Peter Noy Trad Flutes: a Review

Irish Flute
1

Having got the OK from both Peter and the Undisputed to do this, here is an attempt to offer up my impressions and the choice that I settled on, having tried out six headjoints that Peter kindly shipped to me for the purpose. I have no commercial interest in posting this review. Disclaimer to the technically knowledgeable: please take my terminologies with a grain of salt where needed. I hope that my efforts at clarity mitigate my points of ignorance. Apologies for blurry photos!

Many, many thanks to Carol (avatar=cskinner) for her advice both technical and aesthetic, and not least for her generously spent time in sorting out the photos and hosting them on her own website so they could be posted here. I owe you, Carol. Thanks also to Jerry Freeman and Herbivore12 for help in a pinch. :slight_smile:

\
\
I tried out an eight-keyed D body and six heads: [contemporary thinned](http://carolaskinner.net/images/5a.jpg), [contemporary semi-thinned](http://carolaskinner.net/images/1a.jpg), and [contemporary unthinned](http://carolaskinner.net/images/7a.jpg) (all unlined); also there were an unlined Pratten headjoint, an unlined Ruddall and Rose, and a silver-lined Ruddall and Rose. The body, which is Peter's standard, is a Nicholson-derived design. Peter uses the approach of head options to a consistent body, which interestingly enough is pretty much the opposite of Patrick Olwell's approach of using a generally consistent headjoint with body options, to my best understanding. Corrections to this will be gratefully received.

First, overall construction: the headjoint's [silver tuning slide](http://carolaskinner.net/images/1a.jpg) goes directly into the [barrel](http://carolaskinner.net/images/19a.jpg), which has no extended sleeve to receive it as usually found in standard designs, but butts up flush against the slide end of the head. Barrel and head are intended to be separated and cleaned after each playing, and not to be oiled at all. Endcap contstruction options include either a [tuning screw mechanism](http://carolaskinner.net/images/17a.jpg) (one option) attached to the cork, or none ("free", as I call it). The main body is of a one-piece construction, and [the extended foot joint supports the Eb, low C# and Cnat keys](http://carolaskinner.net/images/10a.jpg). The keys, made of silver, are all [block mounted](http://carolaskinner.net/images/16a.jpg) in the traditional fashion, and are a pleasure to look at as well as being very easy to use. One interesting feature was his ergonomically designed short Fnat key: the plane of the touchpoint, instead of being parallel to the body, [is tilted toward the E tonehole](http://carolaskinner.net/images/18a.jpg) so that a simple slide of the ring finger gets you there. This does require a more precise placing of one's fingers to avoid unintentionally operating the key. In my case, when keying the low Cnat, this was originally a bit of a problem until I got used to the feel of everything. By the way, if you plan to try out headjoints and flutes for yourself (whoever the maker might be), go with the keywork you're intending on and not a keyless body unless that's what you want. Dealing with the additional turbulence caused by the extra toneholes probably counts, and you'll want to be as accurate in your assessments as possible.

The flute was light, balanced, very well in tune with itself, and fingering response was crisp. The crossfingered Cnat (oxxooo) was nice and clear. To my surprise and great pleasure, the keyed low Cnat was incredibly strong! This is not always the case with eight-keyed flutes; I have usually found that note to be weak if not problematic on other instruments. If, like me, you're a sucker for eight-keyed flutes, this one's a keeper almost for that alone.

Now for the headjoints: this is where it gets really subjective. I also had a friend play them for me so that I could hear them at a remove and compare notes with him; our takes on their various qualities were pretty much in agreement.

The contemporary heads are notable first for their broad harmonics even throughout the second octave, and the bottom D was very "Conal O'Grada"; not hard to push at all to get it growling like a beast. First-octave G was very tasty. This design is perfect for "dirty"-style playing, but also is a good choice for those who aren't so strong in the force of their breath. A lighter push gives a sweeter, silky tone, but of course some volume is sacrificed. The contemporary head's embouchure is what I believe to be called "barrel cut": the front and back of the embouchure belly out just a bit, so I wouldn't necessarily call it square cut. Also unique to this design is Peter's inlaying of [walrus ivory](http://carolaskinner.net/images/7a.jpg), [amber](http://carolaskinner.net/images/5a.jpg), and possibly some other choices into the far edge of the embouchure. An additional option on the unthinned contemporary was that it was undercut on the outer surface, which made for even easier blowing. I didn't ask Peter if this was just another option. All in all, the contemporary design is all about a big, fat, brawling sound when you push it, and a boon to those who can't push it so well. Inner construction, like the rest, is cylindrical.

