View Full Version : Flutes - The Subjective/Objective Debate Raging in the Parallel Universe
The Grand Wazoo
07-09-2010, 23:47
The subjective / objective discussions that pop up here from time to time have an interesting parallel in the field of musical instruments & I thought this might be food for thought here.
It's related to the field I work in and I've often noted things quoted by musicians about the qualities of particular woods and the often mystical seeming powers that these things can bestow upon an instrument. Knowing a little bit about wood, sometimes I can see how this might be explained, but other times I laugh to myself, roll my eyes and walk away.
Dalbergia melanoxylon is a tree which grows in Tanzania & Uganda among other places. Its common name is 'East African Blackwood' and it has become an alternative to the true Ebony timbers in the musical instrument trade. Some hi-fi folks will maybe know it as 'Mpingo' which is the Swahili name for it. If you feel sufficiently motivated you can buy Mpingo flavoured accessories for your hi-fi for excruciatingly high prices.
Now Dalbergia is a funny little tree and it's not at all naturally suited to manufacturing anything at all really, except for traditional African carvings. And this is what it's been used for, for a very long time. When the supply of true Ebony for the instrument and decorative trade (fuelled by the Victorian desire to own exotica) became compromised by irresponsible harvesting, an alternative was sought & the best they could come up with was Dalbergia.
Now, any fool will eventually work out that if you want to make stuff out of timber, your best bet is to find a tall, fat, straight tree and hack it about and remove wood 'til what you've got left is your product. If your tree is tall, fat & straight enough, you can make lots of copies of your product more cheaply than you can if you start with a short, skinny, bent tree.
So, here's a quick quiz - try to spot the useful tree here
http://www.worldinterestingfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/tallest-plants-in-the-world-Sitka-Spruce.png http://www.excellentdevelopment.com/uploads/300px/20060111171035_068_Mtito_Andei_trees_-_dalbergia_endangered_tree_3.JPG
If you have to work with the latter, then the price of your product goes up....and fast!
If the wood of your choice is also a long way away and growing in places where it's hard to get at, and is not in huge forests but growing as one tree here & one waaaay over there, then your price takes another hike. If it's also a material which is very dense & therefore expensive to transport - guess what?!
Now, what if you find that every time you try to cut this stuff, it blunts your tools because it's so dense, and that the hardness means that it's also quite brittle, so you have a large number of rejects?
To cap it all you need to make a profit and all of your customers tend to be quite well off, so it won't hurt to load the price & make a big thing of the rarity of the wood.
What's the result? You end up with a highly desirable product, that's what.
The product is a musical instrument - let's say it's a flute for example. Now, the owner of the flute is very proud of this rare and wondrous thing and will be naturally predisposed to thinking that the material it is made from has some influence on the beautiful music that can be made on it. This music is so much nicer...........and musical than the music made on a plastic flute of exactly the same design and dimensions. That might be an argument that we could understand - after all, why would they make the best flutes out of this wood if it wasn't the best possible choice of material?
Some musicians might also argue that the wooden flute makes them a better musician because it handles differently to metal or plastic ones - they get some sort of response back from the instrument as they play - feedback, if you like, which allows them to convey the subtleties of a piece of music more convincingly.
Now we all love wood and it's a nice thing to touch and own, because it's organic and it's from the forest and somewhere deep down in our genetic make-up, we have a primal affinity with the forest. The long & short of it is that we get all touchy feely around wood.
Here's the alternative view:
If you talk to an acoustician, they will tell you that the material that the flute is made from is completely irrelevant and will have no influence on the sound whatsoever. They can produce measurements to prove this conclusively. The reason for this is that the sound is not made from the vibration of the instrument itself, but from the vibration of the column of air within the instrument. The musician will swear they can tell a difference.
Do you see the similarity between this situation and several issues in the world of hi-fi? So, is this different to our discussions or the same thing wrapped up in another package?
Who's right & who's wrong?
Rare Bird
08-09-2010, 00:03
Chris i doubt very much if you would hear any different between a range of flutes made from different hardwoods if all made to the same pattern!
Well when you said you were tottering off to start something fluti i though you were gonna ask how many prog bands do you know with flutes!..
No word of a lie i always wanted to play Flute but never got around to it..I'm only intrested in the transverse metal C Flutes tho.
Sorry if it's off topic sightly..
