"Keith G" wrote in message
...
On 11/01/2010 10:39, Iain Churches wrote:

I thought your clarinet sound was good, Keith - clean,
sufficiently bright, and nicely woody.


Thanks, Iain - that's the AKG 'SolidTube' valve mic through the 'ultra low
noise' SS mic amp I mentioned on here a few months back.

(I prefer the idea of not using 'valve on valve'...??)


Anyway, here's the original again:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaM.mp3


And here's Arny's suggestion (EQ is not *my* work):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/GeorgiaMEQ.mp3


So, it's a simple case of 'better or worse?'...??

What does the team think?

Hmm. In comparisons, brighter, just like louder, is
found by many to be better. One also needs to compare
both with a real clarinet, to decide which sounds more
like the real thing.

A clarinet is made of wood, not glass:-)

Iain

"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Hmm. In comparisons, brighter, just like louder, is
found by many to be better. One also needs to compare
both with a real clarinet, to decide which sounds more
like the real thing.

The fallacy here is that a clarinet has only one timbre. In fact, its timbre
is highly dependent on its environment.

A clarinet is made of wood, not glass:-)

Based on the recordings that Iain has brought to us, his monitoring system
is on the bright side. My *reference system* on this PC is a pair of ATH-M50
headphones, well known for their neutrality.

Again Iain's problem is that he's judging a quick shot for the purpose of
guidance as if it were a finished recording, and probably doing so on a
playback system that would be too bright for me.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Hmm. In comparisons, brighter, just like louder, is
found by many to be better. One also needs to compare
both with a real clarinet, to decide which sounds more
like the real thing.

The fallacy here is that a clarinet has only one timbre. In fact, its
timbre is highly dependent on its environment.

The clarinet has three very distinctive timbres irrespective
of "environment" (did you mean acoustic?) They are
associated with the three registers: the first, "chalumeau"
up to Bb4 , the second "clarion" from B4 to C6. The third,
altissimo covers about two octaves above C6.
They all sound totally different, irrespective of "environment"
Much of what Keith recorded is clarion.

He achieved a pretty good sound IMO even though he
probably didn't have access to any tutorial info. But he
listens to a lot of good music, and probably hears the clarinet
at home on a daily basis, and so knows how it really
sounds.


A clarinet is made of wood, not glass:-)

Based on the recordings that Iain has brought to us, his monitoring system
is on the bright side. My *reference system* on this PC is a pair of
ATH-M50 headphones, well known for their neutrality.

So you evaluate on headphones?

Try a pair of B+W 802D loudspeakers, the choice of most
UK recording companies.


Again Iain's problem is that he's judging a quick shot for the purpose of
guidance as if it were a finished recording, and probably doing so on a
playback system that would be too bright for me.

An unkinder man than I might suggest that you are piling on the HF
to compensate for hearing loss. I of course, would not
dream of making such a suggestion:-)

Iain

Iain Churches wrote:
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Hmm. In comparisons, brighter, just like louder, is
found by many to be better. One also needs to compare
both with a real clarinet, to decide which sounds more
like the real thing.
The fallacy here is that a clarinet has only one timbre. In fact, its
timbre is highly dependent on its environment.

The clarinet has three very distinctive timbres irrespective
of "environment" (did you mean acoustic?) They are
associated with the three registers: the first, "chalumeau"
up to Bb4 , the second "clarion" from B4 to C6. The third,
altissimo covers about two octaves above C6.
They all sound totally different, irrespective of "environment"
Much of what Keith recorded is clarion.

He achieved a pretty good sound IMO even though he
probably didn't have access to any tutorial info. But he
listens to a lot of good music, and probably hears the clarinet
at home on a daily basis, and so knows how it really
sounds.



'Fraid not Iain - 'clart sessions' are few and far between here, due to
various distractions. It means that when we do get to do a bit of
recording, it's always a 'from Square One'/stone-cold start every time!!

"Iain Churches" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Iain Churches" wrote in message


Hmm. In comparisons, brighter, just like louder, is
found by many to be better. One also needs to compare
both with a real clarinet, to decide which sounds more
like the real thing.

The fallacy here is that a clarinet has only one timbre.
In fact, its timbre is highly dependent on its
environment.

The clarinet has three very distinctive timbres
irrespective of "environment" (did you mean acoustic?) They are
associated with the three registers: the first,
"chalumeau" up to Bb4 , the second "clarion" from B4 to C6. The third,
altissimo covers about two octaves above C6.
They all sound totally different, irrespective of
"environment" Much of what Keith recorded is clarion.

Good to see that you were able to study up and correct yourself, Iain.

He achieved a pretty good sound IMO even though he
probably didn't have access to any tutorial info. But he
listens to a lot of good music, and probably hears the
clarinet at home on a daily basis, and so knows how it
really sounds.


A clarinet is made of wood, not glass:-)

Based on the recordings that Iain has brought to us, his
monitoring system is on the bright side.

Note that Iain has no response to this issue.

My *reference
system* on this PC is a pair of ATH-M50 headphones, well
known for their neutrality.

So you evaluate on headphones?

I evaluate using the appropriate reproducer and sonic environment for the
purpose. One key to production is knowing how a short list of common
reproducers and environments translate into a synthetic baseline system.
Headphones are good to have on that list because they tend to be less
dependent on the working environment and are more portable.

Try a pair of B+W 802D loudspeakers, the choice of most
UK recording companies.

If you haven't noticed Iain, I live in the US where most of the studio
monitors aren't B&W.

Again Iain's problem is that he's judging a quick shot
for the purpose of guidance as if it were a finished
recording, and probably doing so on a playback system
that would be too bright for me.

An unkinder man than I might suggest that you are piling
on the HF to compensate for hearing loss.

Iain, my benchmark evaluating my ring loss is whether or not I obtain
results that are amenable to far younger and often female people who are
hearing the same thing that I do. I've always suspected that you prefer the
rolled-off music that you seem to prefer because you can't hear what you are
missing.