http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2s1682XtwQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQVamcOEFZI


you tell me if you hear a difference. and if you dont, im telling you. youre deaf.

Drugs have to be tested in a double-blind environment, when neither the doctor nor the patient knows whether the pill is real or placebo, or new drug vs. older proven drug. If even one of the two parties knows which is which, the experiment will be skewed.

I really like my wood flute headjoint. I don't think it sounds a whole lot different than a silver one, but I love it for its response, pitch, and dynamic abilities. It is a Powell Philharmonic cut. When I bought it I also tried a Yamaha EC cut grenadilla HJ, I thought I would love it but I preferred the solid silver EC head. I tried some other wood HJs, but none of them had the response of the Powell.

Plus, the wood HJ with the silver flute looks sooo cool...even the first violins think I must have a really special instrument! That, and the pointed key arms, offset the fact that my darling has a C-footjoint. (Tongue mostly in cheek here)

fine. whatever. youre right and im wrong. its mind over matter here and i apparently cant hear a difference. and on one else can either. because telling the difference between plastic and wood is non existent and its all to do with the extremely expensive design. ok. i get it.

im wrong and stupid.

If you look at the way that the tone hole itself is made, that alone is an enormous difference.

Metal - has a riser and lip plate.
Wood - no riser, often no lip plate.

The geometry is also different for the wood headjoint as well, which affects the tone greatly. But a metal headjoint made to the exact same specs would sound identical. I suspect they don't make wood flutes with lip plates and risers due to the difficulty of fitting and assembling them.

Q: does anyone have a picture of a metal flute with a wood style setup(no riser or lip plate)?

P.S. A lot of reed players are beginning to move towards synthetic wood and metal for their instruments for exactly this reason. Better tuning, easier to care for, lighter weight, stronger...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bore_(wind_instruments)
Of note is how a Clarinet and Oboe are nearly identical in size and tuning, yet the conical bore of the Oboe creates a vastly different sound. This is exactly what is happening with a typical wood headjoint. Except we don't call a wood flute by another name like they do an oboe.

So yes, a flute with a conical bore and no riser or lip plate will sound different in the same manner as an oboe versus a clarinet to a flute with a cylindrical bore and the riser/lip plate.

But there are a few flutes that are made the other way. For instance, the Yamaha 800 series is essentially a wood version of the metal 800, or close to it - there's very little difference, just like there's very little difference between wood and metal in their piccolos.

mbrowne, don't take it to heart. many times before i've thought he comes off condescending, defensive and harsh but i honestly don't think that's his intention.

some people are just better at communicating than others.

Nice you all take it with humour.
Please keep it friendly and nobody should feel offended because of discrepancy. If we we all had the same opinion, this would be a very boring site, wouldn't it be?

Micron, you could've completely 100% communicated your message without the addition of things like:

"I don't think so!!"

"Really?!!!"

"You just don't get it!"

"To present these clips to me to compare is simply ludicrous."

"Have you actually read any of the reasonably robust research on this topic?"

And from another post:

"What a shame you have allowed yourself to be influenced by him!"

I mean, honestly. We understand you're passionate about your viewpoint, but it could be presented with more tact.

I believe that the differences do exist and this is a fact. That's the reason of the title of my original opening post.

But there could be two main reasons for this (blindly) perceived difference:

#1.- The construction material has a perceivable influence (i.e plastic, metal, wood) or,

#2.- Piccs (and flutes) built of different materials are usually built differently also (i.e different price, brand, manufacturing process, tube bore, taper, blow hole cut, tone holes, risers, lip plates, internal polishing, and probably many others).

Of both possibilities, the second has (in my opinion) broader acceptance among flutists in this Forum and I adhere to it myself. A lot of arguments supporting this position have been given by experienced members in this same thread.

It is also the "softer" position in that it is not contradictory with well documented experiments with double blind tests.

To Alieanny,

If you could guess 100% of the times which instrument is which, then the two obvious conclusions are:

A.- You have a good an experienced ear (no doubt about it) and the instruments do sound differently. You are not guessing, actually.

B.- The instruments are built differently (apart from the materials). We can argue about this but it would be rather difficult to prove the contrary, in any case.

But if we accept the possibility #2.- (higher above) as valid, then the following consequence should also be accepted, if we want to stay on the rational side and accept the results of the scientific test in the literature:

3.- Two instruments built exactly equal, will have the same sound (quality, colour, dynamics and whatever adjective we want to put here), independently of the material they are built with.

This means that they cannot be distinguished if the tests are performed according to scientific standards (i.e strict double blind test (both player and listener must ignore which instrument is been played), at exactly the same position, stable acoustics of the room and a long etcs.)

I know this conclusion can be hard to swallow, but a different position would (I regret to say) fall in the realm of sheer belief.

As an engineer I have a positivist thinking and I cannot accept (easily) those things that refuse to be supported by reasoning. I know it is my personal approach, not necessarily valid for others, but for me it has proved to be valid in my whole life.

I say this with the maximum respect that I have for the opinions of experienced players (much more than me in any case) could have about this interesting and controversial subject.



<Added>

With this: "(much more than me in any case)" I mean that I am not so much experienced. Sorry for the confusing wording

im getting 2 gemeinhardt piccolos from flute world, a 4p and a 4w. i will do an audio test and you can tell you which one you think is wood, plastic.

im also getting in 2 emerson piccolos after the gemeinhardts, an ep2 and an ep6. again, i will do an audio test and you can tell which one you think is wood, plastic.

i will do this recording sometime soon, as in when i get both piccs in. its hard to doa test without the instruments in front of you.

