate this sound:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q1J9HtD8kQ
You'll be well heard, even in the lobby.
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-01-10 06:46
I have learned more about projection by listening to great big band lead trumpet players than anything else I can think of. I have had Doc Severinsen stand in front of me over a decade ago, and his glorious sound filled the room unlike anyone else. He spent plenty of time warming up, and his sound and projection just seemed to have gotten better over the years. Having a good clarinet, mouthpiece, reed are all important, but you have to hear the sound in your head before you can play it. I have also found that singing before a performance as part of a warm up helps a great deal in projection and sound. Playing to fill the room with sound, whatever the dynamic level helps me in doing so. Your sound needs to reach the person at the farthest corner of the room. After all, they paid money for their ticket, and deserve to hear you right? I can only speak for myself, and what has worked for me. Half of it is mental, half is the physical aspects involved. Hear it, and play what you hear.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: TomS
Date: 2015-01-10 18:23
I was a contractor (audio engineering) with the local Arkansas Symphony Orchestra for over 25 years and had the pleasure of hearing Doc's warm-ups and performances several times. He did seem to change his sound over the years after retiring from the Tonight Show. Bigger, darker, louder, wider vibrato. Very impressive playing, especially for a gentleman in his 60s and 70s.
His awe inspiring power and projection is something for all of us wind players to get excited about and try to apply to our sound, when needed.
Tom
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-01-10 18:31
"There already exists a tremendous amount of stored knowledge in the BB archives."
Having used them many times, including prior to my question, I agree.
Where I disagree is in the archive's ability to furnish scientific explanation to projection, as I asked. Before composing my question I checked the first 10 posts on projection extensively and found only 1 reference to science in a page of a book that's only available in hard copy purchasable form, ironically enough that you reference sir.
"Wonderfully written responses given by Gregory Smith and other well known symphony and orchestra players and well as a professional recording expert."
Perhaps, but not scientific ones. I'd be thrilled to be proven wrong. I certainly haven't checked every bboard reference and can accept that scientific explanation may not be as available as I would like it to be. Flowing descriptive words like "color, shape, projection, and presence" fill the reponses. Sadly for me, these words can mean different things to different people.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: The Doctor ★2017
Date: 2015-01-10 19:10
(Disclaimer - I make a sound modulation barrel - Power Barrel)
Decibels is of course a measure of sound pressure while loudness and projection are attributes of the listener's ability process the sound with projection being the most difficult to understand.
From my own experimentation using a spectrum analyzer and Fast Forier Transform interpretation I have found that the decibel strength of the primary note frequency is the most important aspect of the brain processing sound. Through evolution our brains have evolved to process single frequency high pitched sound, like the cry of young animal, as a survival tactic for the young of the species.
The quality of a note-frequency perceived by the brain is a much more complex situation. A single frequency note is not perceived as a pleasant sound. We find certain sounds in nature as pleasant because they have overtones along with the primary frequency. It is unknown how this is an evolutionary attribute. The overtone spectrum is unique to certain instruments and is very complex. Instruments such a brass tend to have more even (direct multiples of the primary frequency) frequency distribution of overtones than most woodwinds that have uneven (1/5, 1/7 etc) frequencies and there are even and odd subsets of these uneven frequencies. These uneven frequencies add up to nature sounds that we associate with more pleasant or mellow (although these are subjective terms with no standard definition) sounds.
The distribution of these subsets of uneven frequencies for the clarinet is the closest approximation of the ability of the listener to decern a sound at distance which may be what we term projection. I have analyzed sound spectra from many well known clarinetist's recordings. I did this primarily to analyze for quality of sound but as a secondary aim I tried to see if there were subsets associated with players noted for their projection. Certain patterns emerged as common in many trials. Also the spread (distribution of subset frequencies closest and farther from the primary frequency) had characteristic distributions. Spread is also associated with the "focus" or constriction of subset distribution of the frequency spectrum. Less spread is associated with pereceived projection.
Two players playing the same hardware setup (clarinet, mouthpiece, ligature, reed) may have very different subsets of uneven frequency patterns which would suggest that it is the player that is responsible however different hardware setups also do materially change the frequency subsets
of twin players. Ideally each player could analyze their sound spectrum to personally modify through playing characteristics such as embouchure, wind pressure and speed, and hardware e.g. mouthpiece, ligature, reed and mental modulation of their playing to better approximate known patterns associated with listener perceived sound quality and projection. This however would take a spectrum analyzer and software analyzing subset frequencies, distribution, and "focus" with a dual representation of the desired result and real time visual comparison. This machine sits on the shelf of perhaps good ideas that have never been manufactured.
