Byrne and McGee Rudall copies

Irish Flute
1

I’ve had the chance to play a Bryan Byrne and a Terry McGee copy of a medium-holed Rudall side by side. While I am new to Irish flutes, I have played the baroque flute for 15 years, so am used to wooden flutes.

The Byrne was made in '98, the McGee was new. The Byrne has a fully lined head, and was noticeably heavier to hold than the McGee, which has a partially lined head. The Byrne had a slightly smaller outside diameter, but both flutes looked slender and elegant. The Bryne has smoothed finger holes, the McGee doesn’t. Neither flute had a significant amount of undercutting, but the McGee had more on the right hand holes. Hole sizes and positioning were very similar, but they weren’t identical. Overall, fit and finish on both flutes were better than my baroque flutes, bought in the early to mid 90’s.

The Byrne has a standard elliptical embouchure, whereas the McGee had a modern embouchure. Many of the differences pointed out below may reflect the difference in the embouchure, so the comparision below might have been different if both flutes had the same embouchure.

I found both flutes economical on air, and to be much louder than my baroque flutes, but not loud in an absolute sense. The McGee was more free blowing, and the Byrne had more resistance-a more focussed airstream was needed to make it sing.

Both had good tuning as measured on an electronic tuner, and could be easily played perfectly in tune with minor adjustments, but the McGee was better. The McGee also had more uniform tone on each note than the Byrne (fewer closed sounding notes), and the notes at the extremes of the range were easier to get. Both played to the A in the 3rd octave using standard fingerings. It took me a while to find the most in tune fingering for C#, c and c# on the Byrne. I am still looking for the bottom D on the Byrne, although I get it occasionally, and once I really nailed it, and it was impressive.

I found I could get a wider variation of tone colour on the Byrne, from creamy and round to focused and reedy. I found its basic tone to have an excellent centre, clear, and penetrating, and one had to work a little to get edge. The basic tone of the McGee was warmer, had more edge, and less centre, and I found it harder to get reedier sounds, and really focussed sounds. My wife (no musical training, doesn’t play or sing) preferred the sound of the McGee, commenting on its warmth and woodier sound. I found it easier to get chiff, honk, and emphasis, and to make the tune swing on the Byrne.

I am not very good at playing rolls and other ornaments yet, but nevertheless found the Byrne to be more nimble and agile than the McGee.

In summary, I found the McGee to be play more uniformly, like a modern instrument, but it took me longer to figure out how to make it play its best, and I expect it would take me a while to get more varied tone colours. I am sure they are there, but I didn’t find them as easily. I found that the Byrne is more like a baroque flute, but more responsive, and I was making it sing and get very different tone colours in a few minutes.

Of course, everything above is one person’s experience. YMMV. I am sure that I am far from getting the best out of either flute. No one reading this should assume that my comments are authoritative.

Hugh

2

Very informative reviews - thanks!

3

I think I have heard that Bryan Byrne has tweaked his design a bit lately.

I think it results in a bit more strength of volume, among maybe other things.

My Byrne flute certainly has a great low D.

Practice and a bit more relaxed emboucher is how I get it reliably.

FWIW

M

The McGee flute I tried was :boggle: :astonished: :boggle: :astonished: great!

4

I think it can take awhile to actually play the Byrne,
not a flute that wears its heart on its sleeve.
Also, as Mary noted, Bryan’s present flutes
are different in various ways meant to affect
the tone, from those he made 7 years ago.

5

Interestingly, that’s pretty much my experience between a McGee Pratten and two Murrays about one year in. The McGee is wonderful, absolutely rock-solid, but it’s taken more work to get the character I like out of it (and I’m still working at it!) – but the Murrays were pretty much spot-on for my taste right out of the box.

That said, the McGee is still the workhorse of the family, partially because it can sound decent even when played badly or under adverse conditions.

Thanks, Hugh! Very well thought-out. Sounds like I’d like Byrnes, too!
Ooooohhhhh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO …! :boggle:

6

That was pretty much my experience with the Noy flute that I had on loan for a week earlier this year. The modern-cut headjoint to me seemed more round and powerful, the Rudall-cut, woodier and more capable of different colors of tone. This was two headjoints on a single body.

Very nice review and comments, it’s a very nice way to (more or less) introduce yourself to the board!

7

This is a very interesting discussion of modern vs. elliptical embouchure. Does anyone think it is worthwhile ordering two headjoints for a flute with each type of embouchure?

8

Well, I do have two flutes w/ interchangable headjoints (and about 150 yars’ difference) and its lots of fun to play each w/ the others head…modern vs eliptical…shows how much (lots) difference they make !

9

I haven’t done what the previous poster has, namely tried the same flute with two different head joints. It didn’t occur to me to just try switching head joints on the two flutes. I am a scientist by trade, and my comparison had at least three variables: lined versus unlined head, broken-in flute vs new flute, modern embouchure vs elliptical. So I am confident that the differences I discerned are real, but I can’t say which of these variables contributed the most. By contrast, the previous poster did a fair comparison.

I was coming from playing baroque flutes which have small finger holes, a small round embouchure, and relatively narrow conical bores, and thus don’t take much air. I thought that the modern embouchure would be more economical of air and easier to adapt to than going to an elliptical embouchure straight off. In practice, it was easier for me to get a uniform sound from the modern embouchure, so I’d call it more forgiving. I found I preferred the sound from the elliptical embouchure, even though the quality of the sound was less uniform, and therefore less forgiving.