The Grand Wazoo
08-09-2010, 00:07
Chris i doubt very much if you would hear any different between a range of flutes made from different hardwoods if all made to the same pattern!
Yes, I'd agree with that, but the measurement guys say that the sound is the same when they compare wood to metal to plastic.
Someone even made one from concrete to try to prove the point.
They say it measured identically to the wooden one. They backed this up with blind listening tests. The musicians say the wooden ones are better - sweeter.
Steve Eddy
08-09-2010, 02:48
Not to sound like a broken record, but there is no debate between true subjectivists and true obejectivists. So I don't know why the debate keeps getting framed in those terms.
se
Great stuff Chris
It reminds back in the 80s one of my favourite guitar players claimed in guitar player he could hear the difference between different battery types prefering a certain longer lasting brand or Brian May liking 6 pence coins made within a certain date
Not to sound like a broken record, but there is no debate between true subjectivists and true obejectivists. So I don't know why the debate keeps getting framed in those terms.
se
On the whole agree Steve
But most of us would like some kind of meeting ground.....but not sure how we achieve this
The Grand Wazoo
08-09-2010, 06:51
Originally Posted by Steve Eddy........Not to sound like a broken record,
Sorry, but you do .........just a bit.
....but there is no debate between true subjectivists and true obejectivists. So I don't know why the debate keeps getting framed in those terms.
I referred to the existence of a subjective/objective debate, not the people engaged in it - I didn't take a side or imply that I follow one side or the other. The debate exists whether you think the people engaged in it are who they say they are or not. Or whether you like what they say or not.
I like to take a look at things from a different angle every now and then, don't you think that's helpful? Or interesting?
A very long time ago, someone once said something like "Learn everything, it will all be useful to you at some time"
That's a good aspiration in life, I reckon.
StanleyB
08-09-2010, 07:57
Chris i doubt very much if you would hear any different between a range of flutes made from different hardwoods if all made to the same pattern!
You think so? Different wood grains and densities have different sound patterns.
Well when you said you were tottering off to start something fluti i though you were gonna ask how many prog bands do you know with flutes!..
You took me by surprise there too, Chris, 'cos that was what I was thinking - I'll start one later...
Meanwhile, back to this topic. The difference between comparing a "boutique" musical instrument to a "boutique" hi-fi component may be slightly different, in that owning a very fine flute will give the musician a great sense of pride of ownership, which could well be expressed in his or her playing. You may feel some reverence and respect to the instrument or the material it was made from, and it is entirely possible that this would improve your playing by an altered state of mind.
On the other hand, no matter how much you love your piece of audio jewellery hewn from finest zarzleberry wood, your feelings of pride of ownership, admiration for the maker and appreciation of the quality of the materials none of this will make the component actually sound any better, because you have no direct control emotionally on how the music sounds through said component. Notice though, that I said it makes no difference to how it sounds - I suspect that pride of ownership etc. could have a major impact on what you hear - or, rather, the processing that your brain does to the signals that get sent to it by the ears...
So similar, but different, IMHO - pride of ownership could make a musician play better, but it won't make hifi sound better, other than psychologically.
Yeah, if you tap them Stan :)
I reckon our opinions are formed by a combination of all our senses and the most successful products appeal on a variety of levels.
I play the flute, and I have made flutes from ebony, boxwood, pearwood and other woods. There is no doubt in my mind that the material influences the sound. The surface finish of the wood in the bore and around the tone-holes has an effect, so wood like box that is hard and has a close grain will have a smoother surface and less friction. Simply oiling the bore of a new wooden flute will improve the sound dramatically. Simple acoustic theory may not explain this, but a book such as Benade's 'Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics' shows that the reality is not at all simple.
You think so? Different wood grains and densities have different sound patterns.
The effect is probably not that different to the different woods used for guitar fretboards.
Hi Alex,
Good post - I largely concur.
One thing I'd remind you of, though, is that it's a well established view Koetsu cartridges, for example, *actually* sound very different depending on the material that's used for the construction of the body-shell.
I've heard the difference myself between a Koetsu Red and, say, a Jade or Urushi Vermillion, and it's not subtle.
I believe that the generator and stylus assemblies are the same (or largely the same) for all Koetsus (save perhaps the Black) and the only real difference is the material the body-shell is constructed from. If I'm wrong in that respect, then someone can correct me.
Therefore, there are indeed instances where the use of exotic materials on equipment significantly impacts on sound quality.
