Hi, I’ve been lurking for a while but now I need to tap the collective knowledge.
Has anyone on this forum had experience of both the M&E Rudall & Rose and the Rob Forbes Delrin flutes? If so, how would you compare them for tone, embouchure, size?
I have an M&E R&R which is an improvement (for me) over an older Seery flute, but I’m still not happy with the tone. I also find the large circumference of the flute almost too much for my smallish hands.
The Forbes flute has had such great reviews here that I’m considering trying one.
BTW, my regular flute is a Patrick Olwell Nicholsen model but, with this very cold weather in my part of North America, I’ve been taking the Delrin flute out to sessions. My Olwell is so easy to play, that perhaps any other flute would seem rough in comparison.
Any comments you have regarding the two Delrin flute would be appreciated.
My comment is that the fit and finish on the Forbes is terrific, whereas the M+E is functional. Do search the forum, especially for comments by Cathy Wilde who has an Olwell, a Murray, and a Forbes. I find the Forbes to be a wonderful deal for the money, Prattenish in tone, whereas the M+E is more Rudallesque. I look forward to playing it exclusively while I travel in central America, and don’t feel it’s a step down from my regular flutes at all. It’s also light, and thin walled, and surprising slender. Can’t comment on finger stretch as I have big hands. The holes are large, but I don’t find it any more difficult to play than my other flutes, and easier than some. I normally play Rudall copies, and wondered if there would be issues filling the flute, but I don’t find it’s any different from Rudallesque flutes in that regard.
I have some information that might be useful for you, although its not exactly what you were asking. I should also qualify this with the fact that I am not an expert player and only have experience playing three or four different flutes.
I have a Forbes Delrin in D and a Copley Delrin in D and have recently been doing some side by side comparisons of the two. My overall impression of both flutes is very positive. They are both great instruments and I feel that I can get a very good tone (for me) from either one.
The easily detectable differences between the two are:
The Forbes is a Pratten design whereas the Copley is Dave’s own design that falls somewhere between R&R and Pratten.
The Forbes has larger tone holes, particularly L2 and R2, but smaller R3. Other tone holes appear very similar in size, and the hole spacing seems pretty much identical.
The distance from embouchure to L1 is about 1cm larger on the Forbes than the Copley.
Overall length is the same.
Overall external diameter of the Forbes is smaller than the Copley.
Bore diameter at the foot is larger on the Forbes than the Copley (i.e. the Forbes has thinner walls).
The Forbes is lighter than the Copley.
Both have a fairly large, open embouchure. The one on the Copley is a rounded rectangle. The Forbes is less rectangular overall, but is longer and has straight sections between what appear to be two semi circles.
The Forbes feels slimmer in the hand. It is lighter and you feel a bit more buzz when you hit a reedy tone. The Copley feels more robust.
Both are lovely to play. The Forbes requires more air to fill and does not seem quite as responsive, presumably because of the larger tone holes and bore. When I play them both it seems to me that I can play the Forbes louder than the Copley when I really lean into it, but when I got my wife to listen she couldn’t really distinguish which was loudest even though in blind tests she could always tell which one I was playing.
Tone wise both are very good in my opinion. I would say the Forbes has a bit more bark on the low D, whereas the Copley seems to have a noticeably sweeter top end. I can find the sweet spot on the Copley more easily than on the Forbes, but this difference is only slight and I have been playing the Copley for much longer. I find it very easy to pick up either and to swap between them, and as I said I’m not at expert player by any means.
Cosmetically, the Copley has real silver rings whereas the Forbes has less elegant, but still nice looking stainless steel rings.
Both are three piece designs. The Copley is precision machined so the pieces fit together very snugly (tight fit, no play) without the need for O rings. The Forbes has O rings. The Copley feels especially durable. Neither has a tuning slide per se, but either can be tuned over a fairly wide range by pulling out the head joint.
I could post some pictures if there is interest. I don’t currently have the capability to record audio, but I’m working on it.
I had a delrin M & E with 4 keys no less. (R & R model) It was very heavy, kind of fat, and not that easy to play. To be fair, a friend who is a better player than I am played it one night and liked it so much he went out and got one for himself. I thought, “why didn’t you tell me, I’d have given you a good price.” Anyway, I eventually sold it to another player who is about at my intermediate level, but has more power. I got what I paid for it, but only because the drop in the dollar made that a good deal. At that point, I thought I was done with delrin. But with the dry cold these days and with the encouragement of many positive postings on this group, I ordered a delrin Copley with silver rings from Doc Jones so as to be able to take it out to practice with group and leave it without fear of someone stepping on it. Anyway, its terrific. Easy to play, good volume, capable to being played quiet or all out, not at all heavy, and quite comfortable in my hands. Also, the Copley has more conventional tuning, while the M & E has a d that is set to be blown hard. The only advantage of the M & E was it had a metal tuing slide and was fully lined.
I haven’t played a Forbes, so I can’t compare that flute to an M & E. But I can say that for an intermediate player, the Copley is a great buy. I love the Irish, but on this one I’m going to say, “way to go America.”
The M&E has a traditional elliptical embouchure cut. I think that would be the main difference for most people (judging by their posts as well). The Forbes and Copley seem to both have more modern cuts. The elliptical embouchure is great if you are willing to work on it, very dark and reedy and infinitely expressive, but it’s more difficult to play than a rounded rectangle or a 2 semi circles embouchure. I prefer the elliptical cuts any day, but that’s just because it works for me, it’s what I started out on and I got it to work. I think it could work for pretty much everyone else, but not all feel that it’s worth the effort, or they have just not given it a fair chance.
Now, the OP has an Olwell Nicholson. I understand that you don’t want to spend any time working with the M&E to get it to play as well as it can. Get a nice Copley or Forbes as a backup, it would probably serve you better. (That might be the first time I acctually recommend anything else than M&E in this cathegory).
Elliptical embouchures are an aquired taste (once you got it, you might never go back), just like a smoky Islay
whisky
I have an Olwell Pratten and bought my Forbes based on several Olwell players’ comments that their Forbes flutes quite closely matched their Olwells. I would say I agree. The embouchure cut on my Forbes is pretty oval, and roughly the same size as that on my Olwell. The two flutes definitely feel closer to each other in terms of fingerhole size, embouchure approach, and general design philosophy than they do to my Murray.
I had already decided on the Forbes and seeing your close-ups of the embouchures makes me feel that I’ve made the right choice (for me). Of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating!
BTW, Forbes offers the choice of a screw-adjustable cap/cork in place of one-piece…I presume your Forbes has the adjustable cap?
BTW, Forbes offers the choice of a screw-adjustable cap/cork in place of one-piece…I presume your Forbes has the adjustable cap?
No, mine has the one-piece end cap. However, even this one is somewhat adjustable/removable. If you pull it out you can see that it is a plug about an inch or so long that has two O-rings on it. Since it can slide in and out you could easily lengthen the distance from embouchure to the end cap. Come to think of it, you could also shorten that distance by gluing something on the end face. But the default positioning seems good to me, though I have not done any precise testing of tuning across the higher registers.
