I play the Clarinet and its french or german systems sound different,i think

"I seems that much later reserching proved he was wrong. But this is also difficult to swallow..."
Well, I'm not exactly sure what was so wrong about his research.
Are we going to compare apples to apples (As we say in the US) or Apples to
oranges.
If you are going to compare two instruments of different materials, then surely you need:
Exactly the same bore/tube, embouchure hole, tone holes size and placement. Everything must be identical to do a fair comparison. You can't approximate. So,...if the paramaters need to be the same, are we going with the thickness of the tube wall material or the weight/density of the materials? If you are following what I'm saying here, you can't make a fair comparison between to such dissimilar materials. The point that I had made in the ending comments was that Boehm was intent on a few things. Well Tone is paramount to any musical instrument but also dynamics. Because he was trying to make a flute that could carry to a larger audience in the way that the flutist Charles Nicholson was doing in England. Then to a consistency of tuning was important. So he revamped the flute's tone and tuning but not exactly in metal at first. He used wood but because he was trained in metallurgy, he decided (and rightly so) that a metal flute would have certain consistancies of construction and playing caracteristics that wood simply doesn't have.
So in reply Jose, Because we won't be cutting a wood flute with a thickness of .018mm and we have yet to cut a quality Silver, gold or platinum flute with the tube thickness of 3.7 mm. I can't agree that Boehm was actually wrong in his thinking because I don't believe that we simply have done a fair comparison between the two materials.

This is of course setting aside the concept of tonal variances between reproductions of early instruments and modern metal ones. And we can still purchase Modern designed Boehm style Flutes of wood construction (See that Yamaha sells a professional level wood body flute or if not so inclined, even the compromise concept is out there.....buy a wood head joint and have a go at that.

Aside from all this wallowing in these Tonal differences, I have been trying to delve my way out of the modern trends of bright and loud with a slow vibrato. I mean at what point are we going to realize that a flute is a flute and not a trumpet? At what point are we going to realize that the sound of a wood flute really isn't all that bad? It's just different. I mean that metal flutes have existed for about 140 years but wood flutes have been around for at least 30K years and will probably be around for a few more.

you all make great points, especially what Bilbo said about the modern, bright, sharp sound with lots of edge...maybe that's why a surprising number of players prefer the older flutes...

Micron makes a great comparison to the placebo effect, if you put a great Haynes or Powell into the hands of a hack, the hack may think they sound better when, in reality, they are still a hack...

Not that I bothered to read all your babbling but, of course Micron you are always right. What was I thinking! I will have to tell my ears that they are wrong and I don't really hear what I seem to be hearing. No need to argue with someone that is always right. I feel for what Mbrowne wrote earlier and can relate.

Once a certain basic requirement of rigidity is met, then further rigidity is no longer relevant. This basic rigidity is already met by the typical wall thickness of a metal flute also met by the typical wall thickness of a timber flute of typical timber.

And what is that certain basic requirements of rigidity? The concrete flute? Typical wall thicknesses do vibrate in metal flutes although that specific vibration itself is inaudible. But the tubing walls rigidity issue is not met if you mean it is sufficiently rigid to not vibrate.

You've never had to silence trill keys rattling in their cradle? Or tighten a poorly fit key rattling when someone is playing?

The question is how much of this vibration affects the tonal character of the instrument? We do know it affects response at the most obvious level, but how much research has been done regarding this affect on tone. Adding the Mass component in too?

Various materials are what they are and as Bilbo stated, given a specific combination of Mass/density/thickness you can't really duplicate that across materials.

Joe B

right you are JOE

Ditto Patrick. I always love to read what Joe has to write.

Wow, this has been quite a long but very interesting discussion. It looks like I have missed quite a bit. I have to admit I had to do a lot of skimming through some as I have been pressed for time. Easter is finally over. whooh!

It is funny because every time I heard a gold flute being played live when I was at the flute fair I didn't care for the sound much and that was without looking. For some reason my ears seem to pick up the difference when someone is playing on a gold verses silver flute. Weird, but I can't explain why. Now if I heard a recording, I couldn't always tell which metal is which. I suppose all the scientific studies can be done and proved but many flutists will always argue and say what our ears hear anyway. It is a debate that will never end I suppose.

