Flute Tone Investigations

I’m opening a new series of discussions on my web page on the complex topic of flute tone. So far just an introduction with a host of new pages to follow. But I think the introduction itself is worth a look, as it draws our attention to some good work done a few years back on the vexed question of the effect of materials on metal flute tone. I’ve summarised it in terms we have talked about before, “it’s the player, stupid” - I think the work elegantly proves what we already knew.

But I go on to show that this ought to be the end of the discussion in terms of metal Boehm flutes, there are plenty of reasons to believe it is only the starting point for our investigations. So, check out the intro and prepare for the ride…

http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/FluteTone-Intro.htm

Terry

Terry,
“…a new series of discussions…” or, more correctly, “a new can of worms” on a very important topic. Let the fun begin. :open_mouth:
Paul

Quote:
“What we cannot measure, we do not know”.

I do not subscribe to this as a general philosophy, but I would welcome basic quantitative investigations into the characteristics of flute tone.

I imagine to have some success in this one would need an artificial mouth and air delivery system, so the influence of mouth shapes and air speed and volume can be measured, and different flutes can be compared objectively, even if that may be a bit crude for a start, and may miss out on some subtleties of tone production employed by a player.

Not sure I want to dive into this can of worms but I have to say that I disagree with the statement that a 0.5dB difference is inaudible (from personal experience)
And figure 5 of the paper shows a 1.5dB difference in dynamic range which they dismiss and try to suggest might disappear if the test was done with more players - prompts me to wonder whether it with 50 players it might become clearer, or the fact the that if it is true for just one player then it might matter to that player, and suggests some bias on the part of the investigators.
I don’t know whether the material really matters for a metal flute - but I certainly would not be convinced by the web page (I don’t understand German so I could not read the pdf of the whole study.

Bill

You may be right, and I don’t rule out building such a thing, although, as I noted in the Introduction, any talk of using an artificial blowing machine tends to bring out more public disquiet, not less!

But I think there’s a lot we can determine, and hopefully even measure, before we have to resort to that. I was encouraged by Gregor’s trick of averaging a number of players on the same flute - we might be able to use the same trick to avoid having any one player distort the soundtrack. Statistics isn’t my strong point, but I’d hope somewhere out there in fluteland we have someone who can be called upon to suggest and approve valid averaging methods.

But if it comes to the crunch, I can and will build a blower. Neville Fletcher described one to me that he’d built back in the 1960’s for precisely this work (on metal flutes of course - the wooden flute seems not to have been invented back then!), and it doesn’t sound too hard. It would need lips and ideally even a face. Possibly one of those clip-on flute beards too. I hope we can still find the design somewhere in Chiffdom.

Terry

Me neither, but I understand from Neville Fletcher that the talk was given to the Acoustical Society America (possibly in 2001). He raised no concerns over it.

What we are about to embark on doesn’t rely on Gregor’s paper any further and we’ll have plenty of scope for error. So keep your pencil sharp!

Terry

I know that Terry is talking about how the scientific method has been applied to this issue of flute tone, nevertheless, I can’t help but throw in my non-scientific opinion. If the study that Terry mentions is correct, and the same logic and methodology can be applied to wooden flutes, as well, then the idea that blackwood as a superior wood for making woodwind instruments has been pretty much of a hoax. Yes, I know that it is very hard and has a pretty black color, but if flutes made from blackwood don’t sound any different from flutes made from one of the furniture woods, then it would follow that flutemakers would be making and customers would be demanding flutes made from a great variety of woods other than the few very dense woods that are now mainly used. Oak and maple come to mind as woods that are inexpensive and readily available.

Ah, that’s until “McGee’s Provisos” kick in. John Coltman and Gregor proved that listeners can’t tell the difference between flutes made of various metals, and one of John’s experiments extended it to wood. I go a step further than they do, and proclaim confidently (well, fairly confidently) that materials don’t make a difference “while they prove to be perfectly satisfactory containers for a vibrating air column”. The proviso identifies flexibility, porosity and roughness as examples of where a container wouldn’t be perfectly satisfactory.

So, most metals are in (providing they are well finished), and plastics of good weight and wall thickness. Woods at the top density and fineness (eg blackwood) are probably in too, if adequately finished. But woods at the opposite extreme are definitely out, and the furniture woods in the middle are probably borderline.

