Rockstro

The Chiff & Fipple Irish Flute on-line community. Sideblown for your protection.
User avatar
paddler
Posts: 752
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:19 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Hood River, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Rockstro

Post by paddler »

Yes, I've read your reports and postings about "thread strangulation". I think the conclusions you draw are not fully supported
by your data. I don't doubt that tenon compression is a real phenomenon. People have known, and written, about that for centuries.
Lots of methods for recognizing, dealing with, and avoiding that issue are well known.

You keep posting that Rudall tuning graph, claiming that it shows some tuning anomalies, and then you allude to the fact that they
are due to thread strangulation. I think your posts are misleading for the following reasons.

First, the most obvious issue with that tuning graph is that the flute in question has its slide closed to the point that it is being
played at something like British high pitch (A=452+), but the flute was obviously not designed and tuned to be in tune with itself
at that pitch. This is why the overall trend in the tuning climbs when going from left to right in the graph. Graphing the tuning of
a flute when its slide is not set to the point where the flute is best in tune with itself has the effect of
artificially amplifying some of the alleged tuning anomalies. Had the tuning slide been pulled out to the point where
the flute was best in tune with itself, the line would not have such an obvious overall slope, and most of the points would be
closer to the horizontal axis.

Second, the line would still have peaks and troughs, but these are at least as much an artifact of the choice of Equal Temperament
and Meantone as the reference as they are to the flute's tuning. This is not evidence of thread strangulation, it is mostly
evidence that you probably have not selected the same tuning target as the maker. You could, for the sake of example, have chosen
to plot the line against Just Intonation based on C. If you did that it would look a lot smoother and more level.

These flutes were designed to play music in a variety of key signatures, and across three octaves, in a time period when the
A=440 tuning standard did not exist. The makers had a wide choice of options for how to target the tuning of their flutes, which key
signatures to prioritize, etc. They also had to balance a lot of competing needs. There is lots of discussion of this in the literature.
This page at FluteHistory.com might be a good place to start.

Anyway, the point is that showing a single octave of tuning relative to a modern, and not particularly meaningful tuning standard for
those flutes, just obfuscates a lot of important issues.

Finally, the tuning of the keyed notes is greatly affected by issues such as the thickness of the pads, the amount they protrude into
the tone hole, the height setting of the key when open, and the thickness of the cork under the key touch.

I know that you already know most of this, so I find it disappointing that you would choose to use a graph like this to try to convince
people that this graph is some kind of scientific proof that your thread strangulation theories are valid, and that they explain the tuning
characteristics of antique flutes. It is especially disappointing to see you claim this after having argued persistently in this same thread
that bore perturbations at the tenons, in the form of chambers, couldn't possibly have any effect on tuning.
User avatar
Terry McGee
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:12 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Malua Bay, on the NSW Nature Coast
Contact:

Re: Rockstro

Post by Terry McGee »

I'm not arguing that Rockstro and Ellis' data is an indication of thread strangulation, although I think it is a distinct possibility. I'm simply pointing out that tuning on flutes in that era was seriously wonky. Unacceptably wonky. And not easily explained by resort to period or earlier tuning schemes.

And the choice of slide extension is of course Rockstro and Ellis' - you can hardly blame me for a decision taken in the second half 19th century! I do think that Rockstro's doggedness that English pitch had been always high is made fun of by his own collected data. It's yet another affirmation of Rockstro's inability to tell the truth. After Welch's forensic dismemberment, why would we believe anything this man said?

But even if we "pull the slide out" post factum, which we can do mathematically, we still have a major disconnect between foot and body to deal with. And between LH and RH. No tuning systems can address those disconnects. Something is up. Perhaps it's thread constriction. Perhaps Quantz was right - the C foot is a disaster. Whatever, something is up. And we need to understand what. Otherwise we are deluding ourselves. And others.

Blind faith in the genius of 19th century flutemaking is unsupported. If these guys were so good, and their flutes have not suffered subsequent damage, then their flutes should still be exemplary. But they are not. So which is it? Not so good, or subsequent distortion? Or both?

