Ormiston Rosewood Flute on Ebay

Ben Shaffer · Post by **Ben Shaffer** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 1:55 pm

I think Brightness is more inherent in the design of the instrument ( bore design, thickness of the bore wood), although the density of the wood might make a difference to some degree.
Again I've got 2 Abell Whistles , both I would say have a bright sound, the blackwood, maybe a shade brighter, but that would be splitting hairs
Ben

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 4:32 pm

Ormiston suggests that rosewood has a different
tone from blackwood. So how would you'all, if you
agree with this, describe the difference? there's
something pretty distinctive about rosewood,
I think. What is it? Especially concerning
woodwinds. Also I always rather thought
rosewood is pretty tough stuff--is it?
What do you think? Otherwise I'm
gonna have to buy this flute to find out.
Best

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 5:08 pm

"Tough" depends on what you're talking about. All timbers we usually talk about with regard to flutes are hard, dense timbers. Part of what Ormiston's talking about, probably, is that blackwood is inherently somewhat more stable than rosewoods at large. Meaning, if he reams it out, lets it sit, and comes back, it tends to shift less. Also, blackwood is pretty darn oily compared to nearly anything else (except maybe lignum) and is very water-resistant.

If you take care of your instruments, it doesn't much matter; it all depends on how much care you want to take.

Stuart

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 6:10 pm

I would suppose that rosewood is more
stable than boxwood...how bout cocus?
And what about the tone?

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Sun Aug 03, 2003 6:22 pm

Cocus is quite stable, though dry. And, it's got arguably the best tone of any timber.

Rosewood tone . . . I don't know a lot about "generic" rosewood. I like cocobolo a lot.

Jim, no one can tell you what the rosewood will sound like. There are boxwood flutes that are louder and more penetrating than blackwood ones. If you like the rosewood, that's a reason to go for it.

Choice of timber is probably the least important choice for a flute. Pick a good maker, then a good style of flute for you. Decide whether or not you want keys, and if you want them, how many. THEN, pick a timber you like.

This is advice from someone who has owned many flutes from many timbers. I think timber is aesthetic in the purest sense. That doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

The only negative aspect of buying a flute that's not blackwood/cocus/boxwood is resale value, I think. A lot of people have strong prejudices about blackwood/cocus/boxwood, and find anything else inferior. Likewise, some people love cocus and hate boxwood and blackwood.

Stuart

Steven · Post by **Steven** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 6:50 am

To go back to the original topic (the flute on eBay) for a moment, it doesn't sound like people noticed the caveat in the shipping section, where the seller said she would only send it within the UK. Sorry Jim, but unless you figure out a workaround, I don't think you'll be buying this flute.

Steven

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 6:53 am

Thanks, I've played cocus flutes and like them
very well. I have a boxwood g from bleazey,
which has the sort of warm mellow boxwood
tone. I've played several rosewood flutes,
and they had a distinctive tone
which I associate with rosewood--but
perhaps can't characterize..
I think I'm one of these folks who is
partial to blackwood. Point about resale
well taken. Best

Thanks Steven. Like Chas I'm getting
maxed on flutes. Really what I wanted
to know is "how do you'all characterize
the sound of rosewood?', all other
things being equal--design, maker,
whatever. If there's a characteristic tonal contribution
that rosewood tends to make to a flute
or whistle, what is it? Especially compared
to blackwood. Best

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:32 am

I think Fandango's right. The timber supplies so little to the tone that discussing the merits of the tone of various timbers is nearly meaningless.

Just looking through the threads on Chiff and Fipple, you'll find boxwood being brighter than blackwood, blackwood brighter than boxwood, cocus brighter than blackwood, etc. There's not even a consensus as to any kind of conventional wisdom about the SOUND of the timbers.

And I personally don't put a whole lot of stock into the discussions since the player and listeners are never blinded. I know, I know, I raise the evil specter of the Double Blind Test. But it's true. I seriously doubt that any of us could tell much if we were blindfolded and handed a flute and asked to play it . . .