Oh and Binx... lol!!

To re--quote from a Micron response...
"Everything must be identical to do a fair comparison. You can't approximate. So,...if the parameters need to be the same, are we going with the thickness of the tube wall material or the weight/density of the materials? "

As far as I am aware, science and research have demonstrated that the relevant properties are shape of the air column (in all its detail), surface finish of the bore, and the rigidity of the walls that contain the air column.""""

Well this is true micron but if you are going to respond to one part of a statement, please respect the whole concept.
What I was saying about wood is that it IS less stable than metal. Even the typical metal flute has certain instabilities in tuning and tone relative to pitch and it responds differently than wood to water/humidity/temperature when applied to the surface of the bore.

So sure it's "Scientific" to say that the shape of the bore and the surface of the bore only affects the tone but I am also saying that with wood, this surface can change more than with metal. For example, the less than smooth surface of wood (no matter how well you can polish it to a mirror finish) can soak up a certain amount of moisture and this will change the reflective nature more differently than a somewhat more smooth (ie: not wood grained) metal surface as one is playing it daily. Of course wood can be cut relatively accurately depending upon the species of timber used but even if it is cut to very specific tolerances it will then begin to change shape from humidity variances. As an example, warpages of many directions can cause the bore diameter to be out of round. Even the finger holes can't maintain a certain accuracy of roundness. And I would also assume (Without being able to actually measure this personally) that the thickness of the bore of any instrument and the density of the bore material will affect how it responds to the typical breath and finger heat variances incurred while performing.

As far as the finger holes go, I believe that it is an issue on the Boehm design that it was easier to make a finger tone hole to his larger specifications of size on a metal flute thus aiding his purpose of more tone than on a wood flute. So, if you do try cutting that size of a hole into the wood it's chances of cracking become considerably higher than the earier smaller finger holes of the Traverso.

So, even if we were trying to keep things simple and eliminating variables by limiting our tests to Silver Boehm design Vs. say a Grenadilla Boehm Design, I have to maintian that I don't believe that there has been an "equal comparison" of the two materials where both instruments were of exactly the same acoustical dimensions of bore design finger holes and bore thickness. I could be mistaken but I seriously doubt it. Why any well trained flutist will tell you that even if you take the very same brand new model of metal flute, there are differences in response between them. As crazy as the flute scene is, the simple variances of the cut of these popular hand made headjoints are enough to cause some differences. You can ask Rainer Lafin about that issue....oh wait....I actually have and he basically said that he can't make two head joints to be identical. Even with very specific measuring instruments.

Most flutists also have the idea in their heads that a new metal flute seems to play differently than an older oneof identical specifications. The metal just "rings" better (Assuming that both flutes are on excellent working order). The tone seems more bright or responsive. It may have something to do with the specific stresses that the metal goes through as it's manufactures that relax later as the flute ages. I would assume without enough experience on different wood-type flutes that this is also true with them.

So as many have said, we still end up reverting to our gut feelings about these differences and if you take a poll of audiophiles, trained musicians, untrained audiences and the like, of a large population segment, I would venture to guess that the vast majority of them would say that there are differences based upon their experiences. Unfortunately that isn't proper science but our perceptions go a long way towards what each of us believe to be true.

"you all make great points, especially what Bilbo said about the modern, bright, sharp sound with lots of edge...maybe that's why a surprising number of players prefer the older flutes..."

It's kind of interesting, I think that the edgy camp thinks that the darker sound is unfocused and won't project but my ear can get tired of being hit in the ear with that bright obnoxious sound. I've been trying for less overtones/more core and it produces a far stronger resultant (difference)tone against the other instruments. To my ear it also projects more and is more tuneable. But these things I think are a matter of taste and popularity.

"Some people take a placebo sugar tablet, and find their illness amazingly disappears, pure and simple.

Science knows that the sugar tablet did not do the curing.