A very interesting detail is that the bore of the head was measured at 18.8mm, as was the starting bore of the LH section. We rarely see the top of the LH so large - check my chart of the first 70mm of bores about two posts up. Only two of those flutes look like they could fit that criterion. And remember the flute you advanced, #3801, whose LH bore starts at 18.3mm. Assumes ghastly Bing Crosby Christmas song voice: "It's beginning to look a lot like serial strangulation..."

Paddler: "You could, for the sake of example, have chosen to plot the line against Just Intonation based on C. If you did that it would look a lot smoother and more level."

Feel free to do so, but also explain why that would make sense. As you go on to say:"These flutes were designed to play music in a variety of key signatures, and across three octaves, in a time period when the A=440 tuning standard did not exist." So why would anyone in the mid 19th century want a Just Intonated flute based on any key or pitch? Remember Bach and his "Well-tempered Clavier"? We'd left Just Intonation a long way behind a lot earlier than Rudall and Rose.

Paddler: "Anyway, the point is that showing a single octave of tuning relative to a modern, and not particularly meaningful tuning standard for those flutes, just obfuscates a lot of important issues. Finally, the tuning of the keyed notes is greatly affected by issues such as the thickness of the pads, the amount they protrude into the tone hole, the height setting of the key when open, and the thickness of the cork under the key touch."

Take all that up with Rockstro and Ellis, not me! I won't be born for another 70 years! But we can ignore the keyed notes, just go on the open hole notes, and the harsh reality still presents itself. The tuning is wonky.

Paddler: "It is especially disappointing to see you claim this after having argued persistently in this same thread that bore perturbations at the tenons, in the form of chambers, couldn't possibly have any effect on tuning."

I don't think I've argued they couldn't have any effect on tuning. I do still have numerous reservations:
- I've not previously seen/heard any suggestion that "chambering" is associated with / located at tenons. Quite the contrary.
- The alleged "chambering" at the tenons looks more like thread compression than deliberate reaming to me.
- The alleged "chambering" hasn't been fully documented - we'd need at least maxima and minima bore dimensions, and a lot more data points
- The small amount of material removed doesn't look like it would achieve very much
- Nobody has attempted to identify what sort of changes to tuning we might expect from such manipulations.

We can do better than this, and we need to better than this.
User avatar
paddler
Posts: 752
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:19 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Hood River, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Rockstro

Post by paddler »

Your notion of "wonky tuning" is just another way of saying that the tuning of the flute doesn't agree with your
preconceived, and unjustified, notion of what the tuning should be. Your inability to recognize this, combined
with your list of statements about chambering vs thread compression, just confirms that you have not read or
understood most of the material already referenced in this thread. That is disappointing.
User avatar
Terry McGee
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:12 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Malua Bay, on the NSW Nature Coast
Contact:

Re: Rockstro

Post by Terry McGee »

Paddler, what do you think the tuning should look like?

I'm imagining that if one had been engaged to play flute at Lady Blacknall's afternoon tea party, it would be deuced convenient to have a reasonable alignment with the notes on her A430-tuned Broadwood.

And then if one is going on to play first flute with the Philo that same evening, it would be helpful to be in reasonable alignment with the strings up at A 452.

This would seem to suggest preferably two flutes (we don't seem to have very much evidence for that but we should keep looking), or a very long tuning slide and a body scaling set somewhere between those two extremes. We certainly find the very long tuning slides. And Rose's 1832 Patent Head reinforces that they expect one flute to cover the range.

But the body scaling? What might we expect? I said somewhere between the two extremes. 430 + 452 = 882, divide by 2 gives us A441, eerily close to our current pitch. But what do we find? The same as Rockstro and Ellis found 140 years ago. Wonky.

But why? Laziness? Incompetence? Shrinkage? Thread compression? An intentional mystery flute-only temperament nobody has so far put forward? One or more of the above? Other, please specify?

I think we've probably teased out the historical evidence about as far as we can, and still haven't been able to answer this most basic question. Time to turn to computer modelling to see what it can tell us. Even if it can eliminate any of the questions in front of us, we've taken a step forward.
User avatar
paddler
Posts: 752
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 7:19 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: Hood River, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Rockstro

Post by paddler »

Well, you are the one making claims about what the flute should sound like, not me! I am simply pointing out that
there are a very many possible tuning targets, and that the ones you have chosen in order to declare the
flute's tuning as "wonky" are simply not convincing, especially since historical documents (and current ones)
consistently suggest that flute tuning should be considered more like that of non-fretted and non-keyboard
instrument (think violins, voice etc) which tend to be more focused on just intonation. When playing with
other instruments whose tuning is necessarily constrained, then it is up to the player to adapt, just as a singer
or fiddle player would.

