Anyone like the big round embouchure?

Irish Flute
1

I’ve been studying embouchure shapes and sizes on various antique flutes with a goal to exploring some alternatives to the ellipse shape that I already use and that seems quite ubiquitous today.

One shape that I am particularly curious about is the large, almost round, embouchure that frequently occurs on the kind of English flutes from the early to mid 1800s that are popular in ITM. I used to think these were mostly just embouchures that had been hacked/enlarged after the fact, but I’m finding that they were very common among certain closely related flutes that were made within a close geographical area and over a fairly short time period, and that they almost never occur on flutes from different geographical areas or time periods, so I now think that it must have been intentional. I have some theories about what the motivation was, but I’m curious to hear from others, especially anyone who likes playing them.

So, if any of you have flutes with a large, almost round, embouchure, I’d like to hear what you think of it, especially if you really like it and if you feel it offers some capabilities that you find harder to achieve on the more common ellipse shaped embouchures.

To give an example of the kind of thing I’m talking about, here are a few examples of the large round embouchures I currently have on hand. The table gives the long and short axis of the embouchure hole in mm, a roundness factor, which is long divided by short (round would be 1), and the approximate area in square mm. Most of these are in decent shape, but the Imlay one does look like it may have been hacked. Most modern embouchures have a fairly similar area, but have a much shorter short axis and longer long axis, making them more elliptical than round.

		long axis	short axis	roundness	area	

Blackman	11.65		11.15		1.04		102	
Fentum		11.5		11.1		1.04		100	
Imlay		12.5		11.9		1.05		117	
Wylde		12.3		11.1		1.11		107	
Bilton		11.9		11.1		1.07		104

So, do you think there are any merits to the large, round, embouchure? I know that smaller embouchures, and small, round, baroque style embouchures save a lot of breath and offer a very different tone, but that is something different. What about these large, round embouchures?

2

Hi paddler,

My Rudall & Rose #3934 (Patent Head) has a fairly round embouchure. Chris Norman commented that it was unusual and that it might have been a special order. The embouchure hole was revoiced by Patrick Olwell, after repairing a crack that went through it, so I don’t to what extent it still represents the original size intended by the maker. The embouchure measures about 11.65 x 10.87, which gives a roundness index of 1.07 and an area of 99.5 mm2.

I’ve tried several headjoints on this flute, and it has the sweetest second/third octaves I’ve experienced on any flute. The first octave has a very dark, “compact” and reedy tone: it’s beautiful when you hit the sweet spot, but I find it tiring to play over an extended period of time. The low end is a bit weak compared to the other headjoints I’ve tried, but I suspect this has more to do with the position of the stopper than the embouchure hole. On this headjoint, the stopper is set at around 19mm for A=440. In comparison, my Jay Ham headjoint, which fits this flute and has an elliptical shape, has a its stopper set around 21/22 mm: the overall sound is more powerful, the lower end is stronger and comes out easily. On the other hand, the second octave is not as sweet (though it still sounds nice, just different). All in all, I much prefer the Jay Ham headjoint on this flute, as I find it more efficient, while still having a dark and reedy sound. And it’s not simply a matter of antique vs modern: I have an early Joseph Wallis with an elliptical embouchure, and it’s a joy to play.

I’d be curious to hear about your own experience with these different flutes, especially if you’ve had an opportunity to play around with the position of the stopper.

Best,
Julien

3

My Patent Head R&R #4676 is pretty much the same as Julien’s at 11.5x10.9 (to the best of my gauge reading ability.

I’m sure it is original, as the rest of the flute appears to have never been played.

I’m wondering why you call this a “large” embouchure - not that I have a database of measurements to inform me. I guess earlier flutes, the one-keys are smaller? What about later simple-system English flutes, like the Prattens?

Julien: Why did Chris Norman think your flute’s embouchure was unusual?

I’m guessing your R&R is a medium-hole model? For me that means hole #4 is about 8mm. In my small experience, large-hole would be 9mm, and small-hole 7.5mm.

4

I mostly used the term “large” to distinguish between these and the round embouchures that were common on flutes during the baroque period. Those were round in shape, but much smaller, say 8.8 mm by 8.8 mm. But I also wanted to make the point that the overall size of the opening of these large round embouchures is comparable to that of elliptical embouchures that have a much longer long access. So I was trying to draw attention to the fact that these historical round embouchures actually have a significantly longer short axis than is typical in an elliptical embouchure, antique or modern.

