"Unsound Reasoning"

chas · Post by **chas** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 4:54 pm

Boy, I just read the column -- it's full of inaccuracies and false conclusions. For example, the US does not consider blackwood endangered -- the methods of harvest largely unsustainable, yes, but not endangered in 2003, nevermind in 1998 when it was written. She says that rosewood is endangered and is the wood of choice for recorders. I don't even know if I've seen a rosewood recorder; most of them are made from fruitwoods, blackwood, and boxwood. Moreover, there are like a gazillion types of rosewood, it's possible that the species she mentions is endangered, but most are not, and I think furniture is a much greater threat than recorders.

Also, she uses the term "virtually indistinguishable" for the difference in sound between two flutes when talking about the reaction of a group of people interested in "music and human adaptation." First, in a large hall not designed for concerts with an audience that consists probably primarily of sociologists or anthropologists, I'm not surprised that nobody noticed a difference. Second, virtually indistinguishable does not equal the same. Third, one of the flutes was concrete, and the assertion is that flutes with similar dimensions and surface finish sound the same -- I presume it must have been a pretty crappy wooden flute it was compared to, because you can't produce a very smooth surface on concrete. The nature of the composite material, the binder, etc., don't allow it to be polished.

There are other things, too.

This read like an column by someone with an agenda against harvesting wood for instruments, not like an article by a physicist. It certainly did nothing to sway either my opinion that wood does make a difference, nor my opinion of Scheitific American.

TonyHiggins · Post by **TonyHiggins** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:41 pm

One thing I have noticed is a dramatic difference in tone due to wall thickness. Anyone who's looked closely at an O'Riordan wood whistle, the walls are massive compared to any other whistle. If you take the head joint and put a feadog/Generation type tube on it, the tone changes very dramatically. You can see that even switching a feadog head from a brass to nickel tube. Not as noticeable, but still there.
Tony

Post by **Dale** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:06 pm

Interesting stuff. It reminds me of other Great Whistle Debates, including the whole slobber vs. ambient moisture condensate thing. Ah. Those were the days.

I'm sympathetic to the position that the material has no more than a subtle effect on the tone. I suspect that the differences in tone from material are much more discernible to the player, who holds the instrument...uh...close to...uh..his or her ears. I don't think there's a chance in hell it has MUCH impact on how the instrument sounds to a person in the back row.

What we need here is empirical science. Who makes whistles from two very different materials but which are otherwise identical? Burke composites vs. metal---but the design is different. Hm.

The best test would be a two sets of whistles, in pairs, each member of each pair different in material only. Metal vs. wood. And a bunch of blindfolded listeners. Place yer bets, gents.

Dale

RonKiley · Post by **RonKiley** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:20 pm

Thats a good idea Dale but still subjective. Lets take a look at these identical Whistles, except material, on a spectrascope where we can see what the wave form looks like.
Ron

chas · Post by **chas** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 7:59 pm

DaleWisely wrote:Interesting stuff. It reminds me of other Great Whistle Debates, including the whole slobber vs. ambient moisture condensate thing. Ah. Those were the days.

I'm sympathetic to the position that the material has no more than a subtle effect on the tone. I suspect that the differences in tone from material are much more discernible to the player, who holds the instrument...uh...close to...uh..his or her ears. I don't think there's a chance in hell it has MUCH impact on how the instrument sounds to a person in the back row.
. . .

I think we may all be on the same page here, at least several of us are. I'm just suggesting that it doesn't have NO effect on the sound, not that it has a profound effect. That maybe to a casual observer it can't be detected, but that to a schooled player, it can be.

One of the arguments in the article was that beyond a certain wall thickness, the material doesn't vibrate. I just blew a lower-octave G with my Bleazey boxwood flute, which is VERY heavy-walled (and has a pretty delicate sound, not a lot of volume), and could feel the vibrations with my free hand along about half the length of it. (The vibrations can feel exaggerated through your fingers if they're covering tone hole, so I was feeling the bottom.)

Hiro Ringo · Post by **Hiro Ringo** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:05 pm

Materials themselves will affect the sound of any instrument,but why bother to hear/care the very very slight difference while you don't care noises produced by PCs,modems and the other electric products.