Superficially, the difference between 12 TET and just intonation looks quite similar to the tuning graph you keep
posting. So according to your criteria, just intonation is wonky tuning! Just think for a moment how ludicrous
that statement is.

If you scroll down the page at this link you can find the difference (in cents) between 12 TET and Just Intonation for various intervals.
You will see plenty that deviate substantially.

Similarly, there are published research papers that describe ways to measure the consonance and dissonance
of various chords and intervals in different tuning standards. Just for example, below is a graph from a paper by
Meihui and Satoshi that shows the relative dissonance (using their calculated dissonance index) of Equal
Temperament tuning vs Just Intonation in various keys. The line for Equal Temperament is level because
it produces equal dissonance in all keys, showing, by definition, that an instrument tuned in Equal Temperament
is not perfectly in tune! Clearly, you can construct tuning graphs that make tuning in one temperament look wonky
compared to tuning in a different temperament, but that really doesn't prove anything!

Image

Anyway, I've had several members contact me saying that they feel I'm just wasting my time here. And I agree,
so this time I really am going to wrap up my contributions to this thread. I hope it has been valuable time spent
for anyone who is still reading.
User avatar
Terry McGee
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:12 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Malua Bay, on the NSW Nature Coast
Contact:

Re: Rockstro

Post by Terry McGee »

I never equated Just Intonation with wonky tuning. The pattern shown in the JI vs ET graph and the pattern from Rockstro and Ellis' analysis (and what we see regularly) might seem to have superficial similarities, but that's where it ends. Let's assign some Highs, Mediums and Lows to the notes from C to B in each and compare the patterns:

LMMLHLHLLHLH (the JI pattern) Letter count: 4H, 2M, 6L
MLLLMMMMMHMH (Rockstro & Ellis) Letter count: 2H, 7M, 3L

You'll notice that even if you "slide one of the patterns along and wrap it around" (to centre the JI on different pitches) they can never match. Amusingly, even the fact that the widths of the two 12-letter words formed are different tells us immediately we have differing numbers of H, M and L letters! I've provided a letter count for each to confirm that observation.

We can safely rule out JI on historical grounds too - it was long abandoned in favour of Well-tempering and Meantone back in the Baroque (Bach's "Well-tempered Clavier" reminds us). Our flutes date from the Romantic era, where freedom to modulate without encountering the "Wolf Note" was the goal. Meantone was giving way to ET by the middle of the century. We can see why Rockstro and Ellis tested for both in the data graphed - they were the only reigning options. Note that they drew no conclusions from their study. I'm with them.

The other dead giveaway that we are not dealing with an intonation or tempering is that the same intervals in the various octaves differ. As I have joked in the past, our flutes are just Bad-tempered. The question we have yet to deal with is "why"?

I'm sorry you and your supporters feel you're banging your head on a brick wall, but I think it was important to test for alternative theories, even if we ended up not being persuaded.

The scary question remains - can we get any further?
User avatar
Terry McGee
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:12 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Malua Bay, on the NSW Nature Coast
Contact:

Re: Rockstro

Post by Terry McGee »

Above I'd said: "Note that they drew no conclusions from their study. I'm with them.".

But I had overlooked an interesting comment in the preamble that speaks to us:

"It has been stated that the large-holed flutes of Rudall and Rose were unrivalled in tone, and even if their intonation was not as perfect as might have been wished, still they were better in that respect than those of any other makers."

Again, it's a hedged statement, as almost all of Rockstro is. "It has been stated....". Spit it out, man! Is it a statement of fact or an anonymous allegation?

