I like the M&E better.
The Seery was too bright for me, the M&E has a darker tone.
I once had a Seery thrown on me from the 31 floor, nearly killed me!
my advice: invest $20 in a helmet, and go walk in gcollins neighborhood, pray for his Patent head R&R 
LOL 
!
Well, I still think comparisons are valuable, for what they are.
What they are not, and are never meant to be (at least by me) is an objective measure of anything. They are subjectiveâthey are an opinion.
When you have someone like Jessie or myself who has the flutes in question, wouldnât you feel that by actually having access to the flutes we had the basis of forming an opinion about which flutes do which things better?
Well, the comparison just takes that one step further, and is often an attempt to demonstrate why we feel a flute does a certain thing well or not so well.
I started to record a comparison for this thread, but since my comparisons usually trigger firestorms of controversyâwhy, I still donât knowâI figured it would be doing a disservice to those reading this thread who have a genuine question and want it answered: if I post a comparison, about all theyâll get to read about is why a few folks think comparisons are bad.
On to the topic at hand:
I really donât think you would go wrong with either an M&E or a Seery as your first flute. Both are good.
The Seery is likely to be far more frustrating for the first several months, as it is a harder flute to fill and has more demanding embouchure and air support requirements. The M&E is more forgiving in this regard.
âJames
Gus, I wonder if the flute survived the fall. It would make for great marketing for the Seery fluteworld. Eilam survived!
And that could be the ultimate test between these two flutes (M&E and Seery), the tiebreaker - throw them off a building, run them over, beat a bodhran player silly withâem, etc., and see which one lasts the longest. Survivor!
More power to ⌠d-el-r-i-n!
Not to argue Stuart, but having played the Sweetheart flute in question, I have to tell you that itâs unusually goodâŚFreakishly good in fact - not at all like any of the Sweetheart flutes Iâve tried in the past.
Iâm sure youâre right: A person will likely, under most circumstances, sound best on the flute they are most comfortable playing, but in this case donât discount the flute itself, as this particular Sweetheart flute would likely astound you. Even more amusing because itâs full of repaired cracks!
Loren
But itâs still no Olwell.
Goes without sayingâŚ
Loren
Oh, sure. And I know this is hijacking the thread, but . . .
Which one we like and which one we sound better on are two completely different things. I have no doubt Jessie liked/likes the Olwell in question better than the freakishly-good Sweetheart. But the âfactâ remains that, in those comparison clips, she sounds better on the Sweetheart.
There are a lot of confounding factors for those comparisons. This is an excellent case in point.
So James, if someone says they like one better, but in the comparisons a different one sounds better . . . whatâs the flute-comparison-listener supposed to take from that? How does that help him/her decide on a flute . . . if I were a rank beginner, and I listened to those clips, Iâd have to go out and buy a Ralph Sweet flute. Iâd never touch either of the polymers, and Iâd wonder what the attraction of the Olwell was.
Stuart
Edited because I goofed. Why else would I edit?
<and see which one lasts the longest. Survivor!
<More power to ⌠d-el-r-i-n!
TaeKwonFlute
Do as I say and not as I do.
Yes, the Sweet flute was the only one of those four that was mine. I was, therefore, most comfortable on that one.
But I donât agree that it sounds better than the Olwell. Perhaps the playing sounds better on the Sweet, but the tone of the Olwell is much smoother. I just listened to them both and I see how you think the Sweet sounds better, but thatâs deceiving. The Olwell is so much easier to play. That Sweet is, however, better than any M&E or Seery.
I donât have a recording studio anymore (gave that up with the first husband). Dan and I have been talking about setting one up here, but he has a really good recording engineer that he records with, and I donât feel like learning all the programming on a high-tech recorderâŚIâd rather buy a really nice piano, which we probably will do in the next year or so. But anyway, I could go into the studio and do some samples now, with quite a bit more playing time under my belt than the last time I recorded it, but itâs expensive (studio time) and far away and I donât really feel like it.
So, Stuart, if Tilebungus McBrey posts his opinion on this help-me-choose-a-flute thread, and you donât know him from Adam but he says heâs played Irish flute for years, and offers up his opinionâŚthen thatâs better because Tibebungus doesnât offer up a possibly misleading comparison?
At least with recordings you have something tangible. Itâs still just an opinion, after all, but at least it has something backing it up.
If you wanna listen to Tilebungus over someone who actually owns both flutes, has lived with them, knows their quirks and their strengths and how to make them play wellâŚwell, go right aheadâyouâre on the Internet, and Iâve heard thatâs Tileyâs favorite place to hang out, so youâre bound to encounter him pretty soon, if you havenât already.
âJames
Well, weâll just leave it at that. Itâs funny; even your paragraph shows what Iâm talking about. The sound of the Sweet is deceiving, because the Olwell is easier to play . . . ? Post hoc ergo propter hoc? It may be easier to play, but you sounded better on the more-difficult Sweet. Thatâs why itâs deceiving. And in the recordings, the tone of the Olwell may be smoother, but itâs thinner, probably reflecting that fact that you were used to filling the Sweet and not to filling the Olwell.
