always happy to entertain!
Probably the most pertinent point made so far. The word “different” keeps cropping up - which wood (or bore, or embouchure cut, or whatever, sounds different from another). What does that mean, “different”? Better? Worse? Brighter, softer? And how much of a difference are we talking?
Years ago, virtuoso guitarist Steve Morse, winner of Best Guitarist for something like the tenth or fiftieth year in a row (which was odd, since he was in his thirties at the time), made the dubious observation that he could tell the difference in deliverable tone between which batteries he used in his various stompboxes. Since he has infinitely more talent and certainly better ears than I ever have (or had), who am I to argue with his observation? Electric current is affected by all sorts of things - why not the batteries? 'Course, the guitar(s) he played were not so bad, either, although not always of the same wood…
And, BTW, this same conversation takes place on Boehm flute forums, too - silver vs. platinum, vs. gold, vs – you get the idea – and they all swear there’s a discernable difference between these modern flutes, between the makes themselves, and the material(s) used. And yet the smartest among them will agree that a well-made plated flute is a better choice than a lower-quality all-silver one.
On page one, someone (forgotten who, my apologies) said the most important difference, really, is how the player feels playing that flute - that the listener probably can’t tell the difference; ultimately, the produced sound/tone is more or less the same, but not the way the player feels. Since how the player feels about the material in their hands, that will most likely will have the most effect on how well the music is produced.
And all without batteries.
That was me, and I plead no contest to the battery charge.
The first and foremost thing is the maker. The characteristics of the maker are 90 percent of the sound. The material is the icing on the cake. Working with different materials necessitates different techniques. Two different kinds of wood will make different edges on holes. There is no such thing as identical flutes in two materials.
To me that study is flawed from the very get go, because Marumatsu flutes don’t just sound the same from flute to flute, they also make every flute player sound the same. Once again, the interesting question is approached from the wrong perspective.
Gordon – “different” indeed. We don’t have the words to speak accurately about sound. Not only don’t we, but I really think that we can’t. Bright and dark don’t cut it. What I’m talking about is a feel of resistance, a pattern of sensations that once gets a grip on. Really it’s a phenomenology.
I think it’s a great thing that people ask these questions, both the scientists who create these studies and people like us who keep the conversation going. What is not so great, and I even think is destructive, is the negative implications of the conclusions that people draw. For instance, this article says
Tests with experienced professional flutists and listeners and one model of a flute made by Muramatsu from 7 different materials showed no evidence that the wall material has any appreciable effect on the sound color or dynamic range of the instrument. The common stereotypes used by flutists and flute makers are exposed as “stereotypes”.
And therefore the implication is that anyone who persists in believing otherwise is both an imbecile and gullible, who deserves to be foolishly parted with his money. I actually find that offensive.
One more point and then I will leave this alone. There is another flaw I see in all of these studies. Flutes are musical instruments, not machines. They need to be finessed to get the most out of them. For many flutes, the harder they are to play, the better they sound once you learn to play them.
There is simply no way you can pick up an instrument when you are blindfolded and get the best out of it. If you pick up a Pratten-style flute and try to play it like a Rudall, it simply isn’t going to sound good. The acoustical scientists resist this point. Sure, you can break down musical playing into smaller and smaller pieces, but do the results even mean anything? I’m not sure that they do. I think this is a case where the double blind study does not yield useful data, for reasons that lie outside the domain of science, and fall squarely into that of art. And so they are a double helix, wrapped around each other, science and art. Hooray for that!
They need to be finessed to get the most out of them. For many flutes, the harder they are to play, the better they sound once you learn to play them.
Now, this is a very good point I think. Those players probably never touched the 7 flutes before the test, they didn’t have the time to explore and bring out the possible differences and peculiarity of each ones.
(sorry I didn’t have time to read the article yet)
Heh heh, you’re falling for the same trap again, Robbie, unwarranted assumption. You don’t know (indeed, I don’t know) that the chap that did the study isn’t a flute player. The two top musical acousticians here in Australia, both with whom I work, Prof. Neville Fletcher (ANU) and Prof Joe Wolfe (UNSW) are both flute players; indeed both have played in orchestras and both have composed for the instrument. These guys are admired worldwide for their work - they don’t get to be that way by thinking small!