But the central tenet, "even if their intonation was not as perfect as might have been wished" goes directly to what Rockstro and Ellis found, and what we find when we examine these flutes today. We have to keep in mind that Rockstro had moved on from the 8-key flute to his own version of Boehm's cylindrical flute with none of the dramatic intonation problems previous flutes suffered.
User avatar
jemtheflute
Posts: 6969
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 6:47 am
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: N.E. Wales, G.B.
Contact:

Re: Rockstro

Post by jemtheflute »

Sebastian Mayfield has very generously shared the data he took a couple of years ago from my longest-owned Rudall & Rose, #4683 (made c1843) and also of Rudall Carte #6845 (made c1881-2, which I sold to a chap in Australia a few years ago - a photo-story of its restoration with useful information can be seen here: https://m.facebook.com/jemtheflute/albu ... =bookmarks) as spreadsheets.

Sebastian comments: "Here are a couple of files with bore data for your Rudalls, which you're welcome to share as you see fit. Unfortunately they're the other way round to make it easier for reamer-making but the graph should help a bit, and the data can always be reversed to give Z-zero at the large end if that makes sense."

I should add that the measurements were taken using graduated nylon discs of known diameters inserted into the bore on a depth-measuring device. Each data point obviously indicates the limit of careful, unforced insertion of each disc. No account or representation of any ovalling is recorded.


I've uploaded both Excel documents to my Box resources:
#4683 - https://app.box.com/s/axfnkp9bsnbz0c3ugypjx0ott2ejwg5c
#6845 - https://app.box.com/s/u8y56yl5fxvp0vfoo0f68maa2116or37

Sebastian also provided a comparative plot of the two bores as an image, also now in the Box folder: https://app.box.com/s/zowo7lgdlp9oo5c3ab51oqkohq0glyvw
I respect people's privilege to hold their beliefs, whatever those may be (within reason), but respect the beliefs themselves? You gotta be kidding!

My YouTube channel
My FB photo albums
Low Bb flute: 2 reels (audio)
Flute & Music Resources - helpsheet downloads
User avatar
Terry McGee
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:12 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Malua Bay, on the NSW Nature Coast
Contact:

Re: Rockstro

Post by Terry McGee »

Ah, thanks Jem and Sebastian, very interesting.

Amazingly, despite having a 9 line image address, it looks like we can import the two bore graphs here:

Image

First thing to note is how similar they are, especially considering the difference in ages. You'd think that 40 years difference at a time when pitch was on the rise would manifest dramatically. The foot of the RC is just a smidge shorter; the lengths of the LH and RH sections identical.

Note that the two foot bores are almost totally identical, excepting the RR bore continues to reduce and then flare slightly, while the RC stops reducing earlier and becomes cylindrical for the last 20mm or so. Now, it's interesting to consider that a foot joint has no tenons, and should be therefore immune to any tenon constriction. Seems to be the case here.

The LH section has a tenon on both ends, and we often see constriction on both ends. No dramatic signs of constriction at the top (left) ends, although interesting that the RC starts around 18.8mm, about the head diameter, whereas the RR starts around 18.3mm. And both show a slight point-of-inflection within the length of the tenon.

Interesting both show that kink around 130mm. Same reamer? Or a point where one reamer stops and another continues?

Both in my view demonstrate bore constriction at the lower LH tenon. Paddler I think would argue that that was signs of backreaming to form a chamber.

The start of the two RH sections are remarkably similar, which again makes sense - there is a socket, not a tenon, so no expectation of compression.

But the lower ends of the RH sections demonstrate very different results. This is the tenon end, and I would argue the RR exhibits classic and significant tenon compression. The RC exhibits the opposite - a clear flaring of the bore which then terminates abruptly in the vertical cliff-face at the base of the foot socket. That one is hard to explain away. It would be good to examine that tenon closely to see if we can identify why. It could be signs of back-reaming but it could also be the result of damage. Our modelling should tell us what the effect of such a change would be.

A note incidentally on measurement technique, particularly as it relates to ovality. Jem tells us that Sebastian uses the "how far can I insert a disc" method. This gives us the minimum bore diameter at that length along the flute. I mostly use the "how far can I insert a telescopic T-gauge set to a specific width" method. That normally gives us the maximum bore diameter at the specific point along the flute. But it can also be used to sense the minimum diameter - having noted the maximum, you pull it out a bit and rotate it to find the minimum. It is rather time consuming, but we'll need to explore the issue of ovality as part of this investigation. All these methods have their place, but it's good to remember they can give differing results when ovality is involved.

