material... true or false?

[srt19170]

the concrete flute story is invalid, contrary to popular belief.

Invalid in what sense? Coltman certainly did the experiments and got the results he claims.

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Coltman/

[Doug_Tipple]

Say what you will about concrete flutes and the relative comparison of their acoustic qualities versus other "normal" flutes. My major complaint, however, is about their .. eh.. uh.. their weight.

I spent many months as a college student doing research on industrial minerals. In developing a light-weight aggregate from expanded shale for structural concrete, I think that there is hope for a light-weight concrete flute yet. I have heard rumors that Jack Bradshaw, a famous Chiff & Fipple inventor, is also working on a light-weight epoxy matrix for concrete flutes in his underground laboratory somewhere in the outback of New England. Tell me it's not true, Jack.

[peeplj]

Carbonite.

Make 'em out of carbonite.



Seriously, a concrete flute might play, but I don't think you'd find either its sound or its playability comparable to blackwood or polymer.

--James

[cocusflute]

Rama is right. Coltman's study is flawed on a number of points. For instance, Coltman says of the flutes "...they very closely approximated the important dimensions of the modern Boehm flute."
Very closely, as every flute maker knows, isn't even close. You're talking about an instrument whose dimensions are measured in thousands of an inch. You could say that all lousy flutes, no matter the material, sound equally bad.
The players were not all accomplished players- some of the participants didn't even play the flute. No wonder they couldn't tell the difference.
The flutes all had plastic heads, which would further compromise the study, since the the head-joint is a large determinant of the sound of the flute.
Has the study ever been repeated? If not, do you want to take this study as determinative of the question?
Finally, I'd rather take the word of accomplished players and makers (and my own experience) than that of a scientist who says, "There. Now I've done the study and it's been proven."
I bought a plastic flute and I like it well enough. It's well made, looks good, and plays in tune. But it's not a Murray.

[Cathy Wilde]

I bought a plastic flute and I like it well enough. It's well made, looks good, and plays in tune. But it's not a Murray.

!!!!!



I must say, you really know how to make a girl feel special. Off to play the plastic flute AND the Murray now ....

[Jack Bradshaw]

Carbonite.

Make 'em out of carbonite.



Seriously, a concrete flute might play, but I don't think you'd find either its sound or its playability comparable to blackwood or polymer.

--James

Its getting closer to Carbonite all the time (Silicon Carbonite, that is..)

[Jack Bradshaw]

Rama is right. Coltman's study is flawed on a number of points. For instance, Coltman says of the flutes "...they very closely approximated the important dimensions of the modern Boehm flute."
Very closely, as every flute maker knows, isn't even close. You're talking about an instrument whose dimensions are measured in thousands of an inch. You could say that all lousy flutes, no matter the material, sound equally bad.
The players were not all accomplished players- some of the participants didn't even play the flute. No wonder they couldn't tell the difference.
The flutes all had plastic heads, which would further compromise the study, since the the head-joint is a large determinant of the sound of the flute.
Has the study ever been repeated? If not, do you want to take this study as determinative of the question?
Finally, I'd rather take the word of accomplished players and makers (and my own experience) than that of a scientist who says, "There. Now I've done the study and it's been proven."
I bought a plastic flute and I like it well enough. It's well made, looks good, and plays in tune. But it's not a Murray.

A thousanth of an inch is still pretty big as compared to acoustic wall effects at typical playing conditions.......got to do better than that !

[sbfluter]

The trouble with flutes is how they sound to you and how they sound to someone listening to you is different. I think your best bet is to sound good to yourself so you'll want to keep going.

I like the way I sound to myself when I play my plastic flute. I don't like the way I sound when I hear a recording of myself play my plastic flute. But liking how it sounds to myself keeps me practicing.

Incidentally, I have a lot of recordings of flute players and many of the really good ones are quite breathy. I like a breathy sound. Not airy-fairy breathy but kind of raw breathy.

[rama]

the concrete flute story is invalid, contrary to popular belief.

Invalid in what sense? Coltman certainly did the experiments and got the results he claims.

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Coltman/

nope. i don't see it there either.