It was the same when I upgraded from a Denon DL-103R to a DL-103SA. In this instance, I know for a fact that the only difference between the two is the latter's use of glass fibre composite epoxy for the body-shell, instead of plastic, and indeed as a result, the 'SA' is far and away the better sounding of the two cartridges, I suspect because of the respective resonance properties of their body-shell materials.
I think the same applies to musical instruments, in that the type of materials they're constructed from impacts on how they sound, for the same reason as it does with phono cartridges (resonance behaviour), over and above any reverence and respect to the instrument by the player, due to the material their instrument was made from altering their state of mind and improving their playing as a result, which incidentally I also believe to be a real, and likely verifiable, phenomenon :)
Marco.
You've misunderstood me slightly there Marco - I do 100% agree that materials will make a difference in hifi - but where I was coming from was that the physical properties can only change the sound, whereas with an instrument, because the source is actually you and not a recording, you will potentially be emotionally affected by the material, which could improve your playing -something which a CD LP or File can't possibly experience - does that make more sense?
Yes.
Are we agreeing that otherwise identical instruments *can* sound different soley because of the materials they're constructed from, regardless of if the musician is psychologically affected by such and thus his or her playing influenced by one being made from more 'exotic' materials?
If so, we are 'singing from the same hymn sheet', as it were! :)
Marco.
As a guitarist the way a person picks the string eg fingers, pluck, plectrum thickness there techinique etc are also important and will effect their sound
Unfortunately, I have no direct experience of playing an instrument that is identical except for the material it is made from, so I feel I can neither agree or disagree that the material would make a difference. However, my point was made on the assumption that there is no measurable difference per Chris's posts, so I was reasoning that it is the feeling of "well being" that improved the player's performance, whereas that feeling can't affect how a piece of hifi actually sounds.
Jonners is clearly more of an expert than anyone else yet to post on flutes, and I wouldn't disbelieve what he says about materials making a difference if as he says, a tighter grain improves the airflow, but I think Chris's point is that two flutes made from different materials could still measure identically (which I assume includes aerodynamic properties) yet the musician would say the more tactile/better looking material is superior, even though there is physically no difference, hence my theory that it is the player's emotional state that is altered and it is this that improves the sound.
I certainly don't doubt that different materials make different sounding flutes or cartridges, but if in every respect two flutes are identical (weight, smoothness, pitch, resonance etc.) then surely it is logical that something else (i.e. the player) could invoke the difference in sound?
StanleyB
08-09-2010, 10:17
... you will potentially be emotionally affected by the material, which could improve your playing -something which a CD LP or File can't possibly experience - does that make more sense?
Let me correct you there :).
Those gold coloured discs do sound different to me than the aluminium ones.
LPs came out in a variety in material. I have had some red and yellow see through types. They certainly sounded different than the more traditional black ones.
Let me correct you there :).
Those gold coloured discs do sound different to me than the aluminium ones.
LPs came out in a variety in material. I have had some red and yellow see through types. They certainly sounded different than the more traditional black ones.
I don't mean that Stan - I mean the actual player can't be emotionally induced to sound better - a gold CD will sound better because it is better - not because the CD player improves it's performance based on thinking the material is better.
Well I know what I mean! :lol:
Hi Alex,
I certainly don't doubt that different materials make different sounding flutes or cartridges, but if in every respect two flutes are identical (weight, smoothness, pitch, resonance etc.) then surely it is logical that something else (i.e. the player) could invoke the difference in sound?
Yes, I don't disagree with that, and believe it to be a factor, but it's not the only consideration.
...but I think Chris's point is that two flutes made from different materials could still measure identically (which I assume includes aerodynamic properties) yet the musician would say the more tactile/better looking material is superior, even though there is physically no difference, hence my theory that it is the player's emotional state that is altered and it is this that improves the importance.
Indeed. The same, I suppose, could be said for many aspects of our enjoyment of hi-fi equipment, where a listener clearly hears a sonic improvement with, for example, the use of some 'fancy' cables, even though objective measurements sometimes cannot explain why - and he or she aren't necessarily 'fooling themselves' either.... ;)
Personally, in terms of your quoted scenario, I would defer to the knowledge and experience of the musician as to the reason why he or she felt that a particular flute were 'superior' (materials used or otherwise), and accept it, regardless of whether there was any 'objective evidence' to support their view.
I do the exact same here when enthusiasts relate their experiences with hi-fi equipment :)
Marco.