Thanks Jem and Sebastian for access to that data. More grist to the mill.
User avatar
jemtheflute
Posts: 6969
Joined: Tue May 23, 2006 6:47 am
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Location: N.E. Wales, G.B.
Contact:

Re: Rockstro

Post by jemtheflute »

Sebastian has now kindly come up with the tone-hole measurements he took for the two flutes he measured. He only took external tube diameter measurements for one of them. I have added his two documents to the folder in my Box resources: https://app.box.com/s/qiyn6pvgsltmqyzaa9dtn9cs3gk3g5y3
I respect people's privilege to hold their beliefs, whatever those may be (within reason), but respect the beliefs themselves? You gotta be kidding!

My YouTube channel
My FB photo albums
Low Bb flute: 2 reels (audio)
Flute & Music Resources - helpsheet downloads
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Rockstro

Post by GreenWood »

[Thread revival. - Mod]

It is uplifting to see Terry's Boehmian origin shining through, and he is likely more right than he knows even if he has managed to contradict himself slightly.

From Terry's own site, and kindly available to us since 2003 at least if Wayback is to be trusted, and 1844 or so via Cornelius Ward


"The bore of the head should be cylindrical; but that of the rest of the flute of a taper form. From the point where it commences to taper, it should contract by a regular declination to half the diameter of the cylindrical part. If it contract more or less than this, then the due relation will not be preserved, in tone or tune, between the notes formed at the lower part of the instrument and those formed at the upper part; or else the harmonics wi1I be false; or, worse still, a tendency will be created to produce harmonics, especially in the act of increasing the force of breath when directed for the lower tones, which are consequently deficient in firmness and certainty when attempted as forte notes.

We say, that, to ensure firmness, power, and certainty, throughout the extent of the instrument, with correct intonation, the longitudinal section of the bore should be two straight lines, converging at the lower end to half their distance at the upper. To make a bore in this shape is much more difficult than to lessen it in an irregular way, as some pretend is necessary in the ordinary flute. No distortion of the bore will compensate for the erroneous positions of the apertures, nor for the muffling effects of cross-fingerings. Nothing in short, but the union of correctly placed apertures with a bore of true size and proportions, will allow of correct scales being produced by a regular transition of the direction and force of the breath.

The bore of the ordinary flute is made larger in this country than it should be for a flute properly constructed; because, from the enlarged capacity, and the necessarily increased force of blast, some of the cross-fingered notes become a very little better. The quack vendors of these instruments mystify the pretended effects of what they term chambering the bore, to convert to the best account their deficient skill, or their want of proper implements; as well as to cover a large amount of ignorance and pretension.

Akin to this mystification, is the course pursued in many instruction books. We have not seen one which candidly informs the learner of the manoeuvres required to play the ordinary flute in tune. They give a vast variety of modes of fingering the same notes; with the object, one might suppose, of perplexing the scholar, or of showing the author's ingenuity. Their silence on the one hand, and their profuse loquacity on the other, furnish strong evidence of their having (in the old flute) a bad case to deal with, requiring a large amount of special pleading, and a studious concealment of the important truths.

The authors of these books do not tell the student that the intonation of the instrument rests entirely with the performer, and depends upon certain zig-zag manoeuvrings of his lip, and other subterfuges. They do not point out which notes require the flattening or sharpening, the forcing or tempering process. Oh, no! the flutes they recommend are, doubtless, well in tune: the student is to blame if he cannot play in tune; and he must take expensive lessons to learn, not how to tutor his own ear, but to correct the false intonation of the instrument."

http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/Ward_FE_7.htm

However the nature of the chambering used is not mentioned. Cornelius does also find himself in a similar circumstance to many today, in his alluding to of past masters.

Elsewhere, and unfortunately I didn't bookmark it but quite possibly here or at Terry's site, was the 19th century mention of having to blow down into the flute to manage the flat foot of certain flutes, and that being for the British escape from more traditional dimensions. I do not know which flute exactly was being talked of though, and for my Ruddal based flute I found that playing open had more of that effect for leaving the embouchure so much more open. Here I expect we might be looking at expected embouchure style as much as tuning error. The point being that the diversion from traditional or continental parameters, or should that be their attempted inclusion given there is early poorly defined reference to the "English flute", did give rise to a very new approach to playing with a different quality of sound.

