
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Something I'll never understand. It's like using a hammer to drive a screwbennychico11 said:oh of course. But I've seen charts like this that predate the history of "recording"....where it's just a layout of the notes on piano and the exact bar graph you show, giving the range of each instrument. These have been used by composers for a long time.

The main point is, here, that the lower range is that of the A clarinet exactly because that is the one which goes lower. It's a "try to cover the bases" thing. Doing it that way may not be best for the composer, but it's arguably better for the engineer.
And yeah, one could probably dive in and find cases where I did not composite instrument types that way, where I did ignore a potential lower range (one where I did that arguably somewhat mistakenly was will the bass, which I did refine.) The chart - as is every frequency chart I have come across, including the ones like you mention Ben - is rife with subjective decisions like that, and one could probaly tear me apart on technicalities like that.
But it remains that I have yet to find two instrument frequency charts that are absoluetly identical to each other, except in obvious or blatent cases of copying. often this appears to be because of some form of subjective choice on the part of the author of the chart. This is a necessary evil, and one of the main reasons why the use of such charts by composers seems inappropriate to this non-composer.
And not to worry Ben, not arguing anything here. I understand complety where you're coming from and do not entirely disagree with you. I'm just trying to demonstrate how when within the context of making a chart like this, things get complicated. What seems like simple terra firma turns into muddy marsh and quicksand real quick. "What are the note ranges of the instruments?" seems a simple and straightforward question on the surface, but the more you step on it the squishiner and muddier and more slippery the ground gets.

G.