Not without their permission, anyway. Although I don’t think that Mr. Olwell need be concerned in this case.
I’m not sure I totally agree with this rule at any rate. Fundamentally I don’t see any difference between posting an RTTA graph and (say) performance specs for a laptop. It strikes me as a little odd that Terry says “RTTA will revolutionize flute making” and then “…but let’s not show any data for modern flutes.”
I suppose I could see a case being made if someone used the software to establish a flute’s playability or something. For instance, “This flute sucks, look at what RTTA shows…” I was looking at my own playing, and also the flute’s playability. When I play my Olwell, my F# plays flat, my C# plays flat and my C plays sharp. I think the graph shows this. What’s the difference in me saying it and the graph showing it?
At any rate…
From Terry’s website:
And please, do not publish the results it produces of a living maker’s flute or a living player’s performance without their permission, unless you can do so without any risk whatsoever of their identification.
Cheers,
Michael
Terry,
As you know, I’ve been corresponding with Graeme regarding using RTTA for two flutes of mine. He used clips from my webpage below to generate data, http://www.geocities.com/jpollack2000/JasonClips.html .
First grid is of my clip playing “Torn Jacket”:
http://www.geocities.com/jpollack2000/tornjacketrtta.html
(My apologies if the image does not appear in the post. I can’t seem to get the right nomenclature.)
This is with the Cochran I just sold. Jon C. already gave his OK to post this in one of Terry’s previous threads on Historical Flute Syndromes. http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=59266&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
“Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject:
groxburgh wrote:
Well Jason/akiba has clips posted for all to see / listen to, played on a JonC “Hawkes” flute. So I’ve had a look at one with the RTTA software just like anyone else can now do. I’m not going to comment on them unless I get permission from both Jon as flute maker, and Jason as the player. Do you both want to give approval?
[Jon C. wrote:]
Hi, That is fine with me, I might add that Jason’s flute is a earlier model, and is not really a Hawkes, but a hybrid between Pratten and R&R, which Hawkes comes closest to that design. I now mostly make either a Pratten or R&R, as they both have strong points, in there playing quality, but haven’t made the Hybrid for a while. (Pretty good no-claimer!)”
To be fair, I think I play somewhere between a Boehm player and a wood flute player, meaning I usually go sharp on the second octave due to my initial training and practice even though I’ve worked damn hard to correct that. I’ve tried many flutes, including a McGee Rudall Perfected MDT, and had difficulty getting most flutes in tune including the McGee. Also, according to Jon, I believe he said this flute was built to play at A=430/435 in just temperament, i.e. the flute was not built to play equal temperament at A=440 or at A=442 as I believe Graeme calibrated this grid. Given that, I think the intonation is not too bad, just off significantly on a few notes.
The second grid was generated from my clip of “Calliope House”:
http://www.geocities.com/jpollack2000/calliopehousertta.html
I played this on my old Lark in the Morning rosewood (?) flute with brass slide, i.e. a Pakistani Special; thus, no maker need be asked to give permission, I don’t think. I’ve modified the flute significantly as well as worked hard to get it into its best playing condition. The tuning is again, I believe, calibrated to A=442. I thought this flute played the best in tune of any flute I’ve played (wood or silver) and thought I had the needle dead on most notes at A=440 on my old Korg tuner. Perhaps I push up the intonation when playing full out. All in all, the tuning is excellent. Some notes are missing because they aren’t part of the tune (for an even more accurate comparison I should probably record Torn Jacket with it), but I strongly believe those notes would also have a similar proximity to 0/on pitch result based on my Korg tuner feedback.
This was a great experience to know that I can work on and modify a flute to play as in tune as possible, and that I can trust my ear when playing to a drone as well as the feedback from a tuner. Playing in tune in modern pitch is a very high priority for me, and if a flute allows me to worry less about intonation and more about making music, I’ll choose that flute almost every time. If you want to know what I did with Lark flute, let me know so I don’t bore anyone with the details unnecessarily (tools and materials used include a saw, sandpaper, a file, and blue tack).
I think it should also be noted that even modern silver flutes with the Boehm/Cooper mechanism and scale are still a challenge to play in tune–it’s just the nature of the beast, methinks.
Thanks Terry and Graeme for your assistance and feedback.
Jason
Can someone please explain to me any legal basis for this supposed prohibition against posting a tuning graph? Consumer Reports magazine publishes test results on all sorts of products. They don’t get permission. I also can’t see a reason not to post a graph of a particular recording. There’s no copyright violation anymore than my listening to the recording and offering my opinion as to the tuning. The purpose of a copyright is to protect the artist’s creative rights. How has any of that been infringed?