Rare Bird
08-09-2010, 10:30
I'd have thought Flutes have to deal with such a small area within a pipe i honestly can't see a bunch of flutes of the same pattern made from various hardwoods making any difference, i agree with John (Jonners) the oiling the wood could help the air flow better, but i'd have thought that down to finish (in which thats is what the oil is effectivly doing), not the hardwood properties..with Flute your minipulating the air flow passing through, hence creating the desired sound. with Flute i recon it's down to the individual & how he uses the instrument that gives off the desired result.
I know nothing of course, i'm not a flute maker & maybe i'm talking bull poo once again :)
Indeed. The same, I suppose, could be said for the effect of many aspects of our enjoyment of hi-fi equipment, where a listener clearly hears a sonic improvement with, for example, the use of some 'fancy' cables, even though objective measurements sometimes cannot explain why - and he or she aren't necessarily 'fooling themselves' either.... ;)
Yes, but that's why I differentiated between the sound and what the listener hears - the two are completely different, and that is why nothing is absolute, and why I've got a sense of deja vu! ;)
I think I'm done now - as my old Granny used to say, when the hole is up to eye level, stop digging! :)
Yes, but that's why I differentiated between the sound and what the listener hears - the two are completely different...
The fact is, mate, no-one knows what the listener hears other than them, therefore we don't know that the two are completely different....
Lol, but yes, let's leave it there... I think one of us would need to learn how to play the flute, and obtain experience of playing ones made from different materials, to arrive at a sensible or definitive conclusion on this matter :)
Marco.
Haselsh1
08-09-2010, 12:01
So am I right in thinking that a cheap NAD will be as good as my Croft because electrons are electrons...?
StanleyB
08-09-2010, 12:06
It's quite possible.
Haselsh1
08-09-2010, 12:12
It's quite possible.
This all sounds rather Peter Belt-ish
I don't think anyone's arguing that two totally different components sound the same, Shaun - at least I'm not. The crux (as far as I see it) is whether a flute which is identical in specification and measurement in every single way except the material it is made from can sound different. This presupposes that everything is otherwise identical - design, manufacture and they measure exactly the same. I suppose it therefore would be a bit Beltist to suggest that the brown one sounds better than the grey one - because that would be the only physical difference - but as I've maintained, with a flute it is a bit different as there is no constant input - the player may react differently to each and this could come out in his playing. That wouldn't happen if it was a brown cable versus a grey cable, because recorded music is not capable of changing its performance based on an emotional response which could affect a musician.
Damn it, I said I was going to walk away from this thread! ;)
StanleyB
08-09-2010, 12:43
Wait till you get down to the type of oil that the flute should be lubricated with ;).
Wait till you get down to the type of oil that the flute should be lubricated with ;).
Ah, well that does matter - but not from an acoustic point of view (afaik). ;)
Ah, well that does matter - but not from an acoustic point of view (afaik). ;)
How do you know that?
Steve Eddy
08-09-2010, 15:06
On the whole agree Steve
But most of us would like some kind of meeting ground.....but not sure how we achieve this
I don't see how there can be any sort of meeting ground. The true subjectivist doesn't concern themselves with any objective reality. If they did, they wouldn't be subjectivists.
se
Well then perhaps I am not a true sunjectivist!
Steve Eddy
08-09-2010, 15:25
I referred to the existence of a subjective/objective debate, not the people engaged in it - I didn't take a side or imply that I follow one side or the other. The debate exists whether you think the people engaged in it are who they say they are or not. Or whether you like what they say or not.
It has nothing to do with the people engaged in it or what they say they are or not. Even if you take the people out of the equation altogether, there can be no subjective/objective debate.
The subjectivist simply goes by their subjective experience whatever the reasons for it may be. And provided they don't cross over to the objective side of the fence, what is there for any objectivist to disagree with, argue with, or otherwise debate?
se
Steve Eddy
08-09-2010, 15:28
Well then perhaps I am not a true sunjectivist!
Perhaps not.
I would argue that most of those who call themselves subjectivists actually aren't. Which is why I don't like seeing this thing framed as a debate between subjectivists and objectivists.
se
To be honest I do not really care I just love music
I would argue that most of those who call themselves subjectivists actually aren't. Which is why I don't like seeing this thing framed as a debate between subjectivists and objectivists.
Oi, farty pants, change the bloody record! :eyebrows:
;)
Marco.