Some people, including scientists, are interested in the phenomena by which some people cure themselves when they believe a tablet is doing the curing."
____________
It goes even farther as I'm sure you know. Our minds can make us sick. Everyone knows that stress and worrying can cause illnesses. Weight gain, high blood pressure or acid reflux to name just a few symptoms. But here's one. ...My sis-in-law has been having a problem with her dog, Cleo. Cleo has been having !****! stools for several months and my sis-in-law has taken the dog to several quality vets who have tried "everything". The last scientifically minded vet told her that he couldn't think of anything else to try for the poor dog and that Cleo will probably have to be put down. At any rate, as a last try, Cleo was taken to a "Hholistic" vet and when my Sis-in-law walked into the vets office with the Cleo, the vet said that her personality and lifestyle was making the dog sick. WHen I heard this, I said, "Duh." My Sis-in-law is a type "A", high maintenance, high stressed lawyer who has been bringing her issues home and that the dog has been picking up on these things and getting sick in the bowels. Now, these days my Sis-in-law is practicing yoga at home for an hour a day and trying to not be so stressed. Cleo is getting acupuncture & massage treatments and the dog is doing quite fine.

*****(quote)*****
Aside from all this wallowing in these Tonal differences, I have been trying to delve my way out of the modern trends of bright and loud with a slow vibrato. I mean at what point are we going to realize that a flute is a flute and not a trumpet?
*****

I agree wholeheartedly. What is happening is that science and technology is making the flute sound more clean and more towards a pure tone. Keep that thought for now...

*****(quote)*****
For example, the less than smooth surface of wood (no matter how well you can polish it to a mirror finish) can soak up a certain amount of moisture and this will change the reflective nature more differently than a somewhat more smooth (ie: not wood grained) metal surface as one is playing it daily. Of course wood can be cut relatively accurately depending upon the species of timber used but even if it is cut to very specific tolerances it will then begin to change shape from humidity variances. As an example, warpages of many directions can cause the bore diameter to be out of round. Even the finger holes can't maintain a certain accuracy of roundness.
*****

So that's the reason. What we are hearing with a wood flute is a cruder and "fuzzier" tone. It has blemishes and distortions in it and yet we find that sound to be more enjoyable - or many of us do. As long as the fundamental pitch is spot-on, the underlying tonality of it sounds better in a rougher state.

Compare a pipe organ. Wood versus metal, same exact note. The metal one sounds cleaner and more precise and also much more sterile. It's in effect too close to perfect and our brains dislike this. It's also why recent changes have led to better quality and pitch and so on, but have largely robbed the soul from many flutes as well. Terms like loud, harsh, sterile... seem to be all too common lately.

Perhaps Boehm knew this and was right after all in his choice of a metal body and wood headjoint as the best compromise.

I agree with your comments, as I believe our brain sometimes prefer less perfect sound and finds some degree of distortion to be enjoyable.

The digital revolution is now decades old, but some people still prefer the "warmer" sound of vinyl LPs and many prefer (me included) the sound of tube amplifiers. There must be a reason for that.

<Added>

prefer = prefers

The other thing about the pipe Organ PLekto is that the attack (Chiff) is rather important to what we perceive as a sound quality. So, the wood pipes of a pipe organ may sound totally different than the metal flute pipes because of this factor. I had read in one of the college books that if you take recordings of professional players of a variety of different melodic instruments playing the same pitch and trim off the attacks, you can't tell which instrument is which.

The other thing about the pipe Organ PLekto is that the attack (Chiff) is rather important to what we perceive as a sound quality. So, the wood pipes of a pipe organ may sound totally different than the metal flute pipes because of this factor.

No, not exactly. Organ pipe construction is at the heart of the sound. It is the overall pipe design that creates the sound. Variations to the sound are done at the windway end (the business end) This is done as part of the process of voicing and blend pipes together to balance the upper harmonics across pipes. A good organ voicer is at the heart of any great sounding organ.

I understand what you say about chiff but that is not its purpose in organ pipe construction. Chiff adjustments are important in organs for other reasons...

Check out this example of a Bourdon pipe, with exanples of it being made in both wood or metal.

http://www.organstops.org/b/Bourdon.html

Joe B (also an organist)

My point is that there are certain vibrations that do indeed dampen the standing wave by interference. Hence the term that thin wall flutes are not always sufficiently rigid as a standing wave container.

Joe B