Hmmmm. Some wave propagation is directional. The USN spends a lot of tax dollars on directional SONAR research. And of course your friendly Telcomcos are interested in LOS microwave propagation.
The problem, as I see it, is that most musical instruments are by design, directionally detuned propagators. . .that is to say they are broadcast propagators. They may have specific lobes of preferential projection, but these are as much by design as by accident.
The best illustrations of intentionally designed sound projection can be found in the eponymously named ‘trumpet’ shape. Listening ‘to his Master’s voice’ is the most famous illustration. I don’t know of any studies on preferential sound propagation in transverse flutes. There very probably are favored vectors to listen to flute projection, but I am not sure if this has been systematically studied.
It isn’t about THE large-holed Rudall compared to THE Pratten. Which particular large-holed Rudall? And which particular Pratten? Flutes by the same maker – even the same model – vary a great deal.
uh…no. (and I speak of the originals…not the modern efforts at “copying” them)
Rudalls do, indeed, vary greatly…largely because of style of the period over many years, changes in pitch and, more importantly, the hands that made them.
Prattens, however, do not. Not even close. (and I speak ONLY of the 8key variety…not the various systems that permeated the Pratten name).
I’ve seen perhaps one – not perhaps…JUST one – medium-holed Pratten flute. Otherwise…the only and singly different aspect between the Hudson-Pratten flutes and the Boosey-Pratten flutes…was the position of the tone holes in relation to each other. The RH holes on the Hudson are offset, further forward. That’s it. That’s the only difference.
Key styles differ (hudson keys opposed to block opposed to post-mount opposed to silver or german silver opposed to shape of cup)…but there is no discernable difference in the measure of the Boosey-made Pratten flutes.
Put them next to each other – and i’ve done this with my Hudson #27, the oldest known in the world up against an 1880 Boosey-Pratten made some 30 years later…and they’re the same. Measured, too, and they’re the same.
so…
the variant is in the Rudall flutes…not the Prattens.
The problem, as I see it, is that most musical instruments are by design, directionally detuned propagators. . .that is to say they are broadcast propagators. They may have specific lobes of preferential projection, but these are as much by design as by accident.
first i needed to look at what forum I was in when I read this.
then i just wanted to shoot myself.
it’s good to be dumb. My head doesn’t hurt as much.
My guess would be that volume registered by the dB meter is the energy present in the sum of the fundamental harmonics of the sound. It seems to me that projection relates to perception of the sound by humans, and the presence (or lack thereof) of instruments with similar/different harmonics.
The ear has different sensitivities to different frequencies of sound, so not all sounds of the same absolute loudness are perceived as the same loudness. This has been used by recording engineers since the 50s. It seems plausible to me that different instruments/players could produce sounds of equal loudness, but with differing percentages of harmonics and fundamental. If a greater proportion of the instrument’s output is in the range to which human ears are most sensitive, that one instrument would be perceived as louder than an instrument with most of its energy in harmonics to which the ear is insensitive.
It also seems to me that there could be a masking effect if one plays with other instruments. If other instruments are producing pretty much the same fundamental and harmonics as the flute player, it will be harder to hear the flute player as distinct from the other instruments. Conversely, if the flute player is producing significant energy in a region that other instruments are not, then they will be heard more distinctly.
I suspect that these possibilities explain the anecdotal reports that some flutes/players project better than others, and explain why projection and loudness could be different.
Yeah, heaps. Flutes don’t seem all that interesting in this area though - more or less omnidirectional with some shading and reflective effect from the player. Fiddles, guitars and bells are really interesting - every harmonic has its own area(s) of the vibrating surface to play in, and it’s own lobar pattern.
But of course one you are in a practical room with its mix of reflective and absorptive surfaces at differing distances and angles, the theory all pretty much goes to pot. But you can see why placement of amplifying “bugs” can be pretty critical.
To stay slightly on topic, I’ve been in a session with a Pratten copy, Rudall copy and an antique German flute, the Pratten player was the least loud and projecting, probably because of the ‘round’ sound.
Maybe he wasn’t a very good player, or wasn’t playing loud.
My tone on my large holed rudall-style flute (a lehart) has improved a lot lately, at times I get really loud (uhuh ), but still when I play with Olwell pratten’s players it’s really hard to get to the same level of loudness (or volume or whatever)
In my experience out in the wilds, most people who buy Pratten flutes don’t even come close to filling them up. I liken it to buying a Ferrari, then pottering off to the shops in first gear. Wouldn’t it be better to get a Volvo/Rudall?
That’s not fair, either, since Rudalls can clearly raise the rafters. But Volvos get less respect than they deserve…
If you’re the only flute player it’s easy, if the other flute player(s) also play a Rudall it’s fine, but it’s harder when you’re playing together with a Pratten guy…
Apologies to those who have read this story before. I was playing a Grinter at a big session when a guy I didn’t know came in, listened for a while, and then joined us. He had a Nach Meyer, but played very well. Afterwards he asked me what I was playing, and said that it just cut through the fiddles and concertinas. As a player, I wouldn’t have said it was a particularly loud instrument. The guy turned out to be a first chair flute in a regional symphony, played wooden flutes for fun, and presumably knew what he was talking about. FWIW.
[quote="Rob SharerIn my experience out in the wilds, most people who buy Pratten flutes don’t even come close to filling them up. I liken it to buying a Ferrari, then pottering off to the shops in first gear. Wouldn’t it be better to get a Volvo/Rudall?
[/quote]
Not necessarily why some choose Prattens, filling them up (although I think I do okay in this area, but that’s an aside). I have one of each (Pratten/Rudall style moderns, not the originals). The approach to each is different; I find that when I play the Rudall, I push it against its nature to sound like the Pratten; seems to be the sound I’m after, and that’s not fair to the flute. Additionally, I find the thinner flute (the Rudall, of course) uncomfortable after a bit - contrary to why I went that route in the first place - and my fingers cramp. The Pratten is immensely more comfortable in my hands, although smaller holes do make some ornaments crisper. Now, all this is possibly just the Rudall I own against the Pratten. With this as a given, though, it’s why the Pratten won out, volvos be damned.
A good analogy for me was when I chose to play Fenders, over Gibsons - the Gibsons’ low action and refined necks are just too easy to play, fine when practicing, but, when playing live, I found I needed more to fight, more resistance, on the strings. It’s a player preference - some of us are better at delicacy and restraint, and apparently, when pushing myself, restraint goes out the window. That said, Prattens are not as much fun to practice on in a small room, but playing out, or with louder accompaniment, the Pratten is the one I want to be playing.
Not a matter of volume or projection (they both cut any room), but a matter of me.
Bob
.