The unlined Pratten had "big shoulders", if you will. Not as harmonically colored as the contemporary, but more dense somehow in its harmonics. It was a close second in that way with the contemporary design, and good for volume; it also required a bit more control and pressure than the contemporary heads. I found it more capable for changing tonal color than the contemporaries, as well. I loved its traditional sound, and think that it would stand well in any situation, especially sessions. I found its reediness  to have a thick quality. Very imposing.

The unlined Rudall and Rose really didn't take a second seat for volume; the low D was reedy in a more "narrow", penetrating sense: almost oboe-like at times, I could also get hints of sax, clarinet, and bugle-like effects out of it (primarily by accident :laughing: ), as well as some really sweet-sounding timbres as well. Is anybody getting an idea where my heart went, yet? The lined head (again, the only one of the bunch) sounded no less woody to my ear, but had more focus. I would hesitate to call it brightness, but, as I mentioned, this is all highly subjective. This headjoint is very reponsive to a variety of approaches, and rewards a strong push very nicely.

After a week of trying them all out and enduring a blackwood allergy flareup (no lip plates on these babies), I decided on the lined Ruddall and Rose design --with a lip plate, of course; [a plain free-set endcap](http://carolaskinner.net/images/9a.jpg), [traditional ferrules](http://carolaskinner.net/images/18a.jpg), and plain keys, as seen. My preference in overall appearance was for the elegance of simple lines. Peter gave me the caveat that lined heads are more likely to crack than others, but I'm OK with that. The sound clinched it for me.

I'll also be ordering a keyed Eb _corps de réchange_ for it in about a year from now.

Other options include traditional-style ferrules, [flat ferrules both plain and engraved](http://carolaskinner.net/images/19a.jpg), and [beaten ferrules](http://carolaskinner.net/images/6a.jpg). Keywork and endcaps can be plain or with an ornate acanthus-leaf motif (not shown here). Other endcap options include the [Ruddall and Rose signature design](http://carolaskinner.net/images/8a.jpg), [insets of amber](http://carolaskinner.net/images/5a.jpg), onyx or amethyst; these can also be mounted in a [gem setting](http://carolaskinner.net/images/3a.jpg). There are other endcap options not shown here, but the camera and I are a bit at odds.

I know that I'll be very satisfied with this instrument. Waiting time is about a year last I heard, but as Peter is becoming more well known, this will probably change.

Best,
N
2

Thank you very much for this writing! I’ve had an 8-key flute on order with Peter for about a year (he says he’s fallen behind a bit and it will be ready at the end of April - I wonder if it’ll be born the same day as my baby!). Now I want to try a bunch of heads! Actually, I did try a bunch of Peter’s flutes at Boxwood (in Nova Scotia) a little over a year ago. I wish I remembered the differences well.

3

Great review! The flute sounds fantastic, and I learned a lot about flutes in general from this review. A question, though, from the ranks of the uninformed? The contemporary heads: what’s the thing about them that’s thinned, semi-thinned, and unthinned, and what’s the effect on the tone of that difference?

And regarding appreciation for my advice: I noticed you didn’t take it, and the results are the better for it! :slight_smile:

Carol

4

I assume the R&R and Pratten headjoints do not have the fancy-pants inlay?

With the silver lip-plate you’ll need, adding the inlay would have made for one slick, finely-attired flute. But sounds like the flexibility of the R&R head captured you. You can always trade tonal ostentation for visual!

Nice review; very kind of you to put all that time in for us. Now if only I had the dough for another new flute . . .

5

thanks

6

Trying to communicate something so ethereal as tone -especially since I was only coming from the standpoint of my own embouchure and habits- was not easy, but I hope that I shed some light on this, if only a bit.