Someone familiar with the law help us out here.
I thinks it’s more a matter of courtesy than copyright.
I tend to agree with dlambert, but just to be on the safe side I decided to delete the graph I posted above while I tried to find out why I shouldn’t post it.
How was it discourteous of me to post the graph without asking the maker of my flute?
Michael
right click the image and click
copy the image location
paste it into here
highlight/select it and
click on the Img button
There is no way to differentiate between the flute and the player in determining pitch differences.
And?
I think I need some Forum support…
the player can make the maker look good or bad when it is the player that is good or bad.
I don’t think it has anything to do with that. I think it’s probably a kind of courtesy among makers that we players aren’t really aware of… At least me. Perhaps, if I get back to work and give it a day, I’ll know the reasoning behind the courtesy.
Cheers,
Michael
Regarding not posting clips identifying living makers or players without their permission; here’s my take on this, given that I put this software together. We can’t enforce it, but it is a matter of courtesy. At the moment this is all very new and as been pointed out this reflects just one player on one flute at one point in time. It is easy to not use the software correctly and very easy to misinterpret results. It is simply not fair to post a plot of some bad tuning and imply that there is something wrong with the flute. At some point down the track I think it’ll be OK to post plots of your playing with the flute identified, but not yet please. Terry may have a different view on this.
Here’s a couple of plots of me playing flutes by 2 modern makers. Both are “Pratten” models. The first:
And the second:
Now I think it’s blindingly obvious that I have a problem with playing the first one in tune. So much so that if I were choosing which of these to buy I wouldn’t even consider the first. Even if it had better tone, better craftmanship, better ergonomics etc. I couldn’t play it with other people. Does this mean that the first flute is no good? No. Because for all we know someone else could play it in tune. In fact I’ve checked a plot of the maker playing one of his own flutes and his tuning is excellent. Could I learn to play it in tune? I don’t know. So at least until we know more about what’s going on can we please not do anything to identify a maker without their permission.
Cheers
Graeme
Thanks for the clarification, Terry! I have to think about the methodology. I can understand applying a casual set of test conditions just to look at the spreads. But if the results don’t reflect the tuned reference pitch as part of those initial test conditions, they’re arguably faulty, and may call into question the validity of the entire dataset. For example, even assuming a fixed embouchure throughout the range, the embouchure that can successfully play the reference A in tune may well alter the other pitches non-linearly, and produce a different picture of the spreads.
As for the issue of contemporary instruments, it seems to me there’s already a working ethical standard in place on C&F to serve as a precedent. Namely, the gentleman’s agreement that commercial instrument makers not post reviews of other active makers’ work, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Of course, no such prohibition applies to end users in discussing, documenting, reviewing, criticizing and identifiying their own instruments.
RTTA is nothing more than a convenient graphical representation of the acoustic characteristics that a good ear can hear without the aid of the software. In that sense, posting a graph is really no different from posting an accurate sound clip. Whether an instrument’s intonation is faulty or spot-on, RTTA is simply the messenger and doesn’t change a thing. So perhaps the broad courtesy restriction on contemporary instruments is overly restrictive. Just a thought.
My intentions in posting the graph were pure. I appreciate your efforts in developing the software, and will abide by your suggestion of getting permission until it’s deemed safe to do otherwise.
Cheers,
Michael
Personally I agree with MT… 
with the caveat that it might be best to wait until there is enough data that we start to get a feel for the standard deviation of the players involved.
I agree with your last bit but as I’ve already stated I think we should hold off for now until we all get a bit more confident with using the software.
Regarding the reference pitch. What do you mean by a “tuned reference pitch”. Looking at a tuner, playing one note against a drone? Rod Cameron (excellent flute maker) has commented that he sees this software as being really useful because in his experience the players don’t play the same when trying to establish a “reference pitch” as they do when playing music. He finds that they usually play music at a slightly lower pitch than when facing a tuner… One of the uses for this software is to establish what pitch you actually play at compared to what you do when playing a note into a tuner.
And I don’t see how it matters anyway. If you do an RTTA plot and it shows the tuning good but all a bit low (eg 15 cents flat) the tuning is not suddenly going to go haywire if you move the tuning slide in 3mm to correct it. And the Polygraph software includes the ability to tell you what would happen if you move the tuning slide, which could be useful if you don’t actually have the flute. Check out the FAQ page here:
http://www.business.otago.ac.nz/infosci/People/Staff/GRoxburgh/RTTA/FAQ.htm. We’ve checked it out with slide changes of 25mm and it’s accurate enough.