But even if he isn’t a flute player, the author of the study is obviously surrounded by flute players (at least seven on the record!). Assuming he has been successfully incentivised into thinking small, and is ignoring the obvious - that these different materials make the flutes stand out like the proverbial - where are our seven flute players? Surely if they felt the results didn’t stand up, they would, and be counted? You would, wouldn’t you? Rather than have your name attached to a dodgy study?
But you still haven’t taken the first step towards being able to comment meaningfully on the study. Read it, listen to the sound samples, and point out where it all goes wrong!
Rather than looking for implausible conspiracy theories among scientists, follow the money. Ask yourself, who stands to gain most out of convincing well-heeled flute players that a more expensive metal is needed for them to be able to succeed?
Terry
Terry, you are right about one thing, that the emotional part of my argument has no place on a public forum. I should be more thoughtful. I didn’t intend to insult any particular person, though I stand by my statement that this topic is persistently pursued in a short-sighted manner.
As for the rest, perhaps you misread what I wrote. I am glad that these flutes are being tested by flute players, and that the experiments are conducted by flute platers. That is necessary. My point is that to bring out the best qualities of any given instrument, you need to know what it is, and really understand the instrument deeply. Experiments like these are specifically designed to remove any possibility of that.
Further, has anyone, in the history of history, ever asked whether comparing gold to silver Marumatsus might be any different from comparing 1950s gold and silver Haynes flutes? How about comparing cocus to boxwood Rudall and Rose flutes, vs cocus and boxwood eBay Pakistani flutes? You need an instrument of a certain kind to be able to even find the differences. I simply do not believe that an experiment performed in this academic model, with its very strict set of rules for method, can find the right details to have meaningful results.
There is indeed a problem in the conservatory flute world, where people who are young and struggling are pressured into buying expensive instruments that they can’t pay for nor fully take advantage of. Maybe that’s why there are so many nay-sayers out there, protective of the vulnerable. But I see this across the board – There’s some thing that gives a lot of people pleasure, and other people come along and say, “Oh, your thing is pointless.” To me that is cruel and mean-spirited. Unusual things in life are to be celebrated, and anybody who doesn’t want to celebrate that thing should just go somewhere else. That’s why I get a little bit heated when talking about this particular debate. Meanwhile, I will continue to explore the pleasure of discovery in the nuances of sound.
Robbie
You’re still disparaging the science, Robbie, rather than seeking to understand what it is telling you.
How would you go about determining if the material changes the tone?
Terry
I’m not disparaging science. I know that you don’t like the tone I took, and I apologized for that. Maybe you’d like to consider the actual substantive points I made?
With these studies, mostly I see a lot of people yelling out that the world is flat.
“I stand by my statement that this topic is persistently pursued in a short-sighted manner.”
“Experiments like these are specifically designed to remove any possibility of that.”
“I simply do not believe that an experiment performed in this academic model, with its very strict set of rules for method, can find the right details to have meaningful results.”
“With these studies, mostly I see a lot of people yelling out that the world is flat.”[/quote]
They don’t sound like a very open-minded approach to a carefully conducted, peer-reviewed study!
Maybe you’d like to consider the actual substantive points I made?
Unfortunately, there seems little point. If you can’t accept the notion that all variables other than than the one under test have to be eliminated or at least controlled, there is nowhere to proceed to. But let’s try one:
Further, has anyone, in the history of history, ever asked whether comparing gold to silver Marumatsus might be any different from comparing 1950s gold and silver Haynes flutes?
I don’t know if anyone else has ever asked that, but you now have. The answer is probably yes, it will be different. With a handful of new Marumatsus, you’ve got a good chance that they are all in peak condition. If not, and your flute players are any good, you will be alerted to any problems before you build them into your study. The fact that, at the end of the day, the seven flutes produced results that neither listeners or instruments could differentiate supports that conclusion - if one or more of them had been crook, it would have certainly thrown up differences.