I have also found that projection can be helped by hardware that introduces more of the even subset of frequencies partially at the expense of the subjective evaluations of "bright" versus "dark". There are of course many factors that influence these last two terms and there are "dark" sounds that project well too.
L. Omar Henderson
www.doctorsprod.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-01-10 20:03
Thanks for your considered scientific explanation Mr. Henderson.
It's funny how projection and loudness, being subjective measurements, have what some may describe as competiting components in our evolved sense of hearing the main tone best, consistent as you describe with urgency (e.g. Predator animal and crying baby) and the pleasure we enjoy from harmonic filled sound, and how that to can attract our attention like a beautiful painting.
Perhaps we've evolved to associate harmonic sound with situations less likely to invoke fight or flight response, and enjoy it for the serenity we've come to associate with it.
That would suggest we play clarinet loud and sweet in order to be heard in the "cheap seats." :-)
Post Edited (2015-01-10 20:58)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-01-10 22:33
The simple and very scientific way is simply to use a microphone. Problem solved. It works in the pit for a Broadway show, and on stage it is common. The soundman then controls what the audience hears. Something to be said for it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk
Date: 2015-01-10 23:47
Wisco99 wrote:
> The simple and very scientific way is simply to use a
> microphone. Problem solved. It works in the pit for a
> Broadway show, and on stage it is common. The soundman then
> controls what the audience hears. Something to be said for it.
>
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. If I want to listen to electronically reproduced music, I can turn on my stereo at home.
It's true that everything in a modern music theater is amplified, but I've never understood why this needs to be true in an old theater that was built before amplification was possible. The theaters were designed with pits for a reason - to give the acoustic advantage to the singers onstage. Somehow everyone managed to be heard before electronics took over.
Certainly pop music, rock, and other mid- to late twentieth century music styles that evolved based on the availability of powerful mics and later electronic synthesizers and sound processors can be done with no loss of character this way - trying to perform music that wasn't created to be acoustic to begin with would denature that music and make it something else. But I don't think amplifying the principal players in a Strauss tone poem or the soloist in an instrumental concerto is in any way an acceptable substitute for acoustical projection. I don't personally like to hear the volume cranked up so loud in a Broadway theater that I want to cover my ears in the loud parts and can't make out words because the pit is being cranked up too far based on a sound engineer's idea of what I should be hearing. There are a couple of theaters in Philadelphia I won't go to because the resident technicians seem to think they're engineering a rock show. They did shows in those theaters before electrical/electronic microphones were invented.
There - I need to get that off my chest every so often and you gave me an opening.
Cheers!
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Wisco99
Date: 2015-01-11 00:29
I live in Milwaukee, and am very familiar with 2 different 2,500 seat theaters. One was built in the 1920's for Vaudeville, and has magnificent acoustics. Tony Bennett stepped away from his microphone for one song, sang acoustic, and everyone could hear him. It was a nice contrast, but the orchestra needed sound reinforcement for the rest of the show. For A Chorus Line, the orchestra was on the 7th floor, so mics were absolutely essential. The nature of theater has changed. Even in a classic pit, a sound man needs control, and all the singers use mics. Things have evolved since the days of Vaudeville.
The other theater is where the Milwaukee Symphony plays, is newer, but requires an in house speaker system to act as a delay because the room is dead. They also have the main speakers, mics on stage, and musicians use ear buds to listen to each other often, which is an on stage mix. Three things going at once. I would prefer to hear an orchestra purely acoustic, but due to design problems with the room acoustics, that is not possible. As the song says, "everything must change."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Philip Caron
Date: 2015-01-11 01:21
Interesting thread, food for thought. Yesterday, I happen to have been listening to Wagner vids on Youtube, including several versions of Brunhilde's Immolation. Some great sopranos really seemed to "give their all" on that, sounding on the edge of their maximum projection and stamina - wonderful, emotional performances. Then there's Birgit Nilsson. Talk about projection! One video shows the final recording take of Nilsson's and Solti's famed London studio release. She's standing on a platform well in back of the large orchestra; it looks too far away. But she opens her mouth, and a spine-tingling, enormous, gorgeous sound projects forth, almost swamping the entire massed instrumental ensemble at several points. And it sounds like she's capable of even more, like she's nowhere near her max. Pure glorious vocal power, and (for the moment, in my mind) definitive. Having that resounding in my head ever since, I'm gratified to find a thread here with a connection, albeit hazy, to that inspiring experience. :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: WhitePlainsDave
Date: 2015-01-11 03:33
A clarinet teacher of mine Phillip said that wind players and singers have to be half musician and half athlete.
It sounds (no pun intended) like the singers you saw where all singer AND all athlete.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