When you compare the dimensions to those found on antique American flutes, you find that the round antique English embouchures were generally around 10% larger in area than the elliptical antique American embouchures, despite the American ones having a longer long axis.
Here are some examples of embouchure dimensions on American flutes that work well for ITM. You can see that the area averages around the low 90s, compared to the low 100s for the large round English embouchures I listed. For comparison, measurements from a selection of flutes from modern makers seems to show fairly tight cluster around an area of 98 or 99, and a roundness factor of 1.17.

			long	short	roundness	area
			
Riley			11.8	10.8	1.09		100
Peloubet		11.5	9.9	1.16		89
Peloubet 924		11.8	9.8	1.20		91
Firth Son & Co		11.8	10.3	1.15		95
Firth Hall Pond		11.4	10.25	1.11		92
William Hall		11.45	10.2	1.12		92
Firth Pond & Co		11.4	9.9	1.15		89
Klemm Bros		12.3	10	1.23		97
Pfaff (ivory)		12	10.1	1.19		95
Geib			12.3	10.4	1.18		100
Baack			11.5	10.5	1.10		95
Haynes			12.4	10.1	1.23		98
Meacham			11.7	10.2	1.15		94

I have a few other English flutes around, some of which are from a slightly later period, and they exhibit dimensions similar to modern elliptical embouchures. I’ve listed a few below.
All of this is anecdotal, of course, and there are all kinds of shapes and sizes used, but there does seem to be some clustering around distinct designs.

				long	short	roundness	area
Keith Prowse & Co		11.25	10	1.13		88
Clementi			11.9	10.7	1.11		100
Rudall Rose Carte		12.4	10.8	1.15		105

One thing you get from the large area is a louder flute. You also tend to require more air than a smaller area embouchure of the same shape, but I think the large round embouchures also encourage a playing style in which the lower lip covers part of the opening. I think the longer short axis actually gives more scope for adjusting the amount of lower lip overlap, and this seems to give a fairly wide range of control over intonation, tone, and breath requirements. I have been wondering whether part of the influence behind this design was to try to coax a wider range of pitch standards from a single flute, in the sense that by uncovering an embouchure like this you can significantly sharpen the pitch, especially for the notes vented higher up the bore. Conversely, the pitch can be pulled down by covering more, without choking off the volume. When used in conjunction with a tuning slide that is adjusted over a wide range, perhaps this is how the flute was made to work across several pitch standards.

I also feel that an embouchure with a shorter long axis, and hence tighter curve radius on the splitting side, probably gives the player a little more scope for nuance and expressiveness, but at the expense of being less forgiving due to a relatively smaller target area, especially compared to modern, elongated embouchures with a wide target area. But these are just impressions I have. I haven’t got all of the above flutes restored to the same playing standards, so it is difficult to do a fair comparison. I am thinking of making a few new heads to use with them though, and that might allow some more direct comparisons. But I’d really like to hear from those of you that have experience playing flutes with these rounder embouchures.

Thanks for the feedback!

5

I’m starting to wonder too, seeing that yours is almost identical to mine, and bearing in mind that mine was revoiced and has a repaired crack, which might have extended the short axis ever so slightly. I’d be curious to know how common these rounded embouchures were on R&R flutes.


I’m guessing your R&R is a medium-hole model? For me that means hole #4 is about 8mm. In my small experience, large-hole would be 9mm, and small-hole 7.5mm.

Yes, it’s also 8mm! Our flutes seem to be very similar, and their serial numbers are not that far apart. Very interesting, though perhaps not surprising :slight_smile:

6

I have experimented a lot with stopper positions on antique flutes, and I have yet to find one that plays very well with the stopper positioned anywhere close to one bore diameter back from the center of the embouchure hole. For me, they all play much better with the stopper pushed a few mm further back than that. I judge “better” by finding the best balance of intonation across the lower two octaves, not for a given pitch standard, but simply finding the positioning and pitch at which the flute is best in tune with itself.