I also can hear the differences between materials themselves,but if I think these slight differences are very important,I won't be able to stand these annoying electric and the other environmental noises anymore.

Well, at least,it pays so much to flute makers if most believe gold flute sounds "better" than silver flute/nickelsilver flute. This is apparent.

Jayhawk · Post by **Jayhawk** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 8:34 pm

One thing the article didn't take into account regarding flute styles is the VOLUME with which we often play. If I play something nice and quiet, or even at a moderate volume - there is no vibration. However, I just finished roaring through Drowsy Maggie in my best Conal O'Grada style and that flute was vibrating like mad on some notes.

I'm guessing the player they used was not a session player...

Eric

knorris908 · Post by **knorris908** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 2:03 am

DaleWisely wrote:Interesting stuff. It reminds me of other Great Whistle Debates, including the whole slobber vs. ambient moisture condensate thing. Ah. Those were the days.

I'm sympathetic to the position that the material has no more than a subtle effect on the tone. I suspect that the differences in tone from material are much more discernible to the player, who holds the instrument...uh...close to...uh..his or her ears. I don't think there's a chance in hell it has MUCH impact on how the instrument sounds to a person in the back row.

What we need here is empirical science. Who makes whistles from two very different materials but which are otherwise identical? Burke composites vs. metal---but the design is different. Hm.

The best test would be a two sets of whistles, in pairs, each member of each pair different in material only. Metal vs. wood. And a bunch of blindfolded listeners. Place yer bets, gents.

Dale

Good points all:

But being a student of the scientific method, I am compelled to point out one minute fact...

Physics is NOT, nor was ever intended to be an exact, or even empirical science. It is a set of theoretical/mathematical guidelines within which an ACCEPTABLE majority of phenomenon will fall. But mind you, it still is the same set of guidelines which say that bumblebees CAN'T fly. Well I say that the same holds true for music. Music is not the science of sound. In my opinion (To be fair..), music is the APPRECIATION of sound. And since no two people perceive a sound in precisely the same manner, I cannot see how a universally acceptable answer can be given to the whole materials VS voicing VS mathematics debate. (Though it IS fun to follow!)

You might as well try to scientifically prove why a Rembrandt is "high" art, and a Scotch Tape TM Tartan isn't.

Add to this set of circumstances; "acquired tastes". Specifically sounds/bands/instruments which were partially, or soley set up in our minds as positive or negative experiences based upon the operant conditioning of us by others. ("Experts", respected peers, critics, or veterans of the trade.) I like a Sindt better than another whistle probably because someone who knew more about whistles than I told me at some point the the characteristics posessed by the Sindt (Or, insert your own personal favorite make.), more closely embodies what a whistle SHOULD sound like than the other one.

Just "jumping-in" with you big guys for once...

Kenneth

Zubivka · Post by **Zubivka** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 2:05 am

Hard "Physics" are fine... as long as you stick to the scientific analysis. Too many parameters seem to have been eliminated in this ad hoc study.
Of course there's the influence of surface rougness affecting the aerodynamics with variations of the "limit layer" interface of laminar vs turbulent airflow (in tube, windway, blade and even holes).

Also, all this "scientific" approach considers the blade as a totally rigid, inert, appendix. So they expect a thin blade made of wood or metal (cast, forged, annealed, drawn and cut...) to split an air column in two interfering turbulences... and not vibrate at the same time?

Nothing wrong with the scientists' approach... if only they study every parameter one by one and isolated.

Others just open their ears... :roll:

Post by **Dale** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 6:24 am

It wouldn't be a physics experiment. It would be an experiment in sensation & perception, a branch of psychology. Can blind(folded) subjects--experienced whistlers in this case, identify the materials used to make a whistle they are listening to?

Dale

knorris908 · Post by **knorris908** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 8:27 am

DaleWisely wrote:It wouldn't be a physics experiment. It would be an experiment in sensation & perception, a branch of psychology. Can blind(folded) subjects--experienced whistlers in this case, identify the materials used to make a whistle they are listening to?