Steve Eddy
08-09-2010, 15:45
Oi, farty pants, change the bloody record! :eyebrows:
Buck you! http://www.q-audio.com/images/biggrin.gif
se
But, bucking buck buck.....
Here, go and play on your trampoline.....
http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/4219/10811.gif (http://img683.imageshack.us/i/10811.gif/) http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/4219/10811.gif (http://img683.imageshack.us/i/10811.gif/)
:lolsign:
Marco.
Steve Eddy
08-09-2010, 16:07
But, bucking buck buck.....
Here, go and play on your trampoline.....
Whoa! Those are some big tits I've got there. Think I'll go play with 'em for a bit. :lol:
se
http://img259.imageshack.us/img259/7681/kennethwilliams.jpg (http://img259.imageshack.us/i/kennethwilliams.jpg/)
The Grand Wazoo
08-09-2010, 18:21
Simply oiling the bore of a new wooden flute will improve the sound dramatically.
This is interesting, I didn't know that - and Dalbergia is an oily timber.
Clive:
The effect is probably not that different to the different woods used for guitar fretboards.
The different densities that Stan mentions will affect the sound of the guitar, but I think this is different, because with a guitar, the wood is directly affecting how the string vibrates in a much more physical way. Another factor would be hardness - which many people confuse with density. Maple, for example is a very hard wood and has a distinctive sound when used as a fretboard. Guitars and other stringed instruments are interesting because the effect of the wood of the fretboard differs from the effect of the wood in the body.
Alex:
I'm in complete agreement with you. But unlike you I feel that this is entirely relevant to hi-fi. With the instrument that the player feels 'as one' with he's going to play better than he would with one he's uncomfortable or unfamiliar with - not to mention one that he feels is somehow inferior of sub-standard.
The hi-fi side of this is that it doesn't matter if one item does sound identical to another one. If owning and using piece A over piece B results in a more pleasurable experience, then it's the right piece.
I do not play flute but I do play guitar. I am more of an acoustic slide player but I do have few high calibre electrics too.
The type of timber will definitely make a difference in acoustic instruments. A guitar body made of hardwood will sound completely different than the one made of softwood. No contest there. But two identical guitars made of soft wood? I am not sure. In terms of electric I don't think so. I mainly play Strat and tried the same pickups on diferent bodies. Didn't notice a difference. I have friends who would give Nigel Tuffnel a good run for his money in wanking over resonance but I belong to players that fall into (late) Bernard Edwards types. In an interview (I think it was the Guitar Player) he was asked what type of bass string he used. His reply was "I don't know, whatever those Musicmans come with".
aquapiranha
09-09-2010, 21:21
I often find it odd that the 'best' sounding materials ( both in hifi and instruments) just happens to be the rarest and most exotic thing in nature. Hmmmm.... I just can't help thnking that it is all in the mind that one.
dave2010
09-09-2010, 22:44
This is a hard one. From the player's point of view there is a difference between metal and wooden flutes. A metal flute sometimes rings and vibrates under the fingers and around the mouthpiece, whereas wooden ones don't usually. The sound of a flute often has more to do with the player than the instrument. Listeners probably find it hard or impossible to tell whether a flute is metal or wood, though I don't know if any serious study has been done of this. Maybe trained listeners can do this reliably, though I'd bet against it.
The Grand Wazoo
09-09-2010, 22:52
The following is hardly an august scientific journal, but it's the first thing I found in a hurried search on Google that refers to the subject.
Directly lifted from:
http://www.makersgallery.com/concrete/other.html
John W. Coltman, a U.S. physicist, recently demonstrated a concrete flute during a conference on music and human adaptation at Virginia Tech. With their eyes diverted, the attendees could not tell the difference between the concrete flute and a cherrywood one. The flutes were identical in all respects except for the material that enclosed the vibrating air column.
A Scientific American article on this subject makes an interesting observation:
But to many musicians, even a mountain of research remains unpersuasive. "We all know that wood flutes are much more dolce, much sweeter," says flutist Paula Robison. In contrast, "a gold flute sounds like an instrument made of gold. The silver flutes are much more perky."
And, as flutist James Galway points out, the workmanship of an instrument made of $70,000 worth of platinum is likely to be of extraordinarily high quality. "People pick up my flute and say, 'This is better.' Of course it's better; it's like getting into a custom-built motor car," he says.