Positioning the stopper this way also tends to greatly improve the low end. But since I don’t tend to play music that goes into the third octave, I have not studied the impact of my “optimal” stopper position on third octave notes. I do try to pay attention to the harmonic mix though, in the sense of listening to the tone, or flavor, of the notes and trying to match the sound I’m chasing in my minds ear, but I haven’t actually measured the relative weight of harmonics nor how that might be affected by stopped position. I think that might be something interesting to explore if I can find food tools to capture that information.

I also suspect that optimal stopper position will also be influenced somewhat by the player’s technique, embouchure and vocal tract shape.

7

Jonathon/Paddler
The Patent head flute has a tuning “knob” that is geared to move the “cork” in a pre-determined “optimal” way. If you want to change cork position to be different from the manufacturer’s design, you would need to physically add or subtract length. There is a thin metal plate at the bottom of the “cork”, and Jeff Denning thanked me profusely for not losing that plate.

This might give an idea as to how mid-19th C flute players were expected to shape their embouchure and position. A flute player that is naturally more flat or sharp than what the flute was designed for would probably need to make changes to their normal habits when coming to this flute.

Julien/Flutern
My R&R #4676 is a remarkably excellent player - one of the “magic” ones. It resonates easily with a wonderful tone, and it has minimal intonation issues. The slightly oval embouchure requires a bit better focus than the Irish flutes from modern makers I’ve tried.

What makes one flute more special than another? Why this particular flute? Is it the embouchure, the particular flute bore, or both?

8

Mr Rockstro gives us his typically domineering advice on this:

“For a concert flute, the length of the mouth-hole should be 0.5 inch, and its width .42 inch.”

That translates to 12.7 x 10.7mm; roundness 1.19; area 107.

Those figures seem larger than I’ve generally noted, but he’s probably talking flutes with the Boehm bore (even though he wouldn’t use that descriptor!)

He’s equally bombastic about the elliptical rather than “oblong” shape, coming up with this characteristically flowery statement in support:

“If we reflect for a moment on the fusiform aperture between the lips of the player, and the natural convexity of the lips themselves, it will be obvious that an edge concave towards the labial aperture, is better fitted to be intermediary between the excursions of the air-reed than a straight one.”

The biggest that I can immediately draw to mind is the Prattens at 12.35 x 10.8mm; roundness 1.14; area 105, very similar to your Rudall Rose Carte. My William Henry Potter is possibly the other extreme, round, 10.2 x 10.2, roundness 1, area 82.

9

I think that the arrival of the cylindrical bore Boehm flute drove (or was a symptom of) a period in which the main focus was to try to make flutes louder. This focus, I think, encouraged an increase in embouchure size, but only to a certain point.

Here are a couple of later examples of English flutes: a conical bore, Siccama style flute from Hawkes and Son, and a cylindrical bore Rudall Carte Radcliffe flute. Note that the overall size of the embouchures is very close to those of most modern makers, and still a little smaller than those early large round embouchures.

			long	short	ratio	area
Hawkes Siccama		12	10.6	113	100
Rudall Carte Radcliff	12.3	10.3	119	100



Yes, here I think he is referring to the kind of rectangular embouchures that were common on German flutes of the day. I have a couple of original HF Meyer flutes here in good condition. They have rectangular embouchures with very squared off corners. One is 11.3 x 10.5 mm. The other is 11.4 x 10 mm. The area of these embouchures is roughly 118 and 114 respectively. So, large, loud, and easy to play for a beginner.

The German flutes also sometimes had elliptical embouchures, but they too were often quite large, especially in their long axis, and hence presented a relatively straight blowing edge. For example, I have a GHS flute here that has an embouchure that is 12.75 x 9.8 which gives a ratio of 130 and an area of 98.

I have the impression that many modern maker’s embouchures are somewhere between the later generation English embouchures and these German embouchures, and that for the most part we have gone away from those early roundish embouchures of the golden period of English flutes … but with a few notable exceptions.

10

That is my favorite, the one I like to make with my flutes, usually it is 11.6mm x 10.5mm I call it the rounded oval. This embouchure was also used by American makers like Peloubet and Firth, Hall and Pond, besides, Wylde and other makers in England.

11

I’ve been pondering the other extreme, the rounded rectangle style, as seen on modern Boehms. I used to favour that myself, probably because I took some lessons on the Boehm back in the late sixties, and they rather stuffed me up for a while. So when I did sort out what went wrong and rediscovered my natural embouchure, I decided to take up the elliptical embouchure which was expected of our style of flutes. And that’s been fine, that’s still what’s on my own playing flute.