In my discussions with Terry before ordering the flute, he called the modern embouchure “brighter” and the elliptical embouchure “darker”. If an experienced maker thinks diferent embouchures make a difference, then that’s enough for me.

As to your question about getting two joints, I’d try to discover my preference first, order that, and then if necessary, send the head back for exchange. Of course, then you have a headless flute for a while… I dealt with Terry, and it might well be worth asking him (or any other maker who offers different heads) if they would be willing to send two heads on approval, on the understanding that you would send one back. The mailing/insurance/adminstrative costs required by the flutemaker for doing this might well be worth paying for the sake of making a fair comparison, and getting the head you want.

Hugh

10

This is a bit of a tangent. :smiley:

But something I am currently pondering.

I just acquired a used Copley and am fairly enamourated with the flute. But, I long for a darker woodier tone. Hence, I contacted Mr. Copley in regards to acquiring a different head for my flute. He was exceedingly prompt and curious in his most accommodating response.

He is willing to make any of the following:

  1. A partially lined head (with tuning slide) for $260. {I assume this is the head only and would use my existing barrel.}

  2. A completely wooden head for $200.

  3. Or make an all wood flute for $580. {Presumably in Blackwood, I don’t know if it includes rings.}

Has anyone else done a switch heads comparison of: Fully Lined vs. Partially Lined vs. All Wood?

I expect a darker tone (this is good), but also suspect that I will loose some response (not good). Anyone have any experience with this?

If I proceed with acquiring a new head, does anyone need my old fully lined one?

Thanks in advance for any input!

Keep Makin Music!

Jordan

11

I’m not sure what you mean by a dark sound, Jordan – the way I usually hear it used is describing the sound of blackwood flutes, usually with lined heads. I’ve certainly heard Dave Copley’s flutes, almost all of which (AFAIK) have lined heads, described as dark.

The thing I can’t stand about lined heads is the weight, although I’m not crazy about the more focused sound either. Grinter, Olwell, Copley, all heavy and IMO lacking a certain something that’s there with unlined heads. I do have a nach Meyer that’s not incredibly heavy. And the M&E not only has the lined head, but is also made from Delrin; I dunno the density but it must be at least 1.5.

I thought I could do a direct comparison of my Olwell all-wood head and partially lined, but the sockets are very different in diameter. I don’t think there’s a large systematic difference between all-wood and unlined, though; not as there is between lined and partially lined.

12

Hey Chas,

I don’t know if the wording is clear, all wood = unlined. The “all wood” is the nomenclature used by Mr. Copley.

I guess captivating would be the best word to describe playing the Copley. It has such a broad palette of tone and effect. This is what I fear loosing if I should switch to an unlined head.

It gets so hard to describe tone and sound, very subjective. But I’m looking for the antithesis of a silver boehm flute. Something between an Oboe and a French Horn might be good, but a Clarinet is right out! I want a wooden flute that effervesces a deep dark and reedy tone. Maybe I should get a one of Casey’s Rudalls in low A (but C#, fingered as G#, would be a killer, without a key).

Currently I’m looking for small to medium holed Rudalls. I almost passed on the Copley, because I knew the head was fully lined. But I consider it to have medium size holes and I have heard so much positive feedback from other owners. I’m definately glad to have the opportunity to play such a capable instrument. There is a great deal to be learned form it’s broad range of tone and effect.

Perhaps I’ve digreesed to far.

Keep Makin Music!

Jordan

13

Don’t know if this will help, but acousticlly “dark” and “bright” are often used in regard to the cutoff frequency of the instrument…ie how many partials (overtones, harmonics) it will allow…the “silver” flute is very bright.

The design of the body of the flute (esp. toneholes) controls most of this (all notes may or may not be of equal “darkness/brightness”)

With regard to the head, the area most sensitive to a uniform change is where the tuning slide is…so I would guess the biggest difference between “all wood” and "tuning slide (fully or partially lined)

Jack

Edit:…don’t forget the cork face ! (like I just did)

14

It certainly sounds as though an unlined or partly lined head
will probably get you a different sound in the
direction you want.

I find that a lined head cuts through other instruments
better, it articulates more crisply, than the all wood
flutes I have. But the latter do sound different,
and ‘more woody, less bright’ fits. I’d keep both heads.

15

Oops I mixed up nomenclature. I used unlined and partially lined to mean the same thing; in “all-wood and unlined” would mean “all-wood and partially lined.”

Oh, and I agree with Jim – have Dave make an all-wood head or a partially lined head. It may have exactly the sound you’re looking for.

16

I think you’ve got it backwards. . .

Here are the parallel fingerings. First letter = D flute, second letter = A flute.

OOOOOO = C# (D), G# (A)
OXXOOO = C, G
XOOOOO = B, F#
XXOOOO = A, E
XXXOOO = G, D
XXXXOO = F#, C#
XXXXXO = E, B
XXXXXX = D, A

So, C# (on the A) is fingered like F# (On the D). Not a problem.

The only note that you get on a D that’s missing on an A flute is C natural. The key needed for Cnat (on a A flute) looks like the Fnat key (On a D-flute)

17

I think you are right Wormdiet!

The whole process of transposing A-D leaves me feeling as if I were citcelsd (I mean Dyslectic). :boggle:

Any how the cross fingering that aways seems difficult to make work right is G# on an Irish Flute in D.

18

I have an A flute on order at the moment, so I wanted to make absolutely sure that you weren’t right :wink: