Untitled Document
     
Advertisement Click to advertise with us!
     

Jim Schmidt's Tone Test: Flutes

pete

Brassica Oleracea
Staff member
Administrator
http://cvip.fresno.com/~js210/tone.html

I'm moving this to the flute section, in a moment, but this is a good place to link to this.

Anyhow, the basis of this is the question, "For a cylindrical bore instrument, such as a flute, do weight, wall thickness, density/mass does have an effect on the tone of a musical wind instrument?"

According to Mr. Schmidt's tests, yes.

Some commentary in a moment.
 
First, please note that these tests are for a CYLINDRICAL BORE instrument, not a conical bore, like a saxophone. We can discuss conical bore instruments, at agonizing length, in a different thread.

Second, Mr. Schmidt notes that some portions of his test were flawed. I can actually spot one right off: he's not really using a flute. He's using a completely closed-pipe instrument that has a lip-plate. This doesn't invalidate his findings, but it does allow for a bit of wiggle-room with them.

Third, the test here only really is showing that the overall weight of the instrument affects the tone. However, weight does not equal material type or, for that matter, wall thickness. In other words, this test could be interpreted as, "If a flute was made out of lead, it'd sound darker than one made out of aluminum, just because the lead one's heavier."

In other words, I'm saying that the conclusion Mr. Schmidt arrives at doesn't necessarily fit the facts.

Quotes (papers referenced, below):
"The material from which the flute is made is expected to have little effect on the properties measured here {at the headjoint}, apart from its influence on surface finish (which should be very smooth) and the shape of finger holes (which should not have sharp edges). The detailed geometry of the lip plate and embouchure hole (shape, chimney height, undercut angle, edge sharpness, etc.) are all vitally important in determining the tone and responsiveness of the instrument."

"Finger holes have important acoustic influence both when closed (when they contribute small extra volumes to the bore) and when open (when they provide an inertive shunt to the outside air)."

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/flute/anatomy.html and http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/publications/JSV.pdf

The PhD conclusion: doesn't really look like the material does too darn much. The overall length of the flute -- i.e. different "foot" additions -- do, primarily because of the additional tone holes. Oh. They also say that one of the biggest determining factors on the sound is ... the player.

==========

When I first saw this test, I was interested just from the standpoint of a saxophonist trying to see if ANY instrument's tone can be affected by what material it's made out of. We've probably all heard things like, "Solid silver sounds more bright" or "Wood clarinets have a reedier tone" or something like that. For flute, I really do think that the argument can be made that material can make a lot of difference. Why? Because there's not much bore to play with if you want a flute to sound like a flute; you have to play with wall thickness and weight. Clarinet? You've got lots of bore tweaking going on -- that's the idea behind, say, the Buffet R13 (a fairly expensive clarinet). Saxophone? Heck, saxophone historians can't even agree if there's such a thing as a parabolic conical bore or not (or when that was discontinued).
 
Actually, I read that they can be either. I'm not a flautist and don't play one on TV, so you're gonna have to help me out on that one for what most modern ones are.

They all look cylindrical, to me.

Now, we could talk about Boehm's Parabola Flute ....
 
There are several important methodological flaws in Jim's tests, which I pointed out to him when he first performed them. First, studies have shown that players are extremely sensitive to changes in weight and balance of instruments. The player should not be able to touch the flute *at all* except with her/his lips. The weight can be sensed by the feel even if the flute is suspended vertically: if you swing a pendulum you can easily tell the difference between one with a light and heavy plumb by its acceleration at the end of the string. If Jim wants a non-rigid suspension he must use something like a mic shock mount, which would adequately support the flute in all three axes but still not inhibit significant vibrations in the tube, if they exist.

Secondly I suggested to Jim that in order to make the trials more random, there should be no fixed regimen of "A" and then "B", with A being one state and B the other. The weighted and unweighted states should not alternate regularly but randomly.

Only under these conditions would I begin to consider the methodology adequate.

Flute heads are not conical, but there is a progressive reduction in the diameter of the head joint from about one-third the way up from the tenon to the embouchure hole. Boehm called this "parabolic" but it is not actually that shape, and varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. It is intended to bring the harmonics into a reasonable relationship due to the laws of physics and some unavoidable compromises in bore design of any real-world instrument . It has some major effects on overall tone and response too, of course, but they are not the primary reason for the existence of that bore shape.

As far as wall thickness, overall weight or material affecting the sound, there should be no difference between a cylindrical and conical instrument.

Toby
 
Toby,

As always your insight and knowledge amaze and impress me.

Keep it coming.

Ed
 
Ed Svoboda said:
Toby,

As always your insight and knowledge amaze and impress me.

Keep it coming.

