I thought that I'd bring this up, Jim. It's a common point of misunderstanding.

***
gold's atomic makeup is very different than that of silver. because of that, it has a different density. it vibrates at a different speed, just like the slightest change in wavelength can cause different colors, even a different type of radiation. yes, this is even in the smallest amount. this is the difference between UV light and purple light. same concept, except applied to metals. this, in essence, would cause a warmer sound on the flute. even the smallest vibration differences can cause a world of difference when applied to sound.
***

This may be true, but the dirty secret that the flute makers, well most of them, won't tell you is that while all of this is true, the amount of energy required to create *enough* vibration to be heard by human hearing is on the order of literally hitting it on a hard object like a tuning fork.

Our breath doesn't have enough force or mass to it to make the differences in the metal pronounced enough for people to hear the difference. At least with modern construction methods. I guess if you made a tissue paper-thin tube of gold, you could manage it if you had good hearing, but nobody does this. Why?(besides duribility issues) Here comes the dirty secret of music and audio in general.

Human hearing is among the worst in the entire animal world, and as such, cannot hear the minute differences. In double-blind tests on audio equipment, human hearing can't reliably discern beyond about .4db difference in volume between two sources.

CD audio is a perfect example that I know quite a lot about. The fact is that 98% of humans cannot hear beyond what a CD can produce. By age 6 or 8, it's already below that threshold and dropping. And that's in the best humanly possible case, like the .4db difference above. Most people are closer to 1-2db! So fancy metals or wood in instruments is like fancy audio equipment. 99% of people can't tell the difference and I can guarantee that you and I aren't in that 1%, just due to our age and the fact that we drive cars or have been to a rock concert at least once in our life.

The difference in current flute metals is closer to 1/4 to 1/2 of that threshold based upon current thicknesses and construction techniques.

*note*
Titanium can be made thin enough to resonate like you'd want to be able to hear the difference and still be just sturdy enough to be played, but there are no guarantees that you'd like the sound.

So...
Yes, the Flute makers are right, from a scientific standpoint.
Too bad only your dog can hear the difference.
But boy it sells a lot of flutes.

And, no, I'm dead serious about this - you cannot hear the difference in a blind test.

http://www.pcabx.com/
I studied to be an acoustic engineer in college, in case you wondered, though I do data forensics(computers) now.

Most of this deals with 24/96 Audio versus normal CD. Tthe same exact discussion/topic exists in audio - just replace "CD" with silver and "24/96" with gold for flutes.

http://www.roger-russell.com/wire/wire.htm
A good article from a top engineer who worked at McIntosh Labs. Note the ads near the bottom. They should look familar in a way - the same hype and the same silly prices(actually much worse)

Well, anyway, happy birthday, Kara --- and congrats on your new vac. Just think, I could have bought another flute for what you must have paid!

And Alieannie: I'm glad you enjoyed my comic relief and hope you didn't split a gut! I did use the search function. It's just that many of the posts are written by people in a more technical fashion than I can understand. I think some of the members must be engineers or physicists. I simply sent people to the Powell site because it was written in plain English --- something I can understand, because I'm not conversant in atoms, particle physics, etc., and I just thought there might be other members who are in the same boat I'm in. That's all.

As far as the link to Tracy Harris, there are people on the site who like to listen to music clips, and I just thought that there are members who might like her lovely performance of the Polaniase (Boehm), which (not that it makes any difference to some) happens to be played on a heavy-wall gold flute, for whatever that's worth.

I never started an argument. I never pontificated. And, I certainly didn't think my harmless little, 2-link post would have this thread going on longer than it took to create the world.

In closing, I'd like to thank Patrick, Bilbo, Micron and Pletko for (their usual) remarkable insights --- and for being polite. That's all I ever looked for.

Oh, and by the way, Kara, why do I stay on a forum where I'm not welcome? I guess it's just the masochist in me. I like being punished for my sins. You don't happen to have a bull-whip handy, do you? I prefer black leather, by the way.

Regards, Jim

<Added>

Oops! Sorry for the misspelling: it's Polonaise. Oh well, that's close enough.

<Added>

Oh, and I didn't mean you, Kara. I meant does anyone have a bull-whip? I need a good beating. Then, I promise not to post for another 40 days and 40 nights.

The main difference between the "sound" of metals that we claim to hear is almost always the thickness of the walls. Titanium would be very thin, silver and gold near the middle, and ceramic, glass, or wood, at the very other end.