But I’ve recently had a run of customers specifying the Rounded Rectangle option, which of course means I get to play a lot more of that style while assembling, padding and testing their flutes. And finding that my natural embouchure approach - head turned dramatically in, a lot of the hole covered, and aiming the jet down the hole - yields a really strong and intense tone. Particularly interesting is a rounded rectangle embouchure on a small bore, small holed flute like the GLP. You can really crank them up.

Interesting to compare my three embouchure models using Paddler’s measurement approach, and then comparing those results with the flutes he’s been looking at.

Improved Elliptical, 12 x 10.5mm, area 99
Two semicircles, same dimensions, area 105
Rounded Rectangle, same dimensions, area 126

(I do hope I got those calculations right!)

As all three use the same dimensions, the roundness calculation yields the same figure, 1.14. Hmmm. The Rectangle definitely isn’t round!

And note, the Two Semicircles ends up only a bit bigger than the Elliptical, which is kind of born out in the playing. I might think about revisiting that to be more in the middle!

12

I’ve had a similar experience with rounded rectangle embouchures Terry. If you can play an elliptical or round embouchure, then you’ll generally have no problem getting a strong tone from a rectangular embouchure. The opposite does not seem to be the case though.

Also, those rectangular embouchures do seem to give access to very loud playing quite easily, whereas the smaller more rounded embouchures make it much more challenging. I think the area calculations give a clue to why that is the case. For a given set of long and short embouchure dimensions, the rectangular embouchure will have a much larger area than the round or elliptical one. I suspect we can agree that the following general principle holds: the larger the embouchure hole, the louder the flute. This principle seems to extend more broadly to tone holes too.

But louder flutes are not necessarily easier to play. So I think there is a second principle lurking in there somewhere which has to do with the radius of curvature of the splitting edge. As the radius of curvature of the splitting edge gets longer, it becomes easier to find the sweet spot for generating a robust tone, and the embouchure is more forgiving. A longer radius of curvature can be obtained either by elongating the long dimension of an elliptical embouchure, or by changing the shape to a rectangular form, or by taking a round embouchure and pushing the sides further apart, essentially inserting a rectangular section between the two sides of the circle. You can see examples of all of these shapes in antique and modern flutes, and I view them as attempts to make an embouchure that is louder and more forgiving.

But what I’m really interested in is what we sacrifice by doing this. One way of looking at the large, round, embouchures of the early-mid 1800s London flutes is that they are simply a louder version of the small, round, baroque embouchure (same shape, just bigger). You can see a similar trend in German and Austrian flutes, where the early rectangular embouchures of flutes by Koch were copied and gradually enlarged over the years. And you can even see this trend in the elliptical embouchures, where a late baroque flute such as a Palanca, already has an elliptical embouchure, but only sized 10.3 x 8.4. Over the years the same shape was used on many later flutes, but the size grew dramatically. I have a Palanca (copy, not original), and while its embouchure is more forgiving than the even smaller, round, baroque embouchures, it is nothing like playing our modern elliptical embouchures. In fact, its radius of curvature along its long edge is tighter than that of all the larger round embouchures I listed in the first post, and it takes a much more focused embouchure to play it.

Michael Lynn has published a nice data set and discussion on embouchure sizes and shapes here, with plenty of examples from earlier flutes:

https://www.originalflutes.com/links/embouchure-dimensions.html

It seems clear to me why there has been a search for both louder and more forgiving embouchures. But I am curious about the idea of a round embouchure that is both loud enough, and forgiving enough, but which affords some desirable properties in terms of tone or expressiveness that are lost when we relax the radius of curvature too much. My interest in this is driven, in part, by observations of my own playing preferences. I’ve generally enjoyed larger embouchures, but I’ve noticed that nowadays my preferences seem to be trending more and more towards those with a tighter radius of curvature. It has made me wonder whether this is a symptom of a steady improvement in my own embouchure, combined with a quest for a particular tone that exists in my minds ear and which perhaps got there by listening to past players who used rounder embouchures.