Ed

I am always afraid that I misunderstand stuff and am passing on the misunderstandings, since most of the math is somewhat beyond my meager analytical skills. So take everything I say with at least a grain of salt.

I always remember a series in "Peanuts", in which Lucy is explaining the world to a wide-eyed Linus, authoritatively telling him how and why fire hydrants grow where they do, for instance, while Charile Brown looks on helplessly....

Toby
 
pete said:
When I first saw this test, I was interested just from the standpoint of a saxophonist trying to see if ANY instrument's tone can be affected by what material it's made out of. We've probably all heard things like, "Solid silver sounds more bright" or "Wood clarinets have a reedier tone" or something like that. For flute, I really do think that the argument can be made that material can make a lot of difference. Why? Because there's not much bore to play with if you want a flute to sound like a flute; you have to play with wall thickness and weight. Clarinet? You've got lots of bore tweaking going on -- that's the idea behind, say, the Buffet R13 (a fairly expensive clarinet). Saxophone? Heck, saxophone historians can't even agree if there's such a thing as a parabolic conical bore or not (or when that was discontinued).

I really can't follow your reasoning here. Why can an argument be made that materials or wall thickness can make a big difference when detailed experimentation has failed to discern any significant vibrations arising from the walls of any woodwind instrument? It has been found again and again that the only significant determinants of woodwind tone and response are bore geometry and, to a much smaller extent, bore smoothness. The polycylindrical area of the R13 bore is near the top, in a position roughly analogous to the restriction in the headjoint of a flute. And in fact, the difference in sound between different flutes depends almost entirely on the diameter of the tube and the shape of the headjoint restriction, along with the geometry of the embouchure hole, which is somewhat analogous to the geometry of the mouthpiece in a single-reed instrument.

Toby
 
If I'm understanding things correctly -- and I might not be -- a flute can't have that much of a different length or it's not going to sound like a flute or just not work, period. You don't have a taper you can deal with, so that's a dimension that you don't have available, and thus cuts down on your chances for variation. Wouldn't that "wall thickness" really be your "bore variation"?

Or am I missing something?
 
pete said:
If I'm understanding things correctly -- and I might not be -- a flute can't have that much of a different length or it's not going to sound like a flute or just not work, period. You don't have a taper you can deal with, so that's a dimension that you don't have available, and thus cuts down on your chances for variation. Wouldn't that "wall thickness" really be your "bore variation"?

Or am I missing something?

You do have a taper, and that is taper of the headjoint. You also have, very importantly, the whole geometry of the embouchure hole and chimney. And, in fact, you have the diameter of the cylindrical flute tube, which can vary quite a bit and still work, and does vary significantly from manufacturer to manufacturer. In fact, if you measure sax tapers, you will find them very similar, as the taper is critical for correct tuning of the octaves, so there is not much room here to play either. Both flute and sax geometries have to fall within relatively narrow limits to play decently.

Also, you are assuming that wall thickness actually makes a difference in tone, and this is simply not the case, the claims of most makers notwithstanding. I could go into this at length, and will if you wish, but experimentation has shown that it simply doesn't make a difference.

Toby
 
I think we may be using different semantics: I'm referring to the bore as the interior diameter and I assumed that wall thickness affects that interior diameter, i.e. changes the bore size. Or have I missed the point?

I am more comfortable with discussing saxophones, of course, so I can easily point out the difference in bores of those: hey, pick a Conn New Wonder. It's squat in comparison to a Buescher True Tone. And the Conn's "optimized" for big band-style music, the Buescher's "optimized" for classical.

I somewhat equate flute headjoints to the combination of a sax mouthpiece and neck or a clarinet mouthpiece and barrel. Ask any saxophonist or clarinetist and they're pretty darn positive that these affect the sound the instrument puts out, and I'm pretty positive they're right. Which is why I'd try to eliminate the headjoint from this discussion, unless it's the same one used in each example.

Possibly, could you say that the BODY of the flute doesn't matter as much as the headjoint?
 
The tube is drawn with a certain interior diameter, or in the old days seamed on a mandrel, so the interior diameter should be whatever the manufacturer specifies, the thickness of the wall notwithstanding. And that diameter varies considerably, as can be seen from this chart:

http://alpha1.fmarion.edu/goferjoe/headsize.htm

I think that you will find with saxes that the cone angle is pretty similar, even if the overall diameter varies somewhat, so this is essentially analogous to a different (constant cylindrical) diameter of the flute body. I think in general one could say that a larger diameter gives a "fatter" sound with stronger lows and more difficult and airier highs. A smaller diameter tube gives a brighter sound with quick response, a good top end but the low end suffers in power if not in response.