And, it would even actually be OK in the grand Scheme of Fluteness that the Sweet be easier to play; Olwellâs embouchure, while forgiving, has to be one that works for pros. The Sweet isnât intended as such.
Weâre sort of at an impasse. Now, the person who offered the clips says she understands why I think the Sweet clip sounds better, but that the Olwell was actually easier to play. If it was easier to play, why does the Sweet sound better? I guess I donât think it was easier to play, or its superiority would have shone forth in the clips.
Thatâs not to say that if Jessie were to re-record the clips, now, sheâd not sound better on the Olwell. She might very well. And this is obviously not an attack on Jessie: she put her playing out there for all to hear, good on her. I guess we have just come upon another example of why clips do show something . . . but theyâre hardly good demonstrations of the instrument.
When these things come up, people always say, âYou know, Molloy would sound great on anything.â Yeah, he might. But heâd hate playing some of the flutes because of their inherent limitations. This is a completely different situation: we have an amateur who played four flutes and picked her favorite, the Olwell. She presented her work, and, for the outside listener, the flute she likes isnât the one she sounds best on.
Back when I started fluting, RIGHT at the beginning, I went over to a friendâs house. Heâs a much more accomplished player than I, and as I recall, he had two beautiful flutes, one Olwell, one Wilkes. At that point, I was ready to get on a list for a âgoodâ flute. We did a side-by-side comparison, and he played both for me. He preferred the Wilkes, no doubt. I preferred hearing him play the Olwell. He insisted that the Wilkes was actually better for him. I got on Olwellâs list, and not Chrisâs. Also at that point, I really couldnât play either the Wilkes or the Olwell that well, but I went with what I heard.
Playing the flute is a very personal experience. The way the flutes sound to us, and the way they sound to others, are often two different things. Just like our voices, but for somewhat different reasons. I may be accustomed to my own Olwell, but hey, I might sound better on the Rose flute. I prefer playing the Olwell for lots of reasons.
Stuart
What was threatening about my question, Jim? I think the clip of the Sweet sounds better. Jessie reluctantly admits the Sweet clip sounds better, but says itâs deceiving, and herself says to do as she says, not as she does (which was an excellent quip, Jessie). But Jessie says the Olwell is a better flute, and was easier to play.
My direct question regarded how, in your opinion, one should take the comparison clips that contradict the reviewerâs feelings.
Ignoring the synthetic flutes, letâs say sheâd posted those clips and said she prefers that particular Sweet flute to the Olwell. Would we make her wear a scarlet S on her collar because she chose the âwrongâ flute, since we âknowâ Pat is a better flutesmith than Ralph Sweet?
Would this be easier if they were clips of a Wilkes and an Olwell, and she said she liked the Olwell better, but a lot of folks preferred the Wilkes sound? Maybe this is hard because of how disconcerting the comparison is.
I guess I donât get your point.
Stuart
Stuart, I agree with you that the Sweet sounds significantly better - even better than the Olwell. What I find interesting is that both the polymer flutes are ones Jessie said she didnât play much. How good would they sound if she spent quality time with them. Weâre talking a lot about the Olwell here, but the same applies to the M&E and the Seery as well.
Now donât get me wrong, I enjoy comparisons, but Iâve come strongly to believe we all sound best on the flutes we play the most followed closely by the ones we like the best.
Eric
Yeah, point taken. We know she spent time with the Sweet, and it shows. She liked playing the Olwell. She didnât like the Seery or M&E; thatâs also a valid opinion, I think. There is something different about the Olwell and the Sweet.
Is it just that theyâre timber? Maybe not; there may be more to it. Can we tell? Eh, itâd be hard, unless we were able to get timber Seery and M&E flutes to compare with the delrin ones . . .
Stuart
Iâm not feeling threatened, Stuartâperhaps a bit exasperated, but certainly not threatened.
I just really wonder which youâd prefer? Do you want to hear things about different flutes from people who actually have experience with them?
Or do you really wish weâd all just shut up about the flutes already? 
âJames
I had the opportunity to play three Sweet flutes yesterday (went to buy a Mandolin for our oldest one (9 year old)).
The flutes were: Walnut, Cherry, and Rosewood with Eb key.
They were all very light and sounded very fluffy, but I have played some before that had a huge round tone.
I really believe that on the cheaper flutes, itâs hit or miss.
I know that the Seery that I had was nothing like Tom Doorleyâs flute.
By the way - Stuart, I think youâre right on, so much has to do with how we feel about the flute, and what weâre used to.
When we compare four flutes, there is usually one that we like the most, even if it is the first time we play the flute. Before we blow into it, we form an opinion based on the feel/looks/and craftsmanship.
I like sweet maple Ds best of the sweets
Iâve played; but Iâve never played an
applewood. Maples are very good.
Let me say that I liked the Olwell recording best. Jim
Yeah, me too.
Dana
This is interesting, and probably true.
Another thing: with the Sweet flute, I concentrated and worked for the tone. With the Olwell, I sat back in my chair and just breathed into it. So I played the Sweet with more care and attention, and thatâs what you hear in the recording. Darn, I wish I could do another Olwell clip right now. Hmph.