Boxwood vs. Blackwood

Irish Flute
101

Quite so. Light waves travel through the luminous ether in exactly the same way sound waves travel through the air.

Quite so. They haven’t taken into account that the refractive index of luminous ether varies in inverse square proportion to barometric pressure, provided temperature remains the same.

Sorry Chas, but you ‘chimed in’ as a physicist, but then proceeded to claim that chalk isn’t that dissimilar to cheese, followed by speculation and anecdote. That’s not really very scientific.

If ‘most’ is acceptable, why isn’t ‘all’?

As I’ve mentioned to Jim before, if differing materials had unique and discernable affects on flute tone then, as Bart alluded to earlier, it should be perfectly possible to listen to every track on each of the WFO CDs (for example) and identify each flute by its material, because regardless of player, that unique and discernable effect would be impressed on the player’s tone by the material of their flute.

Would you expect someone who’s only been playing flute for 1 week to sound significantly different on an Olwell made from Blackwood than on an Olwell made from Boxwood? If not, why not? Surely the one wood would make the beginner sound “hard and dark but chuddy”, but the other would make him sound “rich and creamy but chuddy” or whatever discernable tonal characterists are unique to each wood?

To borrow some words from Hugh: I couldn’t help noticing here a discrete silence from the actual non-physicists among us when Bart suggested his excellent experiment back on page 6.

102

You’ve read a lot more into what I said than I intended. One thing that I didn’t say that I should have was that I was thinking of reflection from surfaces. In both cases you have a set of equations and boundary conditions that must be solved and satisfied. If you can point me to a full 3D solution of the Helmholtz equation in a flute taking into account roughness of the tube (both correlated and uncorrelated), condensation, depth gradient of the moisture content of the wood, . . . I’ll be satisfied that the problem has been solved.

I am not taking sides in the debate, nor did I intend anectodal observations to be taken as scientific. The only scientific thing I wanted to point out is that it’s a really hard problem to address mathematically and that the experiments that have been presented are far from perfect.

103

Mary, repeat after me:
I LOVE BOXWOOD
I LOVE BOXWOOD
I LOVE BOXWOOD
MY LOVE FOR BLACKWOOD IS NOT GREATER THEN MY LOVE FOR BOXWOOD

look Mary, really think about it, if Blackwood is so great, God would have told us to use it as Christmas trees, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO he told us to use WHITEWOOD yes WHITEWOOD !!!
MARY - DEAL WITH IT !!! DEAL WITH IT !!!
GOAWD !! :swear:

eilam :party:

104

Interesting thought. It reminds of one time I got my sterling silver Muramatsu repaired and the flutemaker got ill. I got my flute back seven months later. In the mean time I had to play on the standard silverplated Yamaha, with closed holes.

I had to get used to it for a week and then I sounded just like before. After I got my own flute back it was the same story, after a week I sounded like myself again.

Rampal had two Haynes flutes and a Louis Lot, Galway has more than one flute as well, who can hear on which one they are playing on their records?

So time for this weeks question: would Harry Bradly be able to produce the same harsh tone on a boxwood flute?

Bart

105

Did you not read my earlier post? I have done this, and I was able to distinguish between flutes from the same maker, that were made of different materials.


Yes, I agree that a good way to test if (some) people are able to tell the difference in sound color between “identical” flutes made from different materials is to do blind testing - an open room, sans curtain, with the listener sitting back turned. A recording booth would not be a good place to do this as they tend to nullify differences between instruments, rather than accentuate them, which is one thing that affects how recorded instruments sound.


The most important points, I believe, would be as follows:


The flutes would need to be of the same make and model, and made within a short time of one another.

The player would have to be someone with a strong, consistent embouchure, who could play both the “clean” and “dirty” tone equally well.

