Boxwood vs. Blackwood

[eilam]

if a boxwood flute is played in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it still sound like a boxwood flute?

a forest with trees, or no trees?

[rama]

if a boxwood flute is played in the forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it still sound like a boxwood flute?

a forest with trees, or no trees?

yes

[Whistlin'Dixie]

no

[Whistlin'Dixie]

no

[rama]

no

okay....here's another one i can't seem to figure out:

if a lone man is in the forest, and there is no woman there, is he still wrong?

[eilam]

a lone man is never wrong, not even in a woodless forest.

[Coffee]

Perhaps the main contribution the material makes is in the mind of the player. I don't mean that we imagine a different tone out of one or another flute, but that perhaps our expectations of a different tone lead us to try to produce the tone we expect through subconcious alteration of embouchure and the like.

I have an idea: one of us should write to the Mythbusters to settle this once and for all!

[eilam]

Cofaidh ~ what are you talking about
were talking forests and here

[Whistlin'Dixie]

huh? I thought we were talking about Christmas trees? where am I? Why am I saying "no" twice? Don't answer me if you're a man, you might be wrong! How come I like blackwood better than boxwood. Don't answer why they sound different, I want to know why I like it more. I don't know. Or do I? ..... Stop, the room is spinning..... aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.........

[BoneQuint]

I hope this doesn't sound like a rant, it really isn't. I think it's an interesting question, and as I've said before, I don't think anyone's gonna convince anyone who's solidly in one camp that the other way of thinking is correct. And I think we all agree that the fluteplayer is most of the equation.

That's a well thought-out post there, thanks.

[GaryKelly]

Sound and light don't obey exactly the same equations, but they're not that dissimilar.

Quite so. Light waves travel through the luminous ether in exactly the same way sound waves travel through the air.

So the theorists who say that simulations indicate that the material doesn't make a difference haven't taken into account everything, and if everything isn't taken into account, I don't think they can say that anything doesn't make a difference.

Quite so. They haven't taken into account that the refractive index of luminous ether varies in inverse square proportion to barometric pressure, provided temperature remains the same.

Sorry Chas, but you 'chimed in' as a physicist, but then proceeded to claim that chalk isn't that dissimilar to cheese, followed by speculation and anecdote. That's not really very scientific.

And I think we all agree that the fluteplayer is most of the equation.

If 'most' is acceptable, why isn't 'all'?

As I've mentioned to Jim before, if differing materials had unique and discernable affects on flute tone then, as Bart alluded to earlier, it should be perfectly possible to listen to every track on each of the WFO CDs (for example) and identify each flute by its material, because regardless of player, that unique and discernable effect would be impressed on the player's tone by the material of their flute.

Would you expect someone who's only been playing flute for 1 week to sound significantly different on an Olwell made from Blackwood than on an Olwell made from Boxwood? If not, why not? Surely the one wood would make the beginner sound "hard and dark but chuddy", but the other would make him sound "rich and creamy but chuddy" or whatever discernable tonal characterists are unique to each wood?

To borrow some words from Hugh: I couldn't help noticing here a discrete silence from the actual non-physicists among us when Bart suggested his excellent experiment back on page 6.

[chas]

Sound and light don't obey exactly the same equations, but they're not that dissimilar.

Quite so. Light waves travel through the luminous ether in exactly the same way sound waves travel through the air.

So the theorists who say that simulations indicate that the material doesn't make a difference haven't taken into account everything, and if everything isn't taken into account, I don't think they can say that anything doesn't make a difference.

Quite so. They haven't taken into account that the refractive index of luminous ether varies in inverse square proportion to barometric pressure, provided temperature remains the same.

Sorry Chas, but you 'chimed in' as a physicist, but then proceeded to claim that chalk isn't that dissimilar to cheese, followed by speculation and anecdote. That's not really very scientific.

You've read a lot more into what I said than I intended. One thing that I didn't say that I should have was that I was thinking of reflection from surfaces. In both cases you have a set of equations and boundary conditions that must be solved and satisfied. If you can point me to a full 3D solution of the Helmholtz equation in a flute taking into account roughness of the tube (both correlated and uncorrelated), condensation, depth gradient of the moisture content of the wood, . . . I'll be satisfied that the problem has been solved.