But I should stop responding because Jim seems to want an answer as to how rosewood sounds. Which rosewood are you talking about, though . . . Madagascar, Maracaibo, Brazilian, Honduran . . .

And when I talk about it being very hard to tell, I'm talking flutes, NOT the use of timber in guitars. That's a COMPLETELY different story, when the timber is being used to make a resonating box. Very different.

Pick something you like to look at, that's what I say. Something you like to look at and that you're not allergic to, I should amend. Blackwood, cocus, and rosewood allergies abound. But nobody seems to be allergic to good old boxwood.

Stuart

Loren · Post by **Loren** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 9:40 am

Sturob wrote: "I think Fandango's right. The timber supplies so little to the tone that discussing the merits of the tone of various timbers is nearly meaningless."

Oh please, try telling that to Chris Norman, Kevin Crawford, and on and on. They choose to have their flutes made of a particular wood because they can tell a significant difference, and so can (some) others.

"Just looking through the threads on Chiff and Fipple, you'll find boxwood being brighter than blackwood, blackwood brighter than boxwood, cocus brighter than blackwood, etc."

Chiff and fipple is populated mostly by people with.....not enough experience, particularly because few have had the opportunity to compare same maker/model instruments made of different timbers.

"There's not even a consensus as to any kind of conventional wisdom about the SOUND of the timbers."

Rubbish!

Ask McGee, Olwell, Hamilton, Noy, and Grinter how the various woods compare in regards to tone and you'll get a consensus. I have when speaking to makers.

"And I personally don't put a whole lot of stock into the discussions since the player and listeners are never blinded."

Hey, no need to get violent

"I know, I know, I raise the evil specter of the Double Blind Test. But it's true. I seriously doubt that any of us could tell much if we were blindfolded and handed a flute and asked to play it"

Well, I've done blind listenings where I had the opportunity to compare Olwells made from Cocus, Delrin, and Blackwood. Swapped headjoints around on the different bodies as well, I could tell the difference, with back turned, from approx. 10 feet away. Some people have unusually keen eyesight, others a very sensitive sense of smell, and others still a more refined or perhaps more developed hearing - why is it so hard for some people to believe that others CAN hear a difference?

"But I should stop responding because Jim seems to want an answer as to how rosewood sounds. Which rosewood are you talking about, though . . . Madagascar, Maracaibo, Brazilian, Honduran . . . "

Quite right, the type can make a difference.

"And when I talk about it being very hard to tell, I'm talking flutes, NOT the use of timber in guitars. That's a COMPLETELY different story, when the timber is being used to make a resonating box. Very different."

Totally with you on that, just didn't want to go down that path as well, only so many hours in the day!

"Pick something you like to look at, that's what I say."

Well sure, if you've got hearing like a Dalmation

"Something you like to look at and that you're not allergic to, I should amend."

Amen to that brother!!! Don't want a case of the flaming lips....

Loren

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 10:08 am

Loren Loren Loren.

The crux of what I'm saying is that it's ALL SUBJECTIVE. Just ask Chris Norman, or Kevin Crawford? Did you notice that they chose different timbers?

I didn't say that the timber supplies NOTHING to the tone: I said that discussing it is kind of meaningless. Why? Even when one talks to makers, which I myself have done, there is difference of opinion insofar as what timber sounds like what. I believe I said that there's a consensus as far as cocus is concerned, but as for the other woods . . . there isn't. Honestly. There isn't. I've talked to the same people you have, and the only truly consistent thing is about cocus. Sure, there are trends about blackwood and box, but I still have heard some (out-lying) people I respect make claims for boxwood that most make for blackwood. So I don't know.

And I never said there was no difference. Nor that I have hearing like a dalmatian, and can't hear a difference. But let's get back to the players you mention who have flutes made of particular timbers for their sound qualities. You mention flute virtuosi, for whom those distinctions are exceedingly important.