Tunes, both familiar and unfamiliar, in addition to tones/scales would need to be played - Single tones, or even scales, seem more difficult to use when trying to distinguish the “sounds” of different materials, part of this, I believe, has to do with “response” which goes back to reflectivity within the bore. At any rate, I believe you’d find people “Hear” much more when complete music is being played, as opposed to simple tones, or scales.

The player should not be biased towards the outcome of the experiment (perhaps the most difficult requirement to achieve!)

Finally, The listeners would have to be folks with “Good Ears” - the exceptional ability to distinguish “sound colors”. I strongly believe that plenty of people simply can’t hear any difference detween materials, which could be due to genetics (some people have a more sensitive sense of smell than others, some stronger eyesight, why should audio perception be any different?) or it could be an issue of training (formal or informal), or perhaps other issues are at play, but certainly some folks are more sensitive to these things than others. I have absolutely no doubt that if you use a room full of professional symphony players, and a room full of accountants for this experiment, the two groups will turn in very different results.





Loren

106

do sound waves travel more in sync in a curly boxwood flute?

BTW - boxwood rules !!!

107

That’s the problem with the written media. There’s also the risk of people attaching ‘authority’ to a post when it’s written by a ‘physicist’. Most people, I would suggest, are unaware of the difference between transverse and compression waves, and from your last post could go away with the impression that sound bounces around inside a flute exactly like a laser beam would bounce around in a mirrored tube. Just because in both cases you have ‘a set of equations that must be solved and satisfied’ doesn’t make light and sound so very similar that they can be treated as one and the same thing, any more than chalk and cheese are pretty much identical simply because both are solids whose ability to bounce off a hard surface can be expressed by a set of equations.

Agreed, especially so since I’m complete chud when it comes to maths.

I do find Coltman’s experiments fascinating, and his conclusions interesting, since he seems to have demonstrated what he set out to prove: that the material and wall thickness of the body of a flute has no measurable effect on a flute’s tone.

What he didn’t do, and I don’t know why, is take the experiment that one step further. While he demonstrated what he set out to demonstrate, (using identical headjoints but differing body materials), the next logical step would have been to conduct a similar experiment using identical flute bodies but headjoints of different materials. And then identical flutes of different materials.

Perhaps he realised that such an experiment would be prone to accusations, from one camp or the other depending on results, that it would be physically impossible to produce such identical headjoints, particularly with the equipment he had available at the time.

108

So true. When I was a student, a fellow student tried a Haynes flute. Three students and a teacher sat backwards and I was playing four flutes for quite some time: my own Muramatsu, another M., my teachers Phillip Hammig and the new Haynes.
I had never played on a Hammig before since I didn’t like the looks of these instrument, too heavy, too much metal.

Results: 1. My own flute. 2. The other M. 3. Hammig and 4. Haynes

I thought I tried to be impartial but proved not to be. When others did the same job the results were very different.

Bart

109

Of course the results were different, when others played on the different flutes.


What I should have added is that the player for the test should be quite familiar (used to) playing the make, model, and embouchure cut of the instrument as possible (if we’re using transverse flutes, rather than fipple flutes.), as one would have comfortable and proficient on the make and model being used for the test.




Loren

110

my credentials: i won a science project in the 4th grade.

wfo cd’s are way too variable in recording arrangements, flutes and blowing styles etc. if any differences are to be heard, it would only be “gross” differences.

coltman proved it s possible to make flutes sound alike under a set of given conditions (essentially playing one note). anyone flute player can repeat that result fairly easy. not rocket science. could he prove that you also make flutes sound different too? and just how different? these differences would have to be explored to their limits to uncover “finer” differences that make blackwood or boxwood flute do something which is out of the realm of possibilities (realistically) or out of the “norm” (first “norm” would have to be established) of the other. maybe it is finding the exact frequency, trasnition phrase, temperature, moisture content, bore diameter etc. that makes one type of wood uniquely different. for a listener to evaluate, they would have to have an intimate knowledge of playing, biases, blowing idiocyncracies etc, and have acute tonal awareness etc. quite a task. and it still won’t change bart’s ‘sentimental psyche’ factor which is the final judge.

edit: we are more emotional than logical

111

Who’d know? It’s not like he’d ever stop and ask for directions. :smiling_imp:

112

Oh dear. Rather rules out any scientific analyses of the sounds produced. Guess we’ll just have to rely on our own ears then, and hope that the ‘witnesses’ to the live test aren’t composed entirely of genetically-superior super-lugs.