So the short of it all

"The quack vendors of these instruments mystify the pretended effects of what they term chambering the bore, to convert to the best account their deficient skill, or their want of proper implements; as well as to cover a large amount of ignorance and pretension."

does not exclude Rudall or any later maker from their tampering either, and it is maybe not a surprise therefore that Boehm's successful organisation of a smooth cylindrical bore eventually outpaced other styles of construction.

I very much like the sound of Chris Norman's flute though.

What to do.

I suppose at some point I will have to compare early Ruddal layout with Baroque flutes and their contemporary descendants being played at that time.

I do think that chambering or profiling the bore is a valid approach, but I also think a flute should be closely enough in tune to start off with, and I think that if so that would naturally bring out the harmonics and quality of sound so much sought after. If it can be done on a Boehm cylindrical flute, admittedly with its own kind of tone, I think the same could also be achieved on an unmodified conical bore ..somehow.

A point maybe worth mentioning regarding flat foot, and I say this just from looking at the tuning chart of No. 742, is that there if you shorten the foot for C4 as suggested , C5 will likely rise as well, leaving the same disparity. I expect that is one reason why Pratten bores were widened ? Either way, for the notes used on a keyless flute it has a range of 20 cents, which is quite acceptable in my opinion if no effort was being made to correct.

Well, that was a fascinating thread, and it seems a shame there was no follow up of it after any kind of study that might have taken place. I think to disentangle any argument somewhat, it has to be understood how nicely playing flutes do so with bore compression of significantly greater dimension than any apparent chambering being pointed out. That is maybe where people started talking past each other without really understanding why.

I hope not to have stirred up again any difficult sentiments that might have come into play, this post being slightly perilous even in itself. Each has his or her own world of ideas and vision, facets and themes that have captured the attention possibly beyond explicable reason, so I think anyone dwelling seemingly unnecessarily on certain details might simply be understood as of that world and not of as of trying to impose a certain idea or of being depreciating of another.
User avatar
Terry McGee
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:12 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Malua Bay, on the NSW Nature Coast
Contact:

Re: Rockstro

Post by Terry McGee »

Heh heh, good old Cornelius!

"The quack vendors of these instruments mystify the pretended effects of what they term chambering the bore, to convert to the best account their deficient skill, or their want of proper implements; as well as to cover a large amount of ignorance and pretension."

There's been quite a bit of muttering in the press about the recent decline in standards in public discourse, arising from the anonymity of social media. Cornelius was well ahead of his time! I guess if you want to sell books, it pays to make bold statements.

Greenwood: "Well, that was a fascinating thread, and it seems a shame there was no follow up of it after any kind of study that might have taken place."

Unless someone has some new insights to bring to the table, my feeling now is that same as it was then - we should be turning to computer modelling as our next step. Let's find out what is likely to happen if we start with Ward's "two straight lines, converging at the lower end to half their distance at the upper". What issues can't that approach solve? Will some relatively simple tweaking deal with them?

Then investigate the likely impact of the kinds of manipulations/distortions that our measurements of original bores have thrown up. Do they tend to make the identified issues better or worse, or do they create issues where none previously existed? Can we sort them into "brilliant manipulations", "irrelevant meddling", "regrettable subsequent distortions" and "other"?

Somewhere, Cornelius is having a chuckle. "I tried to tell them. But would they listen?"
GreenWood
Posts: 422
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2021 11:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: To add to the renaissance flute discussion that is under way. Well, the rest of this field is going to be taken up by a long sentence, which is this one, because a hundred characters are needed before it is accepted.

Re: Rockstro

Post by GreenWood »

"There's been quite a bit of muttering in the press about the recent decline in standards in public discourse, arising from the anonymity of social media."

I agree on that, however I am not sure if that is not just a sort of background that always wanted to express itself and when being able to has tended to mob out more rational discussion ? On the other hand I am very for "freedom of speech" as long as it is not directly inciting or purely offensive, and even those I would not completely outlaw beyond for example existing rules in the US, but leave to private initiative to handle. We have Nanohedron for that example, for which we must be thankful I think. What I actually find most disturbing is where information is restricted and narratives are managed for whatever reason, and there is a lot of that that occurs, for which we might thank the press itself. As Mark Twain said, to not read the news is to be uninformed, but to read it is to be misinformed.