[LorenzoFlute]

ok now i've read a few things on the Doug Tipple's website, and i was very impressed about the Lip Plate Headjoint, and how it changed the tone of the flute, and also about the wedge (i didnt know anything about it)...
actually, wt if you dig the cork to taper it down (sorry i dont know if this is correct english) so that it simulates the headjoint of a boehm flute (hope you understood wt i mean)? or actually i could try to make a wedge (it would be a bit complicated)

and another thing, the overblow problem happens also with the whistle? and why?

[seamasL]

[quote="sbfluter"].

I like the way I sound to myself when I play my plastic flute. I don't like the way I sound when I hear a recording of myself play my plastic flute. But liking how it sounds to myself keeps me practicing.

That is the best thing I have read on this board in like....well...forever!!!!!
Jim

[Cork]

nope...not me :D

Not me, either. ;-)

[CranberryDog]

From Terry McGee's site:
"FLUTE MYTHS EXPLODED!"

The materials a flute is made from make no difference:

"Ah, at last we can pin down a source for this one - John Coltman, Baltimore flute researcher. John published the result of an experiment in Scientific American which is often touted as being the last word on this topic. Unfortunately it isn't, and for easily understandable reasons.

John's experiment involved (from memory) three flutes made of three different materials, the most outlandish being concrete. I seem to remember that only the bodies differed, but I can't be sure, and it doesn't really impact on our findings. Essentially, an assembled audience was unable to tell the difference between the sound of the three flutes. The conclusion reached is that materials a flute is made of makes no difference.

There is good scientific basis for John's findings - the performance of a flute is going to be principally determined by its shape - the shape of the bore, the shape of the embouchure hole, the shape of the finger holes. The moving parts of a flute are air molecules, and the flute itself is simply the container for the vibrating air column. Providing it's a satisfactory container - it's smooth, it doesn't leak and it's strong enough not to vibrate and rob energy from the vibrating air column. John's three materials adequately met those criteria.

But supposing your container wasn't so perfect. To test the difference timber can make, I made a flute from our local plantation timber - pinus radiata - a coarse, soft, porous timber used for building framing. It leaked so badly at first I couldn't play a note below A, and even those notes were weak and noisy. So there's a major difference immediately! With the typical 4mm walls of a wooden flute, I could suck air right through the walls! Once heavily oiled (ie we plugged the leakage), it would play down to the bottom notes, but not with great enthusiasm. I could feel the body of the instrument vibrating, and that energy has to come from somewhere.

So who's right, John or me? Answer, both of us, because we're looking at slightly different questions. John was probably aiming his experiment at the metal flute market, particularly those who spend vast amounts of money on flutes of exotic metals. It probably didn't occur to him to consider using materials that were inadequate containers. Why would you do that?

But inadequate containers is wooden flute business. No wood is perfectly smooth, perfectly airtight and infinitely strong, although most of our flute timbers are adequately smooth, airtight and strong for our purposes. That's why they are called flute timbers! But my experiment shows that it is a spectrum, and that a timber not at the far end can be expected to give slightly different results to a timber at the far end. Boxwood would be such a timber - about 80% of the density of timbers in the african blackwood category. Coming back a little more, the "fine furniture timbers" - rosewoods, walnut, etc are half the density or less, and a good deal coarser in the grain - we should certainly expect less of them. And that's why they are not normally used for flute-making.

Should we expect listeners to be able to tell the difference between rosewood, boxwood and blackwood? Probably not. In my experience listeners listen to the music and the musician, not the instrument, unless it is very bad indeed. Was it the violinist Yehudi Menuen who, more than a bit cheezed off with the public attention given to his Stradivarius, came on stage, played to rapturous applause and then shocked his audience by smashing the fiddle, which turned out to be a cheap student model.

I would expect an experienced (and blindfolded) player to notice some differences in the performance of similar flutes made from radically different timbers, and to be capable of consistent and meaningful discernment."

AMEN... Cheers, Cyril.

[Aanvil]

This is like beating a concrete horse... with a flute made of any material you choose.

[rama]

nope again, as far as i can tell coltman's experiment did not involve a "concrete flute".
from my understanding, a wooden "tube" was compared to a copper "tube" and a silver "tube", no fingerholes, same sounding length of tubes. and only one note (g4) was played on the three seperate tubes.