With a comparative study of vintage flutes, you would have to go to greater lengths to confirm that the flutes are a) of the exact same dimensions, and b) in perfect condition. For example, we know that a very small amount of wear at the embouchure edge produces considerable change in the playing characteristics of the flute, and quantifying that wear and allowing for it wouldn’t be easy. If you were lucky, the two flutes would come up identical in the tone tests, suggesting that they are of both the same dimensions and same condition. If you were unlucky, and they came up differently, you still wouldn’t know if it was down to material or geometrics or condition.
Terry
I still think you miss my point entirely. I believe that there is a difference made by material, and that the source of this difference could someday be measured scientifically, and that the variables being measured in the present studies do not capture the source of the difference.
I do not criticize science, but I do criticize THIS science, which I feel draws conclusions too quickly. I am looking forward to the day when more light is shed on this subject.
A few things jump out at me.
First, as far as I could find, they don’t say anything about giving the listeners a baseline – that is, give them a set of sounds that are actually from flutes of these materials. That seems a little like taking a bunch of non-musicians and blindly asking them to identify a ney, a kaval, and a shakuhachi. Just because there’s no pattern in the answers doesn’t mean there’s an actual difference. Likely that was done, I just don’t see it.
One player is a real outlier in the dynamic range test. I’m curious if the data would be more spread out if that player was removed.
The perceptions of the listeners were all based on recordings. I can certainly pick out differences in person that I can’t on the best recordings.
Terry, the participants shouldn’t have the option to back out if they think the test is crap. They shouldn’t even know how it’s designed. If they do, then the test really is crap. Participants in tests are given the option of seeing the results/paper, but not the option of removing their participation, at least that’s my experience.
Question: How do they make a 24k gold flute? I can bend an 18k heavy-walled ring with my fingers, and 24k shouldn’t be anything but softer. Is there (presumably) some metal that can be alloyed with gold in small enough amounts that it’s still technically 24k, but still make it hard enough to make a reasonable flute? Anyone know what this is?
IMO, by the end of the day, the so-called sound colour is just physics, to be more precise, air vibration at different frequencies. The basic frequency, i.e. the note played, and the overtones together determine the sound and its colour. The material of the wall has no influence on the sound.
From the article.
The discussion on the influence of the material of wind instruments on the sound color is unending. While acousticians speak mostly of a negligible influence, players are convinced that the material highly influences the color of the radiated sound.
So do any manufacturers make any claims as to why platinum would be better than silver brass or anything else?
"ho hum, Monday morning, what jobs have we got on this week. A yes, platinum flute for that international soloist and nickel silver flute for the batch for the schools.
Now, which of our craftsmen shall we give the jobs to ?"
Add to that there is a certain perception that there should be a kind of parity to cost of materials and labor. Kind of like when you look at a car repair bill that is 5% parts and 95% labor, one can understand the billing, but it the ratio seems off. So platinum is in and aluminum is out.
I still say that if you never played a particular flute, you can’t bring out everything it has to offer. And I think this point is very relevant in these experiments…
It may be relevant to the issue investigated by the experiment but it is not relevant to the experiment.
Conclusion: Tests with experienced professional flutists and listeners and one model of a flute made by Muramatsu from 7 different materials showed no evidence that the wall material has any appreciable effect on the sound color or dynamic range of the instrument…
Your only apparent point is that you believe what you believe, science - faulty or not - be damned. And that, my friend, is precisely the mindset of someone who believes the world is flat, not the other way 'round. You aren’t looking for light to be shed, you are sitting in the dark and feeling comfortable in it.
Now, I intuitively agree with you - I feel materials should play a role in sound, along with a myriad of other things that make something sound differently from something else. Subjectively. But subjectivity is exactly that - a personal view without support. A non-proveable feeling, belief, or perception. Since sound cannot be objectively defined - forget flutes; our ears aren’t identical to one another, nor are the brain(s) we use to consider the input through these ears - it is unlikely anything as scientifically proveable as a round Earth will result. So, what these studies do is gather a consensus of subjective beliefs and perceptions - what do most carefully selected, hopefully musically and flute oriented people hear? So if the overall consensus is that materials matter significantly less than design, to the point of material being a non-issue, you are only left with your beliefs. And what you are saying is your beliefs trump an educated consensus. Hey, most religions are based on less. But don’t call all scientific studies useless, when all you’ve got to counter it with is your subjective intuition.