I’m pretty confident about softwoods, as I made a pinus radiata Prattens to test the theory. Trust me, it’s horrible. It was so porous that I could breath through it, with the far end blocked!

I think it’s interesting that flute makers seem always to have chosen the densest and finest timbers they had access to and could work - fruitwoods in renaissance times, boxwood in the baroque, ebony when the East Indies were first opened up, cocus wood with the West Indies and finally blackwood with Africa.

And when we took up plastics, we seem to have settled on Delrin at density 1.4 (compared to Blackwood’s 1.2) rather than something lighter.

Relevant also that when makers have chosen to work with more open timbers, they have developed methods to overcome the basic weaknesses artificially. I’m thinking for example of those maple recorders bulked up with PEG (PolyEthylene Glycol). It gives the soft open-grained maple some weight and fills the porosity.

Incidentally, John Coltman wrote to me a few years back (when he was only 90!) agreeing with my provisos, which he had read on my web site.

What will be interesting is whether we can detect the relatively subtle differences between woods by sound quality measurement. The ear is a mighty fine (if uncalibrated) FFT tool. I’ll sure give it a go, but only after we’ve honed our tools on easier targets! In the first instance, I’ll be happy to be able to tell a cylindrical flute from a conical reliably!

Terry

Have you seen Calum Stewart’s latest toy/videos? The Cherry Tree Waltz
& more on his channel on his channel, newest ones with One Fine Day being on the cylindrical RC&Co, older ones on his Holmes McNaughton standard conoid 8-key, so you can make some comparison.

Tight grain in tandem with hardness should absolutely count, I think, if you want good tone from naked (that is, unvarnished or unlacquered) wood. There are flutes around made from sugar maple - a significantly hard and close-grained wood - and fruitwoods such as apple or pear have been used traditionally; but I have tried none of these, myself, so can’t report my subjective impressions of them. Boxwood is still a time-tested choice obviously worthy of favor as evidenced by the many who love it. I had a keyless Olwell made of dogwood at my request, and thus a prototype as Pat counted it, that played like a champ. All these woods have the characteristic of a fine and sometimes almost indistinct grain, and relative hardness. Not being an expert, my gut tells me you’d need both hardness and tight grain for a successful flute wood, not just either one or the other. While oak is hard, its grain is not at all finely dense, but coarse; I imagine playing an oak flute would be not unlike playing a carpet, to put it in hyperbole.

Terry’s experiment with Pinus radiata gets us close to the extreme other end of the spectrum, as its wood is both soft and of coarse grain. Have you tried balsa yet, Terry? :wink:

Sidetracking momentarily from the issues of tone alone, I think there is an entirely practical reason accounting for the proliferation of the commonly used Dalbergia species since I think there’s reasonably good argument that those species are not necessarily inherently tonally “superior” to other astute choices of material, and that reason for their being standard flutewoods is instead in their oily and resinous qualities: nonresinous woods absorb and desorb moisture far more rapidly than integrally oily, resinous ones. My former dogwood flute is an exact case in point. While lighter in weight than blackwood, like any good and dense wood not only did it offer a great tone, it was hard as nails (it hit a tiled floor squarely on the edge of its endcap after rolling off of a standard-height table and didn’t show so much as a mark!), and the grain was so fine you could hardly even see evidence of it, but, being a “dry” wood, after a couple or so hours of playing, the barrel tenon in particular would swell so much (depending on the weather and the degree of wrapping) that disassembly sometimes threatened to be an exercise in power that was best left untried. Fortunately its desorption time only took about three or so hours if I felt it was better to just let things be. I was always having to try to plan ahead as regards the tenon wrapping, and I often set the pre-played tenon/socket fit looser than I liked in order to account for swelling, but it was a workable state of affairs as I could count on the fit getting nicely snug in short order. Having played blackwood flutes with much slower absorption characteristics previous to that, this was a novel experience for me, and it drove home an undeniably practical reason, based really only just on convenience and having nothing to do with tone, for going with the comparatively stable response to moisture that comes with resinous exotic hardwoods. So, we need to define “superior”. After all, tone in the case of dogwood wasn’t even an issue.

