What's The Loudest D Flute?

[dow]

It occurs to me that volume must be very much in the ears of the player, meaning that flute A might sound much louder than flute B to the person playing, while they may both sound the same to a listener.

With this in mind, if you believe that A is louder than B, then you will likely have more confidence in your abilities with A than with B. If you're more confident, then that confidence will show in your playing. If it shows in your playing, then others will see it as well. Thus, you'll play A better than B.

Now, this might not make any difference to a pro player, but to the newer, less experienced player, it makes a world of difference. If you have confidence in your axe, then you'll play better. regardless of the instrument. If Jim believes that he's better off with the Olwell, then he most likely is better off.

But it begs the question, "why does he feel this way", which goes back to my point about junk data.

So yeah, it may be psychosomatic, but it that a good thing?!?

Loren

The question, "Why does he feel this way?" isn't really the point IF his belief impacts the way he plays flute A over flute B. The whole point of it is that if his belief or feeling about A vs. B allows him to play A at a higher level of confidence than B, then by golly, I think that's a good thing.

It brings to mind a saying that I grew up hearing, "Whatever gets the goat," meaning that oftentimes the results are more important than the proceedure to get those results. Is it a substitute for developing the expertise through long practice and through really knowing your flute? No. However, we all know that without confidence, the greatest player in the world can sound like a rank amateur. The impact of that confidence cannot be ignored.

Psychosomatic, maybe, but if the results are what you're shooting for, then I believe it's a good thing.

On the other hand, if he ends up believing that Flute A is the ONLY flute that he can play, then that's a stupid thing, and will forever stunt his growth in the art.

edited because I thought of something else that I forgot to say when I said the rest of what I said when I said this late last night.

[Hoovorff]

At a recent workshop, the instructor mentioned to the class rolling the headjoint out further and blowing down into the holeas a way to project more and thereby increase volume. I always have my hj rolled in a good deal, and seem to project fairly well with my partially lined flute. However, I'm sure I could increase my projection further. Has anyone rolled out to increase volume?

I find it uncomfortable for my hand position when I roll out more.

Hmmm.

There are always things to be tweaked. That's the joy of playing--increasingly learning and growing.

Jeanie

[cocusflute]

Jim Stone said:

that's why Patrick says his lined flutes are
more audible than his unlined flutes.

In point of fact Patrick never said this. And, in any case, can audible be quantified? Is there such a thing as "more audible" or "audibler?" Isn't "audible" like "pregnant?" I.e., something is audible or it isn't audible. Stone, as a philospher, should know better. Though perhaps his field isn't linguistics. This is indeed a quibble, but as Wittgenstein pointed out about 100 years ago, such is most professional philosophy.
That's No. 1.
Number 2. There are a number of flute-makers who make very loud flutes that have unlined or partially lined heads. Nobody ever complained about the volume produced by McGee's, Hammy's, Murray's, Doyle's or Watson's flutes. Or my unlined Olwell HJ, which I love. And which is loud enough for Yankee F'ing Doodle.
No. 3: Nobody ever complained about the volume produced by a great maker's "Rudall" designs (though my understanding is that the designs were Rose's).
No. 4: Judging by the discourse Stone didn't understand what Loren was getting at. That's a pity. Jim could have learned a lot.

[jim stone]

And, in any case, can audible be quantified? Is there such a thing as "more audible" or "audibler?" Isn't "audible" like "pregnant?" I.e., something is audible or it isn't audible. Stone, as a philospher, should know better. Though perhaps his field isn't linguistics. This is indeed a quibble, but as Wittgenstein pointed out about 100 years ago, such is most professional philosophy.

Nice point about 'audible.' I do what I always do when faced
with an interesting philosophical objection: asked my wife.
She says that a feature F is a 'matter of degree' when it can be
the case that two things have it but one has it more than
the other. By this standard 'audible' is a matter of degree--
two individuals can both be audible but one more audible
than the other. Or to take a slightly different case, I might
ask you, trying out two microphones before giving a public
speech, 'Am I audible?' The response, you are audible with
the first microphone but more audible with the other,
makes sense.

As you say there is no word 'audibler.' That's a nice observation.
But this is a feature of
all words about abilities, she says. So two people may both be capable
of doing the job, but one more capable than the other--still
there is no word 'capabler.' So the inapproriateness of adding
'er' to a word doesn't mean it doesn't denote a matter of degree.
'Audible' means 'capable of being heard.'

Thanks, very interesting.

[Andrew Hollom]

I've always thought it was the player much more than the flute, and with all the talk centreing around the expensive flutes that people generally have here on this board, I thought I'd add some much cheaper ones to the debate.

I have two flutes, the first one being the PVC pipe by Tony Dixon, which is my carefree "pick up, play, discard at will" flute, and the second is a keyless blackwood by Phil Bleazey. I've never really thought that either was louder than the other, so I measured their respective volumes today (using SYAKU8.EXE and a semi-decent microphone).

