I always thought the difference between wooden and metal piccs could be attributed to the difference in thickness. If I`m wrong, do correct me, but would that not mean that a piccolo constructed to have the exact dimensions of wood, but constructed from, say, plastic would sound the same? In which case, the difference between metal and wood exists but only because of the different construction required by the medium?

Isn`t this really a case of perception. I may perceive beauty in one thing, while you are repelled. There is scientific evidence, but there also is human perception. Beauty is a very personal ideal.

We should each be able to assimilate the scientific information, and use it in mixture with our own perception.

It isn`t really a right or wrong issue. Are you wrong to think that one form of music is better than another? One likes Mozart, and another likes emminem. No one is wrong are they?......Okay bad example!!! You understand my point even with my attempt at humor. Neither is wrong, just different. Diffent is not wrong, just different!! Peace out.

I like that, Kippix! What a great point!

To answer you, Mrs C, form the science perspective. Both the theory and the double blind tests say that neither the material nor its thickness (within reason) is relevant. Neither a very thin metal tube (say made from aluminium foil or gold leaf), nor a tube made from say a thick but `squishy` material (such as silicon rubber, or polystyrene foam) would work well at all. As long as the material has sufficient minimum standard of rigidity, and has the thickness to maintain this rigidity (which is one of the reasons why wooden flutes are thicker) then the material and its thickness are irrelevant. There is no claim that somebody with vastly superior ears would not detect a difference, but the differences were so very small that they cannot be perceived by typical musicians and experienced listeners.

Indeed, in one test the players were asked to play twice on the same tube, and try to play exactly the same way both times. The difference in tone that they exhibited was a lot greater than the difference in tone for different tubes that they played.

Of course, tests demonstrated that the difference between different players` tone on the SAME tube were huge by comparison with the differences attributed to material or its thickness.

A second answer, is that if a player perceives that they are laying on a superior instrument, then they will almost certainly rise to the occasion and play better. It is human nature; humans find it almost impossible not to be subjective, in a myriad of ways. That is why OBJECTIVE testing for such issues as these is the only way to go if we want truth as opposed to belief.

So a plastic and a timber piccolo would sound the same, PROVIDING all other aspects of manufacture were identical. In practice, the timber instrument is normally made to much better specifications, and the plastic instrument, more likely to land in the hands of a student, may even be designed to be more suitable in the hands of a less experienced player.

Instruments made form thicker materials have more potential for say undercutting the tone holes, which can definitely have a significant influence on acoustic properties. But in this case it is the shape of the air column and tone holes (including the embouchure hole, which doubles as the top tone hole used for all notes), not the material, that makes the difference in tone.

I am just wondering something, Arak. How is it you have so much time to spend writting such responses in a forum, day after day? I could never find that kind of time. It must be nice.

By the way, I think wood sounds and plays completely different that silver piccolos, regardless of all the scientifically studies that have been made. I think that what Kippsix wrote was very intuitive indeed.

`Someone`, I am a very organised person, so many things are posible in my life.

And yes, it is nice. I have a life of great interest and variety. This forum is a very, very small part of it.

Why, thank-you Kara and "someone".

Thanks Arak; my knowledge of acoustic science is minimal to say the least, which is the reason I generally defer judgement on these issues!