I am not taking sides in the debate, nor did I intend anectodal observations to be taken as scientific. The only scientific thing I wanted to point out is that it's a really hard problem to address mathematically and that the experiments that have been presented are far from perfect.

[eilam]

huh? I thought we were talking about Christmas trees? where am I? Why am I saying "no" twice? Don't answer me if you're a man, you might be wrong! How come I like blackwood better than boxwood. Don't answer why they sound different, I want to know why I like it more. I don't know. Or do I? ..... Stop, the room is spinning..... aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh.........

Mary, repeat after me:
I LOVE BOXWOOD
I LOVE BOXWOOD
I LOVE BOXWOOD
MY LOVE FOR BLACKWOOD IS NOT GREATER THEN MY LOVE FOR BOXWOOD

look Mary, really think about it, if Blackwood is so great, God would have told us to use it as Christmas trees, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO he told us to use WHITEWOOD yes WHITEWOOD !!!
MARY - DEAL WITH IT !!! DEAL WITH IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GOAWD !!

eilam

[Bart Wijnen]

Perhaps the main contribution the material makes is in the mind of the player. I don't mean that we imagine a different tone out of one or another flute, but that perhaps our expectations of a different tone lead us to try to produce the tone we expect through subconcious alteration of embouchure and the like.

Interesting thought. It reminds of one time I got my sterling silver Muramatsu repaired and the flutemaker got ill. I got my flute back seven months later. In the mean time I had to play on the standard silverplated Yamaha, with closed holes.

I had to get used to it for a week and then I sounded just like before. After I got my own flute back it was the same story, after a week I sounded like myself again.

Rampal had two Haynes flutes and a Louis Lot, Galway has more than one flute as well, who can hear on which one they are playing on their records?

So time for this weeks question: would Harry Bradly be able to produce the same harsh tone on a boxwood flute?

Bart

[Loren]

No reason a well thought out experiment couldn't be done using tenor recorders or low whistles made from different woods - as the fipple largely takes "embouchure" out of the picture.


Loren

And what (sorry Loren, I'm trying to be a good sport but it's not in my nature ) if we put a player behind a curtain with plastic and all different kind of wooden flutes and we try to guess what she/he is playing at?

Bart

Did you not read my earlier post? I have done this, and I was able to distinguish between flutes from the same maker, that were made of different materials.


Yes, I agree that a good way to test if (some) people are able to tell the difference in sound color between "identical" flutes made from different materials is to do blind testing - an open room, sans curtain, with the listener sitting back turned. A recording booth would not be a good place to do this as they tend to nullify differences between instruments, rather than accentuate them, which is one thing that affects how recorded instruments sound.


The most important points, I believe, would be as follows:


The flutes would need to be of the same make and model, and made within a short time of one another.

The player would have to be someone with a strong, consistent embouchure, who could play both the "clean" and "dirty" tone equally well.

Tunes, both familiar and unfamiliar, in addition to tones/scales would need to be played - Single tones, or even scales, seem more difficult to use when trying to distinguish the "sounds" of different materials, part of this, I believe, has to do with "response" which goes back to reflectivity within the bore. At any rate, I believe you'd find people "Hear" much more when complete music is being played, as opposed to simple tones, or scales.

The player should not be biased towards the outcome of the experiment (perhaps the most difficult requirement to achieve!)

Finally, The listeners would have to be folks with "Good Ears" - the exceptional ability to distinguish "sound colors". I strongly believe that plenty of people simply can't hear any difference detween materials, which could be due to genetics (some people have a more sensitive sense of smell than others, some stronger eyesight, why should audio perception be any different?) or it could be an issue of training (formal or informal), or perhaps other issues are at play, but certainly some folks are more sensitive to these things than others. I have absolutely no doubt that if you use a room full of professional symphony players, and a room full of accountants for this experiment, the two groups will turn in very different results.





Loren