Pitch Dixon Bleazey
D1 62 62
G1 63 68
C1 72 72
D2 68 71
G2 67 70
C2 75 72

I must add that the Bleazey flute has a nicer tone and is much more responsive, but for what is considered as a piece of "used food" by most on this board, the Dixon seems to have comparable volume. I still have plenty of fun playing "the pipe", and find that it develops my embouchure in a way that is easily transferrable to any flute that I have the good fortune to play.

A chap who teaches flute and whistle locally once recounted a story to us. He saw a group play and loved the tone of the flute (player!) and after they'd finished he asked if he could have a go with the flute. He was disappointed to find that he sounded just like himself!

I suspect that the likes of Matt Molloy, Conal O'Grada, etc. could all make "the pipe" sound pretty damned good. In fact, if we could get someone good to do a recording with "the pipe", I wonder if we could pick it out?

Happy fluting,

Andrew.

[AaronMalcomb]

I'm on the "it's the player, not the flute" bandwagon.

But really a lot of this debate stems from the fact that we can't objectively analyze Jim's personal, subjective experience, or anybody's for that matter. Though I disagree with Jim, is he really that wrong for questioning something that he has not objectively observed or subjectively experienced?

Come on , Jim. Throw us some names and some -isms. I only took a couple intro courses in college so I got nothing... Let's totally overblow this topic.

[ImNotIrish]

I arrived late to this thread, but I just wanted to say that I play a medium holed R&R with an Olwell hj, and a Hawkes & Son (Pratten). Both flutes are extremely loud, and project well. Both Kevin Crawford and Jean Michel Veillon recently played these flutes at Boxwood, and I'm happy to report the instruments took as much wind as they both could put into them!

Arbo

[flutefry]

Can't resist adding a couple of things to the earlier discussions.

Addressing the narrow point of whether differences of a few decibels in the loudness of different flutes played by one person matter. The consensus is that the flute doesn't contribute enough difference to matter much. But I wonder if we are under-rating the importance of loudness for its own sake.

There are interesting data from listening tests that suggest that small differences in volume matter, even if tone quality is identical. Only very skilled listeners can reliably distinguish two identical sources of music that differ in loudness by 1.4 decibel or less. Most listeners can reliably distinguish 2 sources that differ by 3 decibels. Oddly, untrained listeners don't say A is louder than B, they say they prefer A to B, citing reasons like richness, vibrancy, impact of the tone. In other words, even when all that has happened is that the amplifier was turned up, with no difference to tone colour, the listeners describe perceived differences in tone colour rather than differences in volume. In the comparison of loudness of RR, Pratten, and Firth and Pond flutes that Terry McGee has on his website, the differences between the R+R and Pratten are often only a few (1-3) decibels on a given note, and rarely 5 db or more. Perhaps these differences are biologically significant, even if as listeners we don't hear them as changes in volume.

There seems to be a disconnect built into statements like "professionals don't care about loudness, they care about tone colour" with statements like "this professionnal blows holes in sheet rock playing a soft-drink bottle". Pros likely aren't aiming for loudness per se, but in aiming for a focused, penetrating, riveting sound, seem somehow to end up playing loud, judging by the stories in this thread and others. It's interesting at any rate judging by the stories, that listeners are impressed by loud. It would be surprising if players weren't. Judging from reports in this forum, and from maker's web sites that Michael Grinter, Chris Wilkes Bryan Byrne, Tom Aebi, and George Ormiston are all bringing out models that play louder but retain tonal qualities of flutes that play less loudly, someone must be interested in what the flute contributes to loudness, even if it is only flute makers. But I'd be surprised if they were doing this spontaneously, without demand from their customers. And I'd expect professional flute playing customers to carry more weight with flute makers than amateurs.

None of this argues against the consensus view that for most people 10 hours practising is more useful than 10 hours thinking about which flute to get.

I am not a psycho-acoustician, and as far as I know, am not a psycho either. Your opinion may vary.

Cheers,
Hugh

[Loren]

I'm on the "it's the player, not the flute" bandwagon.

But really a lot of this debate stems from the fact that we can't objectively analyze Jim's personal, subjective experience, or anybody's for that matter. Though I disagree with Jim, is he really that wrong for questioning something that he has not objectively observed or subjectively experienced?

Wrong? I dunno. Is it wrong for people who know better to try to help him understand why it is that he is never satisfied, no matter what flute he has? I dunno.

You see this sort of thing all the time in sports where some sort of gear is needed, like tennis or golf. You have tennis players that will say "I need more power, I'm going to buy the racquet that Andre Agassi uses." But their game doesn't improve. So they ask, "Is the racquet Sampras used more powerful than the one Agassi used?" and "Will someone describe the differences between Venus Williams' racquet and Martina Navratalova's? Which one has the bigger sweet spot, which has better touch and control, which one has more....... " And so on. And the people who do this typically, don't make much progress with their game, and so, being frustrated with the results they are getting, they switch gear again, and again, and again........