So even though dozens of studies have been done proving Coltman's point, we bring with us beliefs about preciousness and rarity which are hard to give up and have little to do with the facts. Admittedly, the craftspeople working in platinum may be more skilled than those working in copper, but they may not be. The metal or rare woods have nothing to do with the quality of the sound. What is important is the design and workmanship, the exactness of the air column, the thickness of the walls and the shape of the tone holes.
In visual work, particularly jewellery, our associations with preciousness are more difficult to abandon, perhaps because a visual judgment is harder to make than one based on identical sound.
In response to this web site, Coltman emailed: "In my talk I made the same point that you did - we often think highly of something just because it is rare or expensive, ignoring its intrinsic merit. I often shake my head over the value placed on natural emeralds, a pretty poor gem, usually, and much inferior to synthetic gems having much better crystalline properties."
In Coltman's presentation comparing the concrete and cherrywood flutes he comments on:
the powerful psychological effect of association. Note that the preferred materials are often expensive or rare ones, and have qualities of visual or tactual beauty that are in themselves appealing. My concrete flute is not likely to have a large market, whatever its tonal qualities might be. We often prize things for their association, rather than for their intrinsic merit.
Does anyone notice that some of the attributes of wood, gold & silver instruments are broadly similar to what hi-fi folks say about audio gear made of those materials?
Stratmangler
09-09-2010, 23:01
I often find it odd that the 'best' sounding materials ( both in hifi and instruments) just happens to be the rarest and most exotic thing in nature. Hmmmm.... I just can't help thnking that it is all in the mind that one.
It ain't necessarily so with instruments - Fender guitars were built out of the materials they were because the timber was cheap and inexpensive to work.
Maple, Alder and Ash are not, and never have been in short supply, and most certainly cannot be called exotic.
Stradivari violins/violas/cellos were made from mahogany that had been used as ballast on a return journey from the West Indies. The ballast was tipped into the dockside waters on return to home port, and was effectively thought of as scrap.
aquapiranha
09-09-2010, 23:17
It ain't necessarily so with instruments - Fender guitars were built out of the materials they were because the timber was cheap and inexpensive to work.
Maple, Alder and Ash are not, and never have been in short supply, and most certainly cannot be called exotic.
Stradivari violins/violas/cellos were made from mahogany that had been used as ballast on a return journey from the West Indies. The ballast was tipped into the dockside waters on return to home port, and was effectively thought of as scrap.
I think I havent made myself clear, I was talking about hifi in general and not instruments. I.e. silver cables, bits of rhodium and rare and endangered hard woods to make miracle magic coasters etc.
The Grand Wazoo
09-09-2010, 23:20
Stradivari violins/violas/cellos were made from mahogany that had been used as ballast on a return journey from the West Indies. The ballast was tipped into the dockside waters on return to home port, and was effectively thought of as scrap.
Where did you hear that Chris?
Sycamore for the back & neck, spruce for the top & willow for the internal bracing.
The spruce was always exceptionally slow grown & therefore probably from very high altitudes, but all of that stuff would have come from Europe.
The sycamore is what you guitarists call flamed maple but to classical instrument makers & foresters, it's called 'fiddleback sycamore'.
aquapiranha
09-09-2010, 23:25
The following is hardly an august scientific journal, but it's the first thing I found in a hurried search on Google that refers to the subject.
Directly lifted from:
http://www.makersgallery.com/concrete/other.html
John W. Coltman, a U.S. physicist, recently demonstrated a concrete flute during a conference on music and human adaptation at Virginia Tech. With their eyes diverted, the attendees could not tell the difference between the concrete flute and a cherrywood one. The flutes were identical in all respects except for the material that enclosed the vibrating air column.
A Scientific American article on this subject makes an interesting observation:
But to many musicians, even a mountain of research remains unpersuasive. "We all know that wood flutes are much more dolce, much sweeter," says flutist Paula Robison. In contrast, "a gold flute sounds like an instrument made of gold. The silver flutes are much more perky."
And, as flutist James Galway points out, the workmanship of an instrument made of $70,000 worth of platinum is likely to be of extraordinarily high quality. "People pick up my flute and say, 'This is better.' Of course it's better; it's like getting into a custom-built motor car," he says.
So even though dozens of studies have been done proving Coltman's point, we bring with us beliefs about preciousness and rarity which are hard to give up and have little to do with the facts. Admittedly, the craftspeople working in platinum may be more skilled than those working in copper, but they may not be. The metal or rare woods have nothing to do with the quality of the sound. What is important is the design and workmanship, the exactness of the air column, the thickness of the walls and the shape of the tone holes.