Cheers
Graeme
I agree with Graeme in that what these graphs indicate is how well one fluter can play a certain flute in tune. Unless one generates a large N, i.e. large data set (and I mean a very large data set with controls and fixed variables, which may not even be possible), any generalizations about the flutes tested would be indicative at best, and any generalizations about the flute makers would be completely unfounded, period. Most likely, no doubt even, someone else could play both flutes I tested and have very different results. Fluter+Flute=Tone/Intonation–>a complex dynamic system, but a closed and individualized system, anomalous. Results can only speak to that individual system at this point and not outside it.
That being said, I still find RTTA a very valuable tool in helping individual fluters find the best flute that will suit him/her in terms of playing in tune.
Jason
well, we can all check the tuning of someone that recorded a tune… michael deleted the graph, but posted the clip the graphic was refering to, and since i missed the original post but was curious about it, i converted the clip in a .wav file, and used RTTA 
so, since everybody could check everything everytime, i think there’s no real point in not posting a graph. the only problem is that we should all learn to interpret correctly what RTTA shows up.
it would be interesting to record a few flutist playing the same tune on the same flute… that would be a quite correct view of the tuning of the flute…
actually maybe makers should do this and see the average way people tend to blow in a flute, and tune all their flutes according to the average tendencies of the players, rather than the way he personally blows… i mean, if a maker, compared to the average of people, tends to play a note sharp, he should make a flute so that when he plays it, the tuning of the note will be a bit sharp (instead of in tune), so that when the average guy will play that flute, it will sound in tune…
hope my english didn’t sound too bad,
Lorenzo
I don’t think it makes it any less scientific, but I agree it certainly has a bearing on what we learn.
The best we’ve been able to work out is that flutes of Nicholson’s time had to cover the range from low pitch at 430Hz to high pitch heading up towards 455Hz. There was no 440Hz at that time, so we can be pretty sure it wasn’t intended to play at 440. Excepting that 440 lies about half way between 430 and 455, so it could be that it was aimed at around 440 as a compromise.
We could use RTTA to try to discover what pitch it was aimed at, but I’d have to say it’s unlikely we’d get very far, as the tuning is just so weird.
But, turning our back on the distant past, it IS a perfectly valid use of RTTA to discover how well or how badly that old flute can play music at our modern pitch. We can’t hold Nicholson responsible if it doesn’t - he wasn’t aiming for this. But we can use it to determine if there’s any hope of using today, and what aspects might need to be altered to make it possible. Especially if we were intending to make copies of it for sale.
Question 2:
What is the effect on tuning of bore and tone hole shrinkage over 100+ years? Proportionally, the foot end of the flute gets smaller (bore wise) relative to the top joint end, how does this effect tuning/intonation? Smaller holes similarly are more impacted than larger holes by shrinkage. When we combine the two, what’s the impact?
I’ve only seen the effect of 25-30 years shrinkage (putting original reamers to instruments that have been out in the world and then come back for service), and it is significant. I can’t help thinking that the wood might shrink more given another 75+ years, thus impacting the instrument’s tuning even more.
Loren
I suspect the most of the shrinkage occurs quite early in the life of the flute, excepting in this case the flute has also made it from England’s dank shores to Australia’s sunny clime, so we can expect it to have shrunk a bit more in our drier environment.
There is some evidence of shrinkage, but not much. The usual cracks have occured in head and barrel, though have not opened widely. But the rings are all firm and the keys work smoothly, so shrinkage is pretty minimal.
To test the idea though, I emulated a 1% reduction in bore diameters on a Pratten’s Perfected flute. I didn’t change the head or barrel, as their liners would prevent shrinkage (apart from the kind that causes splitting). 1% seemed like a reasonable allowance - that reduces 19mm to 18.8mm - any more and I’d expect to see signs of it.
The result was a little startling as it was in the opposite direction from what we need. The low d on the “shrunken” flute went 7 cents sharper, this effect tapered down to no change at the top of the low octave, the second octave up to G# went the other way, but the maximum excursion was Eb at 3 cents flatter. The next lot, from 2nd octave A up to 3rd octave F# went sharp like the first octave, with the most affected bing C6 (top of the 2nd octave) sharp by 6 cents.
So, not a great effect, and not in the direction we need. I think we have to assume these flutes were always crook. And of course the critics at the time said so, so that’s consistent.
Terry