If they make a gold flute and a silver one to the exact same specs, human hearing isn't good enough to hear a difference in a blind test. But being that gold is much softer than many other metals, this usually means a thicker walled flute unless the maker gets creative with the alloys or makes the tube much smaller to compensate.(which affects the sound as well)

ie - it's the geometry that makes the sound and not the materials(titanium and glass aside)*

*titanium is possible to in theory make thin enough to actually resonate when playing at enough of a level to be heard. Not a lot of research has been done on this, though, so it's kind of a mystery as to whether it is a good or a bad thing.

Glass or crystal is similar. It's also very easy to make resonate. Unfortunately they are among the least durable flutes made. Quite rare as well other than the ones Hall makes.

Thank you, Phil, for your input. Although I admit I'm surprised. It seems as though most people agree that solid silver provides a better tone? Perhaps you can elaborate?

Thank you, Pletko, for your (as usual) remarkable knowledge and input. I will remember what you said:

"ie - it's the geometry that makes the sound and not the materials(titanium and glass aside)".

Would never have thought of that and it's such an important point.

By the way --- have a great Holiday, guys ---
and a great 2008!

Jim

Thanks, Phil. I agree, in the face of the scientists on this forum --- and, by the way, other members agree with us.

Jim

<Added>

oops! I meant SOME of the other members agree with us.

You're not allowed to change your mind. You'll play on silver and like it.

Unlike this forum.

The main difference between the "sound" of metals that we claim to hear is almost always the thickness of the walls. Titanium would be very thin, silver and gold near the middle, and ceramic, glass, or wood, at the very other end.

Exactly what are the sources for your conclusions on this?

I've read through your posts and your cause and effect relationships are inaccurate pairings. Your acoustics of wind instruments descriptions are not even close to what woodwind acoustics researchers relate.

when you make a statement like this:

Our breath doesn't have enough force or mass to it to make the differences in the metal pronounced enough for people to hear the difference. At least with modern construction methods. I guess if you made a tissue paper-thin tube of gold, you could manage it if you had good hearing, but nobody does this.

It is plainly obvious to me that that this is not how the acoustical system of a woodwind instrument functions. Subsequent conclusions are therefore false because the premise they are reasoned from bears no resemblance to what is happening.

the amount of energy required to create *enough* vibration to be heard by human hearing is on the order of literally hitting it on a hard object like a tuning fork.

The amount of vibration of the tube is not what what we are hearing, it is rather, the vibration of an air column dispersed into space. The flute is the vessel regulating various levels of interactions that cause that to happen. The equations of mass, boundary layer effects, design aspects, and particular geometric aspects in targeted locations, can effect subtle changes.

I don't know why you've brought up CD sound replication applications for they bear no resemblance to the main topic at hand. On a level that maybe a few people on this forum may understand, there is a correlation, but not in the specific manner you have suggested.

This may be true, but the dirty secret that the flute makers, well most of them, won't tell you is that while all of this is true, the amount of energy required to create *enough* vibration to be heard by human hearing is on the order of literally hitting it on a hard object like a tuning fork.

It is a well known measured fact that vibration from the tube itself is an inaudible effect at a measured rating of .1% at most of total sound output. The correlation you are making is not at all caused in the manner you suggest. The player's air-stream is the driver for sinusoidal motion. It needs to move air not metal. Metal vibration can only be sympathetic in a manner causing decreased response. It merely lowers the natural resonance peaks although they retain their proportional identity. This has virtually nothing to do with the overal harmonic spectrum created by the air column container.

In other words, The point you are attempting to make bears no resemblance to wind acoustic science.

Joe B

Exactly what are the sources for your conclusions on this?
***

I was stating that you could make a stronger material like titanium thinner. And that would change the sound. But most of what we discuss over and over is very simple - gold versus silver. And the dimensions are virtually identical between them. Yamaha makes a wood flute that sounds identical to their silver ones if you swap headjoints. So even with a vastly different material like wood, it's really a function of geometry and construction than anything else. Yamaha tried in this case to make a wood flute that sounded and payed the same as their silver ones as far as the body goes. You can easily try this out with a Piccolo. Swap in and out wood and metal bodies while keeping the metal headjoint.

It's not the metal - it's the thickness and construction that's making it sound that way, if anything.

There is that link that was posted recently that has Gallway's trying out flutes. Can you hear the difference? He can't in a blind test and neither can your or I.