I would definitely say that overall the headjoint is more important to the character of the sound than the body, although the body does add its bit. The geometry of the embouchure hole is important as well, and has a large effect on the flute's response to the breath, though possibly less to the actual tone color.

But to answer you original question: a flute with .020" walls and an inner diameter of .770" should sound exactly the same as a flute with .014" walls and an ID of .770", all other factors being equal.

Toby
 
Mmm. How 'bout my other question: does the headjoint have more to do with how the flute sounds than the rest of the body?
 
Generally I would say that the headjoint is the main generator of the character of the flute, just as I would say that the neck and mouthpiece have the same role in a sax. They are the only part of the instrument that affect the whole playing range: as soon as you have an open tonehole you have pretty much disconnected any part of the body below it.

Toby
 
That's equivocating a bit, Toby :).

Seriously, if a headjoint is the main thing for flutes, there are a lot of "decent" flutes out there that could be paired with "really good" headjoints for a lot less than, say, a $35K top-of-the-line Haynes.

Go easy on me; my sister's the flute player :D.
 
pete said:
That's equivocating a bit, Toby :).

Seriously, if a headjoint is the main thing for flutes, there are a lot of "decent" flutes out there that could be paired with "really good" headjoints for a lot less than, say, a $35K top-of-the-line Haynes.

Go easy on me; my sister's the flute player :D.

Here's my experience: I have two handmade flutes, a Powell and an Almeida, who was Powell's foreman for many years before setting up his own shop. The headjoints on these two are interchangeable: one (the Powell) is Cooper-style, the Almeida is a classic Boston cut. They are very different, both in sound and response. The Powell has unbelieveable response--a bit of air and it is singing. The sound is almost painfully clear and focused, it has a brilliant midrange without any tubbiness or airiness. The Almeida has a lot more resistance, and the sound is more "French" with a whisper of warmth in the lows, some presence in the highs and somewhat muted mids.

They maintain their sound and response on either body, but there are differences as well: the sound with the Powell body (here I have to resort to descriptives) seems less solid, a bit less focused, but more agile than the Almeida, which is a bit stronger, and "adamant"--it is more stable but the sound seems a bit less "playful" than the Powell and feels just a touch distant. To use a driving analogy: the Powell oversteers and the Almeida understeers. I can't decide which I like better and the difference is subtle, but it is there.

Unfortunately I can't put these heads on my student flutes due to the great disparity in diameter, so I can't tell you about their behavior on cheap bodies.

I know that this is apostasy, but if I had my choice between a good body and a cheap headjoint and a cheap body and a good headjoint I would choose the former. I am a good enough flute player that I can get a decent sound out of just about anything (I have an old Artley and a bottom-of-the-line Yamaha, and I can get just as much sound out of those, playing all three octaves, as I can out of my handmade flutes), but nothing substitutes for decent keywork.

Rampal, when asked about the difference between his 1869 Louis Lot and his modern Haynes, replied to the effect that "at first there was a lot of difference, but it soon disappeared". You can pretty much get used to any headjoint if it is half-decent: a few tweaks of embouchure and airstream and you maximize what you've got. It is lovely coming back to the Powell headjoint after I have been playing one of the others for a while, but when I am playing the others they seem absolutely fine. The big difference only lasts a day at most. What difference persists is most evident when I am playing at relatively low power. If I open up and push air through the flute either of them are capable of singing, and this goes for my cheap headjoints as well.

This has to do (I think) with nonlinearities that manifest with different airstream velocities and flows, but the upshot is that, at the end of the day, the sound is limited not by the headjoint as such but by how much air is moving inside the flute body, but the approach to that maximum is determined by the way the airjet couples with the mass of air inside the flute, which is greatly determined by the geometry of the embouchure hole and affected by the restriction of the headjoint. Once you learn to "drive" the headjoint and to adjust for its particular personality you erase many of the differences you find when first playing it.

OTOH loose, clackity keywork drives me to distraction: good, tight keywork with properly set up spring tensions is a joy forever.

A final word: if you have a "bad" headjoint, and there are a few around, or an old design like the small elliptical embouchure common on flutes in the late 19th century, a new headjoint will work wonders on any flute.

And yes, absolutely: a stellar headjoint on a $2000 body is not much different from a stellar headjoint on a $30000 body. Sometimes cheaper flutes may even be "better" (that is often a matter of taste). I have a Hammig which I picked up for $600 on eBay that is only plated, but in many respects I prefer it to my expensive silver beasties. Don't get me started on gold and platinum. A fool and his money are soon parted. Enough said.

Is that less equivocal?

Toby
 
Excellent. Using my phrase of the moment, "Toby, thanks for improving this part of the forum."

I also made this thread the Thread of the Week.
 
Back
Top Bottom