By the way, Pat O. had pressure-treated that dogwood flute for a week in linseed oil before I got it, and I continued thereafter to oil it liberally and most especially at the exposed grain ends of the tenons as well as the embouchure cut, too - you could watch the oil being thirstily drunk in in no time at all every time - but this frequent oiling didn’t seem to significantly affect moisture absorption or desorption all the same. Conversely, I’ve noticed that my present blackwood flute absorbs no oil perceptibly at all that I can tell, so I rarely even bother any more and just mind its state of humidification. I’ll probably give the tenon ends a good oil soak this year before winter sets in, but I think this will be more to satisfy me than the flute.

Of course the go-to classic good looks of exotic hardwoods, and the convenience of their moisture resistance and ability to shed condensation well, is balanced by the toxic nature of the oils and resins themselves with their concomitant potential for player contact allergy, to say nothing of the risks makers face in working such woods.

But, back to the Flute Tone Investigations, and sorry for the weighty sidetrack. :slight_smile:

Haha, just cause I’m silly enough to make a Pratten’s in Pine you think I’m up for a Boehm in Balsa?

Seriously though, I think the Reductio ad Absurdum approach may serve us well in our quest to understand and hopefully measure flute tone quality. By comparing extremes, you can often see subtleties that you might miss if you just waffle around in the comfort zone. So pine vs blackwood might alert us to where to look when we then examine boxwood vs blackwood. And GLP vs Prattens should be easier to pick than two makers’ versions of a Rudall.

I’m just thankful I’m not trying to tell between silver and gold Boehms. Leave that to Archimedes.

Terry

Where does the light bamboo of bansuri fit in for you Terry?
and then the heavier bamboo of shakuhachi?
And the medium types used by ITM bamboo flute makers?

… and not to mention the cedar of the Native American Flute!

It’s a great question, Talisiga, and I won’t hurry to demonstrate the full extent of my complete inability to answer it satisfactorily. I guess I could argue that it complies with my point about makers using the hardest and finest materials that they could work. Those lucky inhabitants of bamboo-enriched countries hardly had to worry - they had their tubes on hand. And bamboo is actually pretty hard stuff, so there wouldn’t be much incentive to go and find anything significantly denser, especially if you had to then hollow it out. I don’t know anything about Chinese jade flutes - the idea of hollowing out rock seems bizarre to me! But maybe that’s consistent with my notion of densest and finest?

The NAF in cedar might also go to the issue of workability. North America had plenty of harder and finer woods - dogwood, rock maple, osage orange come immediately to mind. But could Native Americans work those woods pre European colonisation? I don’t know - I don’t even know how they worked the cedar back then. Splitting, scraping and binding perhaps? But they can certainly work any woods they like now, yet NAFs seem largely still to be made in cedar, even if routed, glued together and turned using modern technologies.

So, I think we might have to assume that a different cultural aesthetic is at work from that enjoyed by European flute makers, and their modern ITM beneficiaries. It would be fun and possibly highly informative to go rushing up to a great Bansurist or Dizi player and thrust a blackwood bansuri or dizi into their hands and demand “what do you think of my new flute?”! We might learn very quickly about different cultural aesthetics and the colourful language that can be used to express such differences!

It’s possible I can also unload my Pine Prattens onto someone from a bamboo speaking country! It seems to me it has that “light bamboo or cedar sound”. But is that just my narrow western cultural aesthetic making wild assumptions and assigning it conveniently to someone else?

The only good thing about the investigations we are embarking on is that nobody else knows more!

Terry

You may be surprised at the open mindedness of bansuri players.
After all, their art music tradition is a lingua franca not only for a subcontinental high art but of different folk traditions with many regional varieties within each folk tradition.

I reckon, providing you kept the flute light (via thin walls) and tone holes large and tending to oval, they may delighted by the sturdier alternative and with the bonus of a tuning slide too.
Some of the vituoso bansuri players, as they grow older, tend to move to smaller than the concert stage preferred B and Bb and A bell note bansuris. (Usually to low C bell note flutes)

With conical bore possible with wood, the smaller finger spread would allow, small heanded players and aging virtuosi to play the deeper flutes on and on.

If someone can make a flute on which half holing can be as easily and beautifully done as on high D Irish whistles you know they are on the right track for pleasing bansuri players.

This serves as a bump for a good topic but it is also a genuine post

I think it does so comply.