But of course it's really quite clear, isn't it, that Andre, Pete, Venus, and Martina don't get their power and touch from the racquet at all do they? They could all swap racquets round robin every set, and still they'd still have exactly the same game.

Why people can't see or admit this about flutes, is beyond me. Okay, well no, it's not beyond me, but it does continue to surprise me how resistant people can sometimes be.

That's cool though, keep tearing through the flutes kids, I'll be selling them one day, so it's good for business.


Loren

[Loren]

I arrived late to this thread, but I just wanted to say that I play a medium holed R&R with an Olwell hj, and a Hawkes & Son (Pratten). Both flutes are extremely loud, and project well. Both Kevin Crawford and Jean Michel Veillon recently played these flutes at Boxwood, and I'm happy to report the instruments took as much wind as they both could put into them!

Arbo

KC and JMV have rather different sounds, so I have a Question: Did the flutes sound different when each player played them? That is to say, when Kevin played both, did they both sound very much like Kevin and not so much like JMV, and when JMV played them did they sound very much like JMV and not Kevin? Or, did feel that the more noticable thing was that Hawkes sounded like a Hawkes regardless of who played it and the R&R sounded like an R&R, regardless of the player?

Loren

[AaronMalcomb]

I agree with you Loren. I just thought that since we're trying to be rational and objective I would point out that objectivity has its limits and that if one is being truly objective, there are moments when there is no empirical reference on which to base an objective analysis.

I think a very clear case has been made for the greater value of ability to play a flute over playabilty of a flute. But my personal, subjective experience supports that rationale. I have yet to try a good flute on which I couldn't coax "my sound" and I have experienced that my flute sounds different (quieter, louder, focused, raspy, etc.) depending on my embouchure (or in some cases, lack thereof). Jim's personal, subjective experience is that different flutes sound significantly different to him when he plays them.

We make rational and irrational decisions. Is one better than the other? How many of us made the decision to play the flute on a rational basis? I know I didn't. If we are doing something for an irrational reason, at what point does that conflict with rationale?

And I'm probably taking this thread way off topic.

[Loren]

I agree with you Loren. I just thought that since we're trying to be rational and objective I would point out that objectivity has its limits and that if one is being truly objective, there are moments when there is no empirical reference on which to base an objective analysis.

I think a very clear case has been made for the greater value of ability to play a flute over playabilty of a flute. But my personal, subjective experience supports that rationale. I have yet to try a good flute on which I couldn't coax "my sound" and I have experienced that my flute sounds different (quieter, louder, focused, raspy, etc.) depending on my embouchure (or in some cases, lack thereof). Jim's personal, subjective experience is that different flutes sound significantly different to him when he plays them.

We make rational and irrational decisions. Is one better than the other? How many of us made the decision to play the flute on a rational basis? I know I didn't. If we are doing something for an irrational reason, at what point does that conflict with rationale?

And I'm probably taking this thread way off topic.

I understand what you're saying, I just believe that thinking this way is looking at things from the Micro point of view, rather than zooming out and having a look at the big picture, which puts things into perspective. This is why I used the tennis analogy.

I mean, sure, there are differences between flutes, I'm a flute maker let's not forget - trained, if I do say so, in one of the finest historic woodwind shops in the world, a place where it wasn't uncommon to have world class recording artists come in to play and choose between, a number of instruments, often asking for minor adjustments in voicing or tuning. So I'm all about hearing the differences between instruments, however through this same experience, plus being exposed to some really fine Irish Flute players here in Boston, I've come to understand just how small a portion of the final sound comes from the instrument, and how much comes from the player, particularly with regards to flutes.

It's always easy enough to say "I'm looking for the flute, tennis racquet, golf clubs that will give me the results I'm looking for at the current skill level I'm at, because it will take me time to get better", but that doesn't buy one any sort of significant improvement, and when you take the macro view, this becomes clear.

$1500 spent on lessons makes one a far better player than $1500 spent on a new flute..... This too I know from my own experience.



Loren

[vanessa]

[quote]"We make rational and irrational decisions. Is one better than the other? How many of us made the decision to play the flute on a rational basis? I know I didn't. If we are doing something for an irrational reason, at what point does that conflict with rationale?" [/quote]

... and the good thing about those subjectively based perceptions and decisions is that they help keep talented flute makers in business the same way it opens new opportunities for those on the upandcoming because if everybody was happy to just keep one single flute for their entire life, the only people purchasing a flute would be newcomers...

(edited to add relevant quote)

[Cathy Wilde]

<snip>
... and the good thing about those subjectively based perceptions and decisions is that they help keep talented flute makers in business the same way it opens new opportunities for those on the upandcoming because if everybody was happy to just keep one single flute for their entire life, the only people purchasing a flute would be newcomers...

(edited to add relevant quote)

Amen! And where would this board be if that was the case?