Dale

I for one, certainly agree with the psychology spin of it. "Human Emotional Response When Reacting to Variations in Aural Stimulus Brought About by Substitution of Construct Modifiers Within Signal Sources"

You know, if you applied through proper channels, I bet you could ACTUALLY get federal funding for that study Dale!

Kenneth

Roger O'Keeffe · Post by **Roger O'Keeffe** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 8:40 am

Think war pipes and it would almost certainly qualify as a defence research project.

McHaffie · Post by **McHaffie** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:33 am

Ok well, here I go!

I can tell you all this much. I use a pretty thick walled tubing, and trying to keep mouthpieces perfectly the same everytime by hand is very difficult. What I first thought of a long time ago when I first started out was "This is too bright and I want it to be louder and a bit more mellow" And when I used a thin walled, brass tubing that you can go snag at any ace hardware store from the K&S display, it worked out beautifully, just not quite the unique sound I wanted, but it smoothed out like I wanted right?

Well, happy accidents will happen (rest in peace Bob Ross

), and I made a mouthpiece one day and wasn't paying careful enough attention and lo and behold the bell note rang out a little clearer and louder, the whistle as a whole was a bit cleaner, rounder sounding, but still held on to a little bit of that brightness I wanted, but not too much... just right for what I was looking for...

SOO!!! moral of the story for ME is that materials in METAL anyway do in faact seem to make a difference, and I think still a large difference the thicker you go, the less vibration and the less mellow you get, however voicing the whistle via the mouthpiece, blade, etc does have a ton to do with it, I'd say 80-90% or better.

I don't work with wood, so I couldn't tell you all about that, but It's not to hard to tell whether you're dealing with a thin or thick walled metal irregardless of voicing.

Take care all,
John

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 11:45 am

My own take on this, for whatever it's worth, at least as far as flutes are concerned:

I think several things about the material an instrument is made of have an effect on its total sound:

One, not all materials work and machine the same. The smoothness vs roughness of the bore certainly make a difference in timbre and resistance.

Heavier materials and thicker walls tend to have more resistance and a darker, more resonant sound. Lighter materials and thinner walls tend to have less resistance and a brighter, more hollow sound. One reason some of the best orchestral flutes are made of gold is to combine the resonance of a heavy material with the brilliance of a thin-walled instrument.

I will say though that I think the differences in a fixed-windway instrument such as a whistle will be less profound than are the differences in a transverse flute from material to material.

--James

NicoMoreno · Post by **NicoMoreno** » Thu Jul 17, 2003 8:22 pm

Hmm..
Well, anyone who has studied the physics of sound (or at least flutes and whistles) will know that there are a lot of variables... So the thing to do is to make constant as many as possible:
So here we go:
First, compare only D whistles. (High D since there are so many)
Next, use only ONE head (ie pick your favorite) and put it on tubes of different materials.
-->The trick here is the adaptor...
Next, make sure that the other variables, such as smoothness, thickness, density, resonant frequencies, hole smoothness, size, etc are either the same, or inherent to the material used.
It is my opinion that certain aspects, namely the first four, are inherent to the material. You can get a much smoother finish to certain metals than others, and to most woods.... and so on.
The rest has to be accounted for, or evened out in everything being tested. The easiest thing to do is to take tubes (undrilled) and stick on them a mouth piece. Make sure each is tuned properly, and the end is smooth, etc. Then compare the waveform produced with each. Ideally, this waveform will be identical (if the scientists are right) or completely different (if they are not).

So I am willing to do this test, but I need people to send me their whistles/tubes of different materials...

Seriously, I think more than a bit of it is in the construction, but that construction changes for each material, as each has its own limitations.

Speaking of Trumpets, a silver trumpet is MUCH brighter than a Brass one. There is a discernible difference between a Yamaha Silver plated 4336 and a brass one. (I bought the second, I like the darker sound available with using a yellow brass for the bell)

Someone said that they thought the differences would be more noticeable on a flute: I doubt that. There would be more differences maybe, but who can say whether that is a result of having an unfixed windway (the mouth) or the material. For experimentation, the whistle is the most controlled way....

Well, I await your tubes!
Nico

Chiff and Fipple Forums

"Unsound Reasoning"

Hey, you asked for it! :)