Anyway, anonymity allows space for that freedom of expression, although as such it should also be read as unverified. It is an unusual topic, because as someone who tends towards remaining anonymous I find that I am able to just focus on what I would like to say without having my own "persona" in the way. Obviously, for some anonymity allows them to move outside the bounds of decency and so on, but as mentioned, all that is anonymous is slightly relegate compared to real profile, and those anonymous have to accept any associated humility that goes along with that.

Maybe Cornelius just had a bad day or something, but to me I get more of a sense that he really felt the correctness or purity of his approach was being down trodden by other ignorant makers. If so I think he should deserve that chuckle.

I like math, particularly geometry, but I dread computer modelling Terry, I dread it. It tries to squash the beauty of infinite variability into some equation or another. I know it helps with approximation and can provide valuable insight, but I would as soon just build a flute as Cornelius suggests, or copy No. 742 to a tenth of a mm , or putty over what might be chambering to observe the effect. Actually another idea occurred also, it is not likely but possible:

"The chambering at tenon was made to ensure that the tenon fitted the socket to exactly the correct length. That is to say that only the top of the ^ would make contact as stop point. The reamed profile would also allow for a cleaner transition across the join if any distortion were present. Chamferimg allows for any debris, wax and so on to be forced out of the actual connection of the join."

There is so much variation possible on any bore though that I don't know where anyone would really start regarding chambering , beyond cleaning up or refining the tone a little, or trying to ensure tuning, because the rest, the desired sound or playability of any flute, becomes very subjective. I don't think Rudall or Rose had a perfect image of how their flute should sound and so created one that way, I think they improved the design until they found a sound and flute that was as good as could be.

Like the perfume smellers who know exactly what ingredients are in any perfume, very few makers I should think are able to picture a certain overall sound, let alone imagine a composition played with that sound, let alone how others will perceive that. Instead I think most learn to create the sound they appreciate from an instrument, or those that are in demand. I mean, I'm usually quite surprised by how flutes I make turn out, and I could not have pictured their sound beforehand. That includes those which I much like and those which are.... distinct ? The funny thing is though, there isn't one that I did not much appreciate some quality or another of somehow, even say just the sound of one particular note.

It would have been something to have met these makers though, or visit their workshops. We don't even have sound recordings of the day.



Well, my only other input to all of this is that I one day hope to make a No. 742 as closely as possible to original, including (but then stopped) keyholes. So I would leave reaming the possible chambers at the joints till last, provide recordings of the flute before and then after adding those.
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 38202
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Re: Rockstro

Post by Nanohedron »

GreenWood wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:01 pm We have Nanohedron for that example, for which we must be thankful I think.
Ben had better start posting more, it seems. :wink:
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Tribal musician
User avatar
Terry McGee
Posts: 3330
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 4:12 pm
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Malua Bay, on the NSW Nature Coast
Contact:

Re: Rockstro

Post by Terry McGee »

We need to keep in mind that Ward's flute was fully vented - every hole below the last closed one is open, which is a luxury our flutes don't have. Because it was also mechanised, he could also put the holes where he wanted and make them of similar size, again, not our luxury. We have to deal with holes placed where we can reach them, and hole sizes that are forced upon us by the limitations of location. So, I'd be a bit surprised if we could get away with as simple a bore as he advocated. But I'd be equally surprised to find that all the complexities we see in the old flutes are needed or indeed are harmless. It's worth comparing the two bores mentioned earlier:

https://app.box.com/s/qiyn6pvgsltmqyzaa9dtn9cs3gk3g5y3

The underlying profile is a pretty straight line, but the two flutes deviate quite strongly in opposing directions in some places. I reckon we're seeing a lot of compression and other distortions here that have accumulated over the last 175 or so years. So we can't even be sure of what the maker intended, let alone wonder how well they satisfied the needs of their customers. That's why I think it's time for a fresh look, using the tools now available to us. Who knows what we might find?
Post Reply