Here comes the most paradoxical question: why would we want a didgeridoo of strong dynamics considering that modern recording styles don’t allow a very high dynamic range? It seems that we first use a didgeridoo with too much dynamics, only to squash the sound through compressors later. Wouldn’t it make sense to take an instrument with less dynamic range and have less problems with dynamics later during editing of the recording?

The answer is not so obvious, absolute or simple (as usual).

Again, it depends on the situation.

There are many factors in creating dynamics: didgeridoo, player, song, technique, space.

We will try to summarize all of them in the following ancient teachings:

One picks an instrument to suit one’s needs. If one wants a didgeridoo that is neutrally balanced, then one does not choose an instrument with any outstandingly emphasized sound, like for example second toot.

If one wishes to have good control over dynamics, one must learn how to make loud sounds soft, and how to make soft sounds loud.

One should be able to overcome little imbalances of the didgeridoo.

One considers different loudness levels of different techniques and is able to control them while arranging a song.

One chooses the space of recording that does not create bad frequency response because it can strongly emphasize some particular frequency of the didgeridoo, first toot for example, and mess up with an otherwise calm part of a song.

One must be aware that the lack of dynamic range is much more difficult to overcome than taming an abundant dynamic range. It is the same principle as with frequency response. If one is able to choose between two didgeridoos that are similar except for their dynamic range, it is wise to pick the instrument with the greater dynamic range.

End of ancient knowledge.

Your own knowledge is free to go from this point.