In visual work, particularly jewellery, our associations with preciousness are more difficult to abandon, perhaps because a visual judgment is harder to make than one based on identical sound.
In response to this web site, Coltman emailed: "In my talk I made the same point that you did - we often think highly of something just because it is rare or expensive, ignoring its intrinsic merit. I often shake my head over the value placed on natural emeralds, a pretty poor gem, usually, and much inferior to synthetic gems having much better crystalline properties."
In Coltman's presentation comparing the concrete and cherrywood flutes he comments on:
the powerful psychological effect of association. Note that the preferred materials are often expensive or rare ones, and have qualities of visual or tactual beauty that are in themselves appealing. My concrete flute is not likely to have a large market, whatever its tonal qualities might be. We often prize things for their association, rather than for their intrinsic merit.
Does anyone notice that some of the attributes of wood, gold & silver instruments are broadly similar to what hi-fi folks say about audio gear made of those materials?
In fact Chris (strat) this post illustrates exactly what I was trying to say with regard rare metals and woods. so, thanks Chris (the other one!) for posting it.
The Grand Wazoo
09-09-2010, 23:29
In fact Chris (strat) this post illustrates exactly what I was trying to say with regard rare metals and woods. so, thanks Chris (the other one!) for posting it.
It's kind of one of the things I was alluding to in the OP - It's all this tangential stuff, coupled with the interaction with the human mind that makes it all so bleedin' hard to come to any firm conclusions.
Stratmangler
10-09-2010, 00:00
Where did you hear that Chris?
Sycamore for the back & neck, spruce for the top & willow for the internal bracing.
The spruce was always exceptionally slow grown & therefore probably from very high altitudes, but all of that stuff would have come from Europe.
The sycamore is what you guitarists call flamed maple but to classical instrument makers & foresters, it's called 'fiddleback sycamore'.
You'll have to forgive me - I've had a stressful andtedious few hours down at A&E with my son, who has managed to fracture his upper left arm falling off his birthday present, which we allowed him to go on 2 days early as we've nowhere to hide it and plenty organised on Saturday to prevent him from having a go on it.
The best laid plans, eh ?:doh:
dave2010
10-09-2010, 04:24
I think Coltman may have a point. However, flute players may
1. Be able to hear the differences between instruments when played by others
and
2. Be able to tell the differences between instruments when playing them themselves.
I'm not sure that flute players would do much better than other listeners regarding point 1, but I feel sure that they'd be able to tell the differences when playing, even if some instruments just felt heavier/lighter, or the keywork felt more/less responsive. This could have an impact on the way they play, and this could then result in tonal differences and indeed the overall feel of the pieces they are playing. Someone who doesn't like an instrument is probably not going to play well on it - though sometimes professionals have to do this. One flute player I knew well had a major failure on her flute during a concert. No-one else noticed, not even the other flute players. Afterwards she asked one of the other flute players to try her instrument, and the other player could not even play a simple phrase, let alone a concerto.
It is known that not all flute players are the same. Some players can produce a much greater sound output than others on the same instrument. This has been verified in scientific studies. Players who are capable of creating a louder sound can do so by reason of greater lung capacity, but perhaps more important is their coupling to the instrument, usually referred to as embouchure. Volume is not the only thing of course, though often players who can go loud may have a better tone. On the other hand, some players have difficulty in going quiet. The best players can do both.
A comparison with audio might be that many listeners can't tell the difference between a boombox and a decent system with separates. One would still hope however that almost everyone could tell the difference between reproduced music on a boombox and a live band or orchestra. There are also a lot of people who really don't care, so asking them their opinions is hardly going to give results which those who enjoy better sound quality can appreciate.
Ali Tait
10-09-2010, 07:09
You'll have to forgive me - I've had a stressful andtedious few hours down at A&E with my son, who has managed to fracture his upper left arm falling off his birthday present, which we allowed him to go on 2 days early as we've nowhere to hide it and plenty organised on Saturday to prevent him from having a go on it.
The best laid plans, eh ?:doh:
Hope he's ok Chris.Bet you're pretty tired of seeing the inside of a hospital!
The Grand Wazoo
10-09-2010, 07:22
Sorry to hear that Chris
Stratmangler
10-09-2010, 07:54
Hope he's ok Chris.Bet you're pretty tired of seeing the inside of a hospital!