ALSO: if you have a silver CONICAL BORE piccolo, would this mean that it would sound JUST LIKE its wood and plastic counterparts?

Hi mbrowne,

The proposed tests could be extremely interesting because if you post the recordings, they will be available to everybody here and we could all test our ears and perceptions.

However, it is not only the listener perception what plays a role in the alleged quality (wooden, metallic, sweet, warm, etc) but also the player.

You will be playing those instruments yourself and make recordings. In order to eliminate any possible involuntary bias while playing (this could be totally unconscious/involuntary), it should be necessary that you play each instrument blindfolded, sitting (standing) exactly at the same place, at the same moment, (no change in temperature, presence of other people and any other external condition) so as to make them as equal as possible.

You can have someone helpful to handle the instruments to you, which should be in full playing condition before the tests starts. The recording device should be operated by the helper person so that you do not move and can concentrate just in the playing.

Even so, there could be some telling clues about which instrument is which, such as weight and touch, for example. To cancel these clues that could bias your playing, I suggest you try not to guess about what instrument you are playing at each moment and of course play them in random order. I suggest you do not make just two recordings, but several (ten for each, for example. The more, the better), but always in random order.

The helping person should see that every instrument is played more or less the same number of times and that the order is truly random.

Randomness is a difficult issue; the helping person should prepare the sequence in advance (without your knowing, of course). For something approching actual randomness, you could use a random number generator (PC or calculator) and attribute even numbers to one instrument and odd numbers to the other instrument.

I am not sure what type of music would be best for such a test. Everything I can think of, has its advantages and downsides. Probably long, sustained notes of a central chromatic scale would be the best as there will be no mechanical issues as would be the case with fast passages and long notes will give time to the listener to asses about the perceived quality.


I am not sure whether these recommendations would be enough to have such a test be considered a valid double blind test. I would like to see experts opinions and recommendations.

I am enthusiastic about such a test, because it would open the possibility to all of us to asses and evaluate such a long standing issue.

For this last reason, please keep the "solution to the quiz" secret for a long enough time (a month?) to give the opportunity to as many people as possible to express their opinion before disclosing the results.

heres a fact: my couch is considered green. it looks blue, but is considered green.

another fact: digital cable is better than rabbit ears. i dont know, but i can get the local pbs channel better on rabbit ears than i can on cable. but digital is better, you see.

another fact: the sky is blue. it certainly looks green during a storm, but its blue nonetheless.

facts arent necessarily exact unless were talking about calculus. even chemistry has variations. our blood isnt even completely neutral based on the pH scale!

im done with this conversation because apparently opinions dont matter anymore. this board isnt about what people think, its about what someone with a calculator has to say, who has full rein here. dont mind my fairly decent hearing or anyone elses. its all about the calculations. because theres never any variations on earth. we live in a vacuum.

Please do not take it so badly. Some of us have a technical or engineering background and we tend to think that way.

Other people have different approaches and I appreciate more the approaches of those who had the chance of having an artistic formation from early in life, something I was not lucky to receive until very late.

If you refer to my suggestions about performing a test that could be valid for a majority here, please consider that I was just trying to help and it has nothing to do with a possible slight towards your opinions, please be sure it's all the contrary. If you see green skies during a storm, I believe most will not agree, but still it's your perception. Artistic minded people are recognised for having a different perception of things and nature.

Take sky colours of Van Gogh's paintings, for example: http://www3.vangoghmuseum.nl/vgm/index.jsp?page=1282&lang=en

IMO, what are considered to be "facts" (outside the realm of science) refer mainly to the general consent about something, a way of saying that this is accepted by a majority. Only that. And majorities sometimes (even often) make the wrong choices.

When it comes to science, there are very strict protocols to define how experiments should be carried out so that the results can be studied, compared (and most important) reproduced by others.

If the result of a test or experiment cannot be reproduced by other researchers independently, then the original result is considered to be flawed (or in some cases, manipulated by the original authors). The case of "cold fusion" is a recent and sad example.

Now, you proposed to post a set of audio tests, I understood that you were trying to prove your case and I found it very interesting (extremely interesting, I said).

But I thought, in order that the results be accepted by as many people as possible and being this an open public site where many (probably several hundreds) will read your post, I decided to suggest a procedure, based in my relative knowledge of how experiments should be carried to be considered valid in the general sense.

I know notice that I should better had refrained to post those suggestions.

Please go on with the tests as you planned originally and they will be OK; it is your own initiative and a positive contribution.



<Added>

I know notice = I now notice

Micron, please quote me anywhere in this post where I claim material affects sound.

I pointed out your rudeness in your communication with Mbrowne, which, as a third party, I found out of line. Why don't you take your own advice and do your research before spouting off.

By the way, I stand by my original remarks.

I'm so sick of you being rude to people. Your condescending tone is quite annoying. Don't you have a life? Why get on here just to argue for the simple sake of arguing? Why debate with people just for the hell of it? Its not polite. People get on here to offer advice and to help one another. All you do is argue points, and the argument is not even over anything worth arguing about. So its not even beneficial to anyone!
Get real!!