What Loren said.
About scientific studies–these are studies done by scientists
using scientific method and published in reputable places
like peer reviewed scientific journals. Such studies are
often mistaken–there is a flaw in the experimental design,
it turns out, so that some factor was discounted that
was affecting the outcome–or some of the conclusions drawn aren’t
warranted by the findings. Often the results aren’t reproducible,
which is why one doesn’t proceed confidentally on the
basis of a single study. Consequently when somebody says
‘A scientific study shows…’ a healthy skepticism is in order,
as well as ‘scientific studies show…’ One really does
need to look at the study or the studies.
This isn’t to pooh-pooh or dismiss science. It is simply to
acknowledge the fact that science is difficult and fallible,
and sincere
efforts even by careful and intelligent people can and
sometimes do go wrong. I think this skepticism is especially in order
when we are dealing with matters that involve a subjective
component, e.g. how instruments sound, whether
various materials have discernible tonal differences.
This isn’t a battle between subjectivists and scientists, therefore.
I consider myself a sort of scientist and my antenna do pop up
when somebody writes: ‘Scientific studies show…’ People who
think this is anti-science perhaps don’t understand science.
As I see it, the situation is like this:
Many of us believe that different materials, at least some of them,
affect the sound of wind instruments–all other things being equal.
They tend to have a characteristic sound. As I experience
this pretty consistently, it seems to me, and plenty of others
do too, including a number of highly respected flute and
whistle makers,
it’s not unreasonable to suppose there is something to
this.
The difficulty is that we cannot give, to my knowledge,
a plausible account of HOW the material makes the tonal
difference. The leading theories, e.g. the material makes
a difference to the bore smoothness, don’t work very well,
as we’ve just seen in the case of boxwood.
I’m convinced material is implicated in some other way,
even that it might somehow vibrate–though I appreciate
why this is considered pretty much a long shot.
So there is a sufficiently widespread subjective impression from
a good number of experienced people
that materials tend to make a characteristic difference to sound, to make it plausible that they do. But no account
so far as to how.
Then somebody says ‘A scientific experiment shows otherwise’
and those who are skeptical are sometimes dismissed
as anti-scientific romantics, unfairly I think.
It’s a puzzling situation. But in it i tend to trust my own impressions
about the matter
and the impressions of those I respect, e.g. Mike Copeland says on his site that
nickle is louder and brighter, brass is warmer–my experience
too.
Material often colours sound, I believe, but I don’t know how.
(although I’m getting to the point where I don’t question such oddity anymore)