13

I have couple of questions:
(1) Is it important for the embouchure shape/size to “match” or be “tuned” to the bore and/or flute hole size? One of the first things flute players do when they meet is to swap their flute heads, e.g. Olwell head on a small-bore R&R.

(2) Is it better to learn on a rounder, smaller or more difficult embouchure? I get that a smaller or more circular flute embouchure will need a more focussed lip embouchure. This is a probably useful skill even if you are playing a flute with a bigger or more generous shape.

(3) Is a more circular embouchure hole better for playing in the third register? In my learning experience, the more I play in the third register the better, easier and louder my low notes sound.

14

I don’t know about shape, but size, yes. When a flute is made and tuned, the embouchure size and position contribute to the tuning, as do tone hole sizes and positions, and bore size and profile, among other factors. They all have to be balanced with each other. So if you start with a flute that has perfect tuning and swap out the head for one with a larger embouchure, you are likely to end up with a flute that plays sharp. If you then pull out the tuning slide to address the sharpness, that will affect the internal tuning since it won’t flatten all notes equally. On the other hand, if you start out with a flute that does not have perfect tuning, it is conceivable that you could swap out the head for one that has a smaller or larger embouchure hole and perhaps improve the tuning. But given the myriad of ways in which the tuning might be out, and the limited influence of a change in embouchure, it is unlikely that the change would be exactly what you need.

(2) Is it better to learn on a rounder, smaller or more difficult embouchure? I get that a smaller or more circular flute embouchure will need a more focussed lip embouchure. This is a probably useful skill even if you are playing a flute with a bigger or more generous shape.

If you succeed in learning to play well on a smaller embouchure you will likely have a more focussed lip embouchure and will have no problems playing a larger embouchure hole later, aside, perhaps, from lack of breath. But the downside, especially if you are a beginner, is that you may just get frustrated and lose interest early on, where a larger or more forgiving embouchure might have rewarded you early in such a way that you were encouraged, stuck at it, and ultimately learned to play better. And then later, perhaps, you might experiment with more challenging embouchure holes to search for the precise characteristics that interest you as a more advanced player. So, I’d say it depends.

This reminds me of the questions you frequently see from new flute players who want to know how they can play louder. Most of us have probably been there, but nowadays I’m more inclined to think that I should be worrying about playing better, not louder. And in fact, it would probably be better for everyone if those of us who can’t play well play quieter not louder! But that is a sales pitch for smaller embouchures that probably wouldn’t sell as many flutes.

(3) Is a more circular embouchure hole better for playing in the third register? In my learning experience, the more I play in the third register the better, easier and louder my low notes sound.

Maybe so. Baroque flutes generally have lovely, sweet, third register notes. But I don’t know if that is the roundness or just the small size of the embouchures, combined with the focussed lip embouchure that is required to play them.

15

Paddler talks about the “sweet spot” in a circular embouchure hole. And we pour all our air down that protruding bit of hole.

Presumably that becomes a “sweet strip” in a more rectangular hole. And presumably we fan out our air to play over its longer available space.

But then I think of the tin whistle, where the “edge” is about 8mm wide! It would be interesting to make or experience a “less-rounded-corners” rectangular hole with say an 8mm straight bit to see if we gain anything further, or start to lose because perhaps we can’t service an 8mm wide strip, and it just includes too much waste space? Anyone got one they can try and report back on?

Eeek, I just realised I misquoted my Rounded Rectangle area earlier. To revise and add one with an 8mm straight edge:

Improved Elliptical, 12 x 10.5mm, area 99
Two semicircles (2mm straight section), same dimensions, area 105
Rounded Rectangle (4mm radius corners, 4mm straight section), same dimensions, area 112 (not 126!)
…and…
Slightly Rounded Rectangle (2mm radius corners, 8mm straight section), same dimensions, area 123.

16

What you describe sounds quite close to the rectangular embouchure hole of my original HF Meyer flute, pictured below. The long axis of this embouchure hole is 11.4 mm, so the relatively straight portion of the embouchure edge is probably quite close to 8mm.

This flute plays very well. There isn’t really a problem of losing because we can’t service the wide strip. In fact, I don’t think you need to service the whole strip. You could probably hit any portion of it and still get a nice tone. But it does have a subtly different tone to those early English flutes with the rounder embouchure. But of course, it also has a different bore, tone hole matrix, etc.

