I’m not pretending this is serious, but since it’s a perennial topic of debate, here’s an experimental exploration of the sounds of mid C19th flutes conventionally supposed to have very different characters to each other - please read the full blurb on YT.
https://youtu.be/s7eahp4Pj40
Well, really I just played 'em how I play. 
Interested in (on-topic on sound) observations/reactions.
(I deliberately chose a tune which explores more of he tessitura than is normal for ITM.)
Hi Jem
Enjoyed the mazurka.
As to the flute sounds, I liked flute 2 the best, then flute 3 and flute 1 the least. Subjectively I liked the upper and lower octave tone better on the Rudal Rose, it sounded richer. That may be down to your greater familiarity with the flute.
David
The flutes sound like I’d expect in a way. High notes sound better on the French flute. Low notes sound firmer on the Pratten and the more balanced flute is the Rudall.
That’s what I “expected” to hear I suppose though.
I don’t have loads of flutes kicking about these days but when I did I would sit with a few and say pick up the French flute I had to play a tune that had loads of high notes.
Hi Jem,
The mazurka sounds like it was composed for the French flute. I like the sound of the R&R, but in my opinion the composition favours #3 
Regards,
Peter
Thanks for commenting, guys!
Peter Otto - tune was composed on the French flute as well as “for” it. 
More comments welcome!
the second sounded best to me.
I liked the first. This is fun!
Perhaps a bit more analytical commentary than just stating which one you prefer? I didn’t intend a poll/beauty contest! 
Is it a fair comparison? Did the Rudall and Rose not have the advantage of a Wilkes head joint, making it a non original performer!
You should really get Chris to make head joints for the other two and then compare.
Just being awkward!
The Boosey Pratten has a Wilkes embouchure bushing!
It is hard to say positive things about flute acoustics, since we often don’t have enough vocabulary and reach for metaphors. I thought the Boosey’s sound solid, robust, deep and more interesting, FWIW. It is also interesting to consider the contribution Wilkes’ has made to this.
Thanks, Jim.
Okay, I’ll give it a try too, with the extra handicap of not being a native speaker 
I agree with Jim about the robust sound of the Boosey, but I prefer the less powerfull, more balanced and agile sound of the R&R. And I absolutely love the delicate high notes and transparancy of the French flute.
Tidy job, Peter. Thanks.
The task you have set for us is difficult, and I would be very interested to hear your own assessment/comparison of the three flutes as that will undoubtedly be richer and more accurate than ours. Here is mine:
1: bottom notes have a nice ‘edge’ which, interestingly is higher-pitched (or has a higher-pitched component than 2; upper parts of bottom octave fine; higher notes all right but harsher than 2; overall a very fine flute.
2: notes in bottom octave have a nice, warm buzz; higher notes best of all three flutes; overall the evenest-sounding flute, and also very fine.
3: no part outstanding; bottom notes not rich (except for the very last note!); upper notes acceptable but not better than the other two flutes; still, the more I listen to this version the more pleasant it sounds. No where near as bad as when I first listened to it.
It would be nice to hear one of Jean-Michel Veillon, Anna Besson or Matt Molloy play on each of the flutes. Perhaps someday you’ll be able to do that.
Thanks, cac, and thanks for your e-mail. A thoughtful, thorough response. I’m not making any evaluative comments myself, nor passing on ones I’ve received elsewhere, at least for now. I don’t want to skew responses here beyond what reading other folks’ posts here already does.
I don’t have much to say that hasn’t already been noted, i.e., the Pratten has a great bottom end; the Rudall is well balanced; and the French flute has a weak bottom but very nice upper register. Having said that, I am wondering if the Rudall (given that the head was made by Wilkes) has an unlined head, whereas the Pratten and the French are both probably lined. If so what we are hearing may be an artifact of the heads or even an acquired bias for the sound of an unlined head. Just wondering…
John
Thanks, John. I think that response calls for some more information - something I didn’t mention in the YT blurb but would have had I thought to. Both the Pratten and the R&R have fully metal-lined heads - the Wilkes head for the R&R is lined, as is it’s own original Patent Head, of course (not used). The Besson “Perfectionnée” is unlined: that is, as it has an integral tuning slide, it is lined only so far as needed to secure the inner metal tube of the tuning slide structure into the wooden tube. Some would term that “part-lined”, but I consider that a misnomer/poor choice of description as there is no intention whatever to line the head and the makers wouldn’t, I believe, have thought of it as a “lining”. I am not in any case a believer in the idea that there is a significant or consistent difference in sound or response character between lined and unlined heads. I certainly don’t notice it as a player.
I’ll also add at this stage that some of the things folk are commenting on I would attribute to player deficiencies and/or the quick swap without having been practising on each flute situation of the video, rather than thinking of them as intrinsic to the individual flutes. For example, the Besson has a stronger low end than I managed to show; the Pratten is not at all difficult to get sweet and easy high notes out of, but its very large holes require greater accuracy to seal than I achieved; I can play the R&R more richly and resonantly and with better intonation than I managed there. If I played them a lot/prepared better on them and did separate recordings after playing myself in to each one, I think the results might be a bit different. That said, I do recognise a lot of what folk are observing.