****
The amount of vibration of the tube is not what what we are hearing, it is rather, the vibration of an air column dispersed into space. The flute is the vessel regulating various levels of interactions that cause that to happen. The equations of mass, boundary layer effects, design aspects, and particular geometric aspects in targeted locations, can effect subtle changes.
****

The thing is, that according to most manufacturers, they attribute things to gold versus silver that could only BE from the metal itself creating an interaction with your breath. This would mean resonance/vibration of course. That is, if it had any relation at all to the sound, which it really doesn't.

My point is this - the amount of energy required to produce the sort of effects that their marketing departments claim, *to the level where human hearing can hear it*, would require power levels that approach a pipe organ. Their showing graphs and so on that are well below what most dogs could hear, let alone a human... More and more marketing B.S.

That's why I brought up CD audio. It plainly demonstrates the problems with human hearing and how we've exceeded it a long time ago. But marketing can't just say "all we need to know is already discovered, here's our same 20 year old model". Right now, for instance, 24/96 audio, especially in computer sound cards, is all the rage. Too bad CD already exceeded human limits a long time ago.

If you look at studio monitors, you'll note that the technology hasn't changed in nearly two decades. We're talking places like Lucas Sound, where money is no object. Yet the same 1980s technology is still being used, because it exceeded the requirements back then for sound reproduction. In a way we're lucky. Common treated paper, copper wire, and capacitors and so on are all that's needed to exceed human hearing.

****
It is a well known measured fact that vibration from the tube itself is an inaudible effect at a measured rating of .1% at most of total sound output. The correlation you are making is not at all caused in the manner you suggest. The player's air-stream is the driver for sinusoidal motion. It needs to move air not metal. Metal vibration can only be sympathetic in a manner causing decreased response. It merely lowers the natural resonance peaks although they retain their proportional identity. This has virtually nothing to do with the overall harmonic spectrum created by the air column container.
****
Thank you for agreeing with me.

0.1% is close to what the difference between metals nets you.

Now look at any maker's site. Do they say this? Or do they make silly claims based upon pseudo-science.

Let's look at Pearl:
"The Maesta Gold flutes have marvelous rich overtones"

Haynes gold models:
"The artist’s choice, unequaled rich tone and incredible control".

Powell is even better:
http://www.powellflutes.com/ftree/ftree_t2/ftree_t3/ftree_t3_custom.html

What a load of rubbish under the materials section.

This is why I brought up CD and high end audio. The same marketing misinformation exists everywhere. I have yet to see a major flute maker in fact that doesn't believe this nonsense, either. Silver is better than plated. Gold is even better. More expensive metals are always better as far as they all are concerned.

I was stating that you could make a stronger material like titanium thinner. And that would change the sound. But most of what we discuss over and over is very simple - gold versus silver. And the dimensions are virtually identical between them.

That is not the case however. Gold and silver tubes do not have similar dimensions. Gold tubes are thinner than silver tubes. They are not virtually identical. Your original premise is not correct so the subsequent reasoning must also be incorrect. You are making a direct correlation to a difference in metal thickness as the difference in sound perception.

You appear to be claiming that the thickness of the tube is the key to the differences in sound. (since the geometry is fairly consistent) Yet you then claim that there is no difference in sound. So which are you claiming? By your reasoning there is a difference...by your conclusion there is no difference...(and BTW the tubing thickness of a titanium flute is pretty much the same as a gold flute)

The thing is, that according to most manufacturers, they attribute things to gold versus silver that could only BE from the metal itself creating an interaction with your breath. This would mean resonance/vibration of course.

Your definition of resonance/vibration is not defined at all and the correlation you are trying to make has nothing to do with the phenomena. (i.e resonance/vibration affected by breath interaction.) Do not confuse marketing hype with what is happening. And what then exactly are you trying to say? Because this too makes no sense at all.

Thank you for agreeing with me. 0.1% is close to what the difference between metals nets you.

I have not agreed with you at all. What is your reference to the .1% in terms of the difference of metals? That statement make no sense at all.

So for clarification..exactly what is the point you are trying to make, You make a false claim that there is no difference in the metal thickness when there is, and then say there is no difference in the sound because the thickness of the metal is the same. (Whether or not there is a difference in sound is not the issue here. Only which set of fasts you are basing your argument on. Please clarify because your facts are in opposition to themselves.)

Let's lose the CD analogy altogether since it is irrelevant. We are not dealing with sound reproduction. Rather we are dealing with the dynamics of sound creation. The two environments are extremely different for the topic we are discussing and as such are not related for getting to the topic at hand.

Joe B