You've also NOT heard the flutes in a blinded fashion, Loren. I mentioned the DOUBLE blind test. Was the player blinded as to which flute s/he was playing? No. So, if your player thought blackwood should be bright and boxwood mellow, mightn't s/he have played them that way, even if they were all Olwell Prattens? Again, I NEVER said you can't or that anyone CAN'T or ISN'T hearing a difference.

This goes back to the whole thing on another thread about people posting sound comparisons. They're fun to make and to listen to, but not helpful for the purposes of choosing a flute, in my opinion. I suppose if you were to get rabid enough about it, I would say that I like cocus the best, and find boxwood a little more mellow than blackwood, which is bright but not as colorful as cocus. But that's me, and that's what I hear, and how I play them. Before I even played my first flute, though, I was told time and again that those were the Cardinal Virtues of the Timbers of Music, so my opinions are colored by that. I've never had a truly blinded listen.

This is sort of like having a discussion as to why, according to the rules, something or another is aesthetic. I don't know how to define aesthetic absolutes.

So, all in all, I guess I was trying to convince Jim that his question is a really hard one to answer and it depends on a bunch of different variables, way too many to listen. I'll be happy to read a Consensus Statement on the Contribution of Timber to the Sound of the Wooden Flute if you'd like to compile one . . .

I still say pick one you like, acoustically and visually. Then, perhaps, once you get the first few solo CDs under your belt, we can all chastise you for picking that bright blackwood flute or that mellow boxwood flute. It all comes down to hearing yourself play them, and not what other people tell you that you should be hearing.

Stuart

Loren · Post by **Loren** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 10:50 am

No need to get defensive

I'll get right on that consensus thingy, ought to be done right about the time I put out my first solo CD, the one that no one would want to hear

I believe we've beaten this equine sufficiently, enough for me anyway.

Loren

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 10:58 am

I'm not being defensive.

One just always feels the need to respond to a somewhat-inflammatory post with smilies at the end of each line.

Stuart

chas · Post by **chas** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:16 am

sturob wrote:I suppose if you were to get rabid enough about it, I would say that I like cocus the best, and find boxwood a little more mellow than blackwood, which is bright but not as colorful as cocus.

I certainly feel the same way.

There are many difficult aspects wrt discussing the sounds of different woods, not the least of which is semantics. When we were mulling over cocus vs blackwood before ordering our Grinter, I showed my wife some of the discussions on this board. She kept asking what was meant by bright, mellow, dark, and all the other terms that we throw about. I know what I mean, but a different person with a different background, different hearing, different vocabulary, might use these terms in a totally different way. The worst part of it was, I couldn't describe to her satisfaction what I mean by all these terms.

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:27 am

Quite so, Charlie!

I was actually thinking about that after my last post. All these terms mean something to all of us, but whether or not they mean the same thing is another matter entirely.

I chastised Loren for bringing up the flute players who pick a certain timber for its tonal qualities, or whatever . . . but in thinking about it, I really feel like Crawford sounds like Crawford whether he's playing lancewood or blackwood. Likewise Chris Norman, who sounds boxwoody on anything. So I don't know.

And I realize I'm quite opinionated for an ignoramus.

Stuart

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:56 am

Loren wrote:Sturob wrote: "I think Fandango's right. The timber supplies so little to the tone that discussing the merits of the tone of various timbers is nearly meaningless."

Oh please, try telling that to Chris Norman, Kevin Crawford, and on and on. They choose to have their flutes made of a particular wood because they can tell a significant difference, and so can (some) others.

Chris Norman's organization is called Boxwood. His famous "wooden flute" is a Rudall made of boxwood, but the flute he plays now is a copy of that old flute made by Rod Cameron in... blackwood!

So i guess from that list, at least Chris Norman also needs a refresher on the effect of timber on timbre!

(By the way, i've had a chance to play 2 Rod Cameron flutes, one in stained box the other in blackwood, side by side. The boxwood was much lighter and looked much prettier, but i couldn't tell any difference in the sound. But then, as you can tell by my avatar, i'm no dalmatian either!)

glauber (ducking)