I always figured a rougher bore (within reason, of course) would give the flute more of a husky or "whiskey" voice. That's what I feel like I've seen with mine, anyway. My smooth-as-glass-finished blackwood flute seems just a touch more "lively" or vibrant than my more "natural-grained" blackwood flute; my (warped, thank you very much) boxwood flute also has a slightly rougher interior and is again, more on the mellow side.
(Of course, that's only one factor anyway ....)
But .... what about bamboo ?????????????
Deja Fu: The sense that somewhere, somehow, you've been kicked in the head exactly like this before.
Jessie - I'm curious to know what kind of wood your flute was made of. I recall conversation about Mopane having a tendancy to do that all on its own do to saliva ruffling its feathers. - so to speak.
BillG
BillG
- - -
<><
Six Ps! (Poor Prior Practice Prevents Proper Performance)
So Loren, different wood spieces and families can be polished to a smoother finish. Would you say that is a big reason on why different woods get a different tone? How about you Casey? Terry?
This reminds me of the controversy in the Boehm flute world over soldered-vs-drawn tone holes.
Quick summary: drawn tone holes are absolutely airtight, structurally strong, have a very smooth join to the bore, and are extremely durable over time.
Soldered tone holes can start to leak over time and have a rougher join with the bore. Additionally, they are not as structurally strong and are often a repair point.
That said, soldered tone holes are widely considered to be superior, helping to impart a tonal character to the sound which many Boehm-system flutists find very desirable.
Acoustically, drawn tones holes make sense and should be superior.
But they are not, at least according to many high-end makers and players, and it is frequently debated why this is so.
It almost looks like the wood has become permanently raised from moisture...hard to get that kind of roughness unless you bore it out with a rock. Caveat emptor...all of those ridges may be causing what you like in the instrument...harmonics, whistles, overtones and all. I once took 600 grit sandpaper to the bore of a whistle which was roughened by time, and it sounded worse, even though the bore was visibly smoother. I'm convinced that sometimes the little variations in bore smoothness are what give a woodwind it's personality (although in this case, "little variations" is a gross misunderstatement).
In the Boehm world of drawn vs. soldered toneholes: I really think it depends on the flute. I chose soldered toneholes for my Miyazawa, because it added depth and oomph to the sound (possibly because of the added silver). However, I used to have a wonderful flute made by a fellow named Jack Moore. His drawn tonehole flutes seemed to be best. Mine was luscious.
Dana
peeplj wrote:This reminds me of the controversy in the Boehm flute world over soldered-vs-drawn tone holes.
Quick summary: drawn tone holes are absolutely airtight, structurally strong, have a very smooth join to the bore, and are extremely durable over time.
Soldered tone holes can start to leak over time and have a rougher join with the bore. Additionally, they are not as structurally strong and are often a repair point.
That said, soldered tone holes are widely considered to be superior, helping to impart a tonal character to the sound which many Boehm-system flutists find very desirable.
Acoustically, drawn tones holes make sense and should be superior.
But they are not, at least according to many high-end makers and players, and it is frequently debated why this is so.
When I knew pool players, they would never rest their pool cues against a wall for storage because of the fear of warping. Maybe you just need to balance your flute against the wall just right to bend it back.
I think what the real problem is that makers do not have volunteers to break in their flutes for a year so that they can re-ream them and place the final touches on them.
"Be not deceived by the sweet words of proverbial philosophy. Sugar of lead is a poison."
I.D.10-t wrote:I think what the real problem is that makers do not have volunteers to break in their flutes for a year so that they can re-ream them and place the final touches on them.
[quote="Unseen122"]So Loren, different wood spieces and families can be polished to a smoother finish. Would you say that is a big reason on why different woods get a different tone? How about you Casey? Terry? [quote]
I'm not sure we are yet in a position to know. It's always good to remember that the active part of a flute is the air inside. The outside of a flute is just a container for that air. So when we compare different materials, we need to consider what sort of container they make. A good container will be:
- stiff, because if it can vibrate, the energy will be drawn out of the vibrating air column into the container walls,
- non porous, because if it leaks, air at the pressure points can escape into the walls, taking energy with it, and
- smooth, so friction will not take its toll on the energy in the column.
You can immediately see why metals and plastics make good containers - they are stiff, non porous and can be easily and permanently rendered smooth. By comparison all woods are (theoretically) inferior. I say theoretically as there is no reason to assume we prefer the sound from a perfect containerful of air. If we did and do, then metal and plastic are looking good!
You can also immediately see why we choose to use some woods over others. Anyone currently offering balsa-wood flutes? Not stiff, too porous and rough. The densest woods are around 1.3 (where 1.0 is the density of water). Balsa wood is about 0.15 on the same scale! Delrin is almost 10 times heavier at 1.4.
Blackwood is around 1.2, gidgee 1.25, boxwood 1.0, all clustered at the dense end of the scale. So is it their stiffness, porosity or smoothness that varies most? Probably all are involved to differing degrees with the differing timbers. And of course different chunks of the same timbers can vary immensely.
Yup ! Just to back up what Terry said: The acoustic loss mechanisms stem from the transport properties of the gas.....pressure wave (stiffness, porosity).....thermal wave (heat transfer to the wall).......viscous wave (surface roughness, "wetability" of the surface).......bulk viscosity (loss to the gas itself, vortices)
Might also mention that the wall roughness of the order of that shown can change the "shape" of the "velocity surface" across the bore........crudely similar to the "end effect".
It's one more form of "bore perturbation" which can have a positive or negative effect depending on what you want......
603/329-7322
"I fail to see why doing the same thing over and over and getting the
same results every time is insanity: I've almost proved it isn't;
only a few more tests now and I'm sure results will differ this time ... "
Rough isn't necessarily bad; turbulent flow can be more efficient than laminar flow under the right conditions. That's why a golf ball has dimples: because the layer of turbulent air they cause is better for the aerodynamics of the ball then a smooth surface would be. I don't know if enough air moves in a flute for this to be a factor though.
?????????????
)