113

Well, I do think that sound analysis is the wrong way to go about it. Let’s first determine if humans have the ability to actually hear differences, then go about determining what they are hearing. One rarely finds what one isn’t looking for…


Loren

114

That would be a good question for Harry, although I suspect he’s about fed up with this stuff. :wink:

My guess would be yes, Harry would still sound mostly like Harry. Although Harry being the great flute player he is, he would probably work to push whatever flute he was playing to reveal its best characteristics – i.e., if he played my boxwood Murray for six months, he might pick tunes and styles that would highlight that flute’s essential sweetness (although he’d still sound like Harry Bradley on a Murray, just maybe a bit prettier)(not that Harry isn’t pretty already :wink:).

But of course, that’s wild conjecture on my part. (Then again, what isn’t!?)

I think the bottom-line “sound” of a flute is solely attributable to its maker’s unique formula – to use a metaphor, it’s the essential “tune” if you will. From there, the wood type is a nifty setting or variation. Example: For years I’ve been pretty good at telling an Olwell from across a crowded session (hey! it’s the one that drowns out the banjos! :laughing:); doesn’t matter what kind of wood it’s made out of. The Fabulous Boxwood Olwell drowns out banjos too – but to my ear, does it in just the slightest bit warmer, more diffuse way.

Which brings me back to my original point (and comparison exercise/observations) in response to the original question: overall, both my Murrays sound and play like Murrays, there’s just a slightly different feel and tone color to them. It makes a difference to me the player and influences my choices, but that’s just a personal thing.

Now on to Jimmy G …

Didn’t someone recently mention that he recorded himself playing both his gold – what does he have now? Miyazawas? – and couldn’t tell the difference on playback? However, he said WHILE HE’S PLAYING THEM, they feel & sound totally different from one another under his ear.

Oh no, here comes the perception-reality question again … :wink:

XO,
cat.

P.S. This reminds me of the endless Jesuit discussions we used to have about Haynes v. Powell – not like any of us could afford either!

115

Park’s First Law: No matter how wacky an idea, there exists a journalist who can find a PhD physicist who concurs with it wholeheartedly. :laughing: I really don’t understand why people in general somehow think physicists are smarter or more reliable than anyone else. Maybe it goes back to the days when physics was “natural philosophy”, or maybe it’s just because of people like Einstein and Feynman who really WERE smarter.

When it comes to flutes I’m with you 100% and glad it is that way.

116

As far as I know they are Muramatsus, I’ve proved to be wrong every now and then, so don’t nail me.

rama’s right, we are more emotional than logical.

Maybe that’s not too bad. :slight_smile:

Bart

117

I believe Galway’s got a Miyazawa now, I think there was an ad for them featuring him in an issue of Flute Talk (which I wouldn’t get ordinarily, but someone gave me a subscription…). It’s also had a surprising number of articles about non-classical stuff lately. a recent issue had an article about playing 8-key flutes and earlier this fall the cover musician featured was Chris Norman.

Sara

118

Boy, hmm girl, is he not? :sunglasses:


Same overhere…I think the Haynes came out worst on the test because I was jealous, that student I mentioned got money from a heritage, she was the only one to leave the conservatory with such a flute.

Sorry for being ignorant, what is XO?

Bart

119

It’s interesting to note that Haynes appears to no longer be a U.S. owned company - the current owners seem to be a chinese company, Eastman Strings…

Sound familiar, RH. ?




Loren

120

Cat is world wide known as “tick-tack-to queen”, every one knows that !!