You're not kidding !
Fracture aside, he's fine. No school today, but it's business as usual next week.
He's very fit and active, so fingers crossed his recovery is a rapid one.
Thanks for the concern everyone.
I think Coltman may have a point. However, flute players may
......
2. Be able to tell the differences between instruments when playing them themselves.
.
In my view more like it. For example. For those who play guitar can test it too. Sit on an arm chair and play your acoustic. Then rest the bottom edge of the guitar to the arm rest of your chair and play. The sound changes considerably but only to you because you feel the resonance through your arm or chest. To outside world, it does not make any difference.
The Grand Wazoo
12-09-2010, 00:13
Here's something that maybe adds a little to the story. I've lifted it in full from the website of Terry McGee, a flutemaker in New South Wales. 'Flute Myths Exploded' (http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/FluteMyths.htm)
The materials a flute is made of make no difference
Ah, at last we can pin down a source for this one - John Coltman, Baltimore flute researcher. John published the result of an experiment in Scientific American which is often touted as being the last word on this topic. Unfortunately it isn't, and for easily understandable reasons.
John's experiment involved (from memory) three flutes made of three different materials, the most outlandish being concrete. I seem to remember that only the bodies differed, but I can't be sure, and it doesn't really impact on our findings. Essentially, an assembled audience was unable to tell the difference between the sound of the three flutes. The conclusion reached is that materials a flute is made of makes no difference.
There is good scientific basis for John's findings - the performance of a flute is going to be principally determined by its shape - the shape of the bore, the shape of the embouchure hole, the shape of the finger holes. The moving parts of a flute are air molecules, and the flute itself is simply the container for the vibrating air column. Providing it's a satisfactory container - it's smooth, it doesn't leak and it's strong enough not to vibrate and rob energy from the vibrating air column. John's three materials adequately met those criteria.
But supposing your container wasn't so perfect. To test the difference timber can make, I made a flute from our local plantation timber - pinus radiata - a coarse, soft, porous timber used for building framing. It leaked so badly at first I couldn't play a note below A, and even those notes were weak and noisy. So there's a major difference immediately! With the typical 4mm walls of a wooden flute, I could suck air right through the walls! Once heavily oiled (ie we plugged the leakage), it would play down to the bottom notes, but not with great enthusiasm. I could feel the body of the instrument vibrating, and that energy has to come from somewhere.
So who's right, John or me? Answer, both of us, because we're looking at slightly different questions. John was probably aiming his experiment at the metal flute market, particularly those who spend vast amounts of money on flutes of exotic metals. It probably didn't occur to him to consider using materials that were inadequate containers. Why would you do that?
But inadequate containers is wooden flute business. No wood is perfectly smooth, perfectly airtight and infinitely strong, although most of our flute timbers are adequately smooth, airtight and strong for our purposes. That's why they are called flute timbers! But my experiment shows that it is a spectrum, and that a timber not at the far end can be expected to give slightly different results to a timber at the far end. Boxwood would be such a timber - about 80% of the density of timbers in the african blackwood category. Coming back a little more, the "fine furniture timbers" - rosewoods, walnut, etc are half the density or less, and a good deal coarser in the grain - we should certainly expect less of them. And that's why they are not normally used for flute-making.
Should we expect listeners to be able to tell the difference between rosewood, boxwood and blackwood? Probably not. In my experience listeners listen to the music and the musician, not the instrument, unless it is very bad indeed. Was it the violinist Yehudi Menuen who, more than a bit cheezed off with the public attention given to his Stradivarius, came on stage, played to rapturous applause and then shocked his audience by smashing the fiddle, which turned out to be a cheap student model.
I would expect an experienced (and blindfolded) player to notice some differences in the performance of similar flutes made from radically different timbers, and to be capable of consistent and meaningful discernment.
Excellent, Chris. It confirms largely what I suspected :)
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
12-09-2010, 00:34
Haha!
Yes, I was saving that bit!
Steve Eddy
12-09-2010, 00:40
Here's something that maybe adds a little to the story. I've lifted it in full from the website of Terry McGee, a flutemaker in New South Wales. 'Flute Myths Exploded' (http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/FluteMyths.htm)
McGee's piece is sort of the corollary to "it's possible to make a cable that alters the signal in such a way as to be audible, but it's trivially easy to make one which doesn't."
se
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.