Jessie, I think that no matter how you go with Noy headjoints, it’s hard to go wrong. I’m already habituated now to the R&R setup, so the choice was just a bit easier, but not much. Which kind of head did you choose?

Carol, the thinning of the exteriors of the headjoints is basically a way of reducing weight, although there may be more subtle differences in each type’s character due to differing wall thicknesses. I detected that maybe such was the case, but as each “identical” flute is unique, I didn’t feel I could comment too far on that.

Herbi, I think that the inlay option is not confined to the contemporary heads, and I believe that Peter also installs ivory bushings within the embouchure (a la Nicholson) as a further option. His opinion was that having both lip plate and inlay/bushing would compromise the structure of the headjoint too far, and so I opted for the lip plate only. That’s good enough for me.

7

Nano, I opted for a modern-cut unthinned headjoint, the entire instrument being boxwood.

:slight_smile:

8

You know, Jessie, I was just this far from going for the same thing, myself! It’s a good headjoint. I know a woman who plays the thinned contemporary (blackwood), and it sounds great when she plays it. My only gripe in any case is that when I get it I’ll have to limit playing to 10 minutes twice a day, and increase the playing time very gradually (Peter’s words) until it’s played in. I’ll have to grill him on what “gradually” means. In my ideal world, “gradually” would mean ten minutes twice the first day, and three hours twice the next! :laughing:

9

Thanks so much for the interesting review - any chance of more pictures?

I’m on Peter’s waiting list for a 6-key - most likely with the thinned contemporary headjoint. I really liked the lightness of - and the lighter breath requirement.

How often do you use the low C and low C#? I’m still debating about whether I would ever use the extra keys (even for the chamber group I play with) - any comments on the short foot versus long?

pamela

10

I have some nice pictures of Peters work, I just don’t know how to post them.
The “modern cut embouchure” comes with a deeper chimney, that what there are three deferent types of heads for it, and on the traditional and semi-thinned there is a relief cut at the back of the edge to keep the dimensions the same as on the thinned head.
The Modern cut embouchure on a traditional head worked the best for me.
I think Peters waiting list is closer to a year and a half, but it feels like five years to me :boggle: I have a keyed Boxwood with Ivory rings and insert on order.

11

Thanks. The pics I didn’t post were way too blurry (nevermind the blurry ones I posted :smiley: ) or were basically redundant. I do wish I had taken more. I’ll go through the lot and see if I missed anything. There were 19 in all, so most got used.

How often do you use the low C and low C#? I’m still debating about whether I would ever use the extra keys (even for the chamber group I play with) - any comments on the short foot versus long?

On your standard-keyed trad tunes I use those keys as an additional ornament to the low D: a slide up to low D from C (nat or #) with a bit of punch is something I like very much, and that followed with a D crann (I’m still sorting that slide-crann sequence out, though) is really nice on, say, the third time around for the A part of Blarney Pilgrim. I use those keys often enough -to my mind- to justify their purchase; but then I can be really good at rationalizing :wink: . It’s when they’re not on hand that I wish they were. I don’t think that they’re essential at all. I just like toys, especially if they work well!

As to the long/short foot debate, I’ve heard both camps (including makers) assert greater sonority in the lowest notes due either to the extended foot providing a resonating chamber, or the extended foot muddying things up. My ear can’t tell much of a difference. I’d have to sit down in a quiet room with someone to play identical flutes with both types of feet to really get the difference if there is one. I pay lip service to the extended foot, but am really an agnostic. I like the look of it. OK, so call me shallow. :laughing: Anyway, if there are the low C# and Cnat keys, the extended foot’s a given in any case, so I’m clear of the argument. :wink:

BTW, that particular mechanism for the C foot keys (due to block mounting) always makes a bit of noise when it’s applied. Noy’s setup is quieter than others I’ve tried; not perfect, but if you’re laying into it, it’s unlikely to be noticed. If you don’t want to deal with key noise at all, don’t get those keys. There are post-mounted setups, such as on those made by Dave Williams, that are as quiet as you could ask for. I don’t know if Williams is making flutes anymore.

12

Actually, that was an oversight. :blush:

I got all wrapped up in this project and forgot to do the “other thing”.

Thanks for the positive comment, regardless.