It is a lovely flute, just different in both voice and playing experience. I don’t think I could really put into words precisely how it differs though. It is very payable, forgiving, loud, etc, but does it have that characteristic sound you are chasing that initially only exists in your mind’s ear? For me, not quite. But we are certainly well within the realm of subjective preferences. I wouldn’t claim that there is anything wrong with this flute. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is a design that inspired more copies than any other flute in history, probably by several orders of magnitude. It’ll certainly work for ITM, but it isn’t quite what I prefer for ITM.

17

To what extent (if any), when we adjust our embouchure to change pitch and/or tone and/or volume, are we shifting the jet relative to the sides of the hole? Either keeping it centred (if it is) but changing the “spread” or using the shape of the cut nearer one or other of the sides?

18

Good question David, and I don’t really have an answer, but I think it may help if we view the air jet that we direct across the embouchure as a kind of reed. We certainly do change the speed, direction and thickness (height and width) of that jet as we search for different effects. And the embouchure hole of the flute influences the distance that the air travels, which is essentially the length of the air reed. All of these factors likely affect the way the air reed influences and responds to the various frequencies of vibration that are established within the bore of the flute, and hence likely influences both the tuning and the relative weights of harmonics within each note produced.

When you look at an instrument such as the Uilleann pipes, which has physical reeds that you can manipulate with your fingers, you find that even slight adjustments to the reed can have profound effects on the tone and tuning, without changing anything about the bore or tone holes. It seems surprising at first, because as flute players we often tend to talk about tone hole size and spacing as the main determinants of tuning, only occasionally admitting to the influence of bore profile and other design aspects. But if you think about it, it is very obvious that our own manipulation of the air reed has very dramatic influence on tuning and harmonics. For example, an accomplished flute player can easily lip a note up or down over a range of a semitone if they put their mind to it, by doing nothing more than adjusting their embouchure. And, of course, we can switch octaves and harmonics the same way.

19

This is reminding me of a Glenn Schultz made headjoint that was passed back and forth between two excellent players here in Chicago many years back. I don’t know where it actually resides and haven’t seen it for years. But it was visually a circle within an ivory insert. It was before the Ivory ban so I assume it was genuine Ivory. I am thinking the embouchure itself was pretty large, larger than most I’ve seen. They each played it on their own flutes, one on an antique Rudall and the other a lefty Olwell. It added volume to each flute for sure.

20

“Big round” is actually two topics, of “Big” and “round”. I am always seeking the most responsive, most efficient instrument,
I want it converting all the air to sound. I’d therefore suspect that the more that far edge of the tone hole is that collides with the
air stream is flat-faced and running parallel to the length of the flute tube, that as much of the air as possible is turning into clear
sound. If the hole is round or oval, it’s bound to have some of that far surface being the sweet spot where sound is being produced efficiently,
and then as you go towards the left and right from there, the air is going to be wasted at a rapidly higher and higher % going towards
the limits left and right, as the surface bends away and redirects the air into ways that just confuse the purpose or waste it altogether.
Perhaps, and likely, some of that air becomes chiff or breathiness or a raspiness, but it’s not musical.

That seems like a hell of a waste of space, maybe 40% of the area the air stream hits is wasted, since we’re dealing with such a small distance to start with,
in all flutes and whistles, apart from calliopes and pipe organs. But flute tone holes aught to be as close to 100% efficient at
converting air to intended sound.

If your experience in this is also a big concern, write some flute makers with the idea and see if you get any responses back. I once wrote about
five flute makers who made quality head joints, with my concern about the concert flute lip plate causing a wind noise on the far side, as the
air stream always collided with it on the far side of the sound hole, because it was simply rounded and remained high, instead of being bent down out of the way. So, one of the flute makers
soon came out with a new lip plate design that had that far side of the lip plate pressed down so the air stream would flow out into space rather
than strike a surface and make that windy noise all the time. Manufacturers obsessed with their latest Mercedes who don’t give a hoot about such things, will not respond. If you
get the cold mechanical corporate response of silence, don’t be surprised. But also send your comments to some top flute players. They might respond back
to you, and forward your concerns to flute makers. It would be good to see posted here, the names of companies and flute players who participate in innovation
and are showing connection to the concerns of flute players.