I wonder, if people purchase gemstone crowns because they look nice, why not put the gems on the flute body, where you can see them?

Gordon,

Valid? Who knows... Benade used to comment all the time on this type of thing. Even though data seemed to make no sense in the face of articulated acoustical theories, if enough people were experiencing it over time, then you can't pass it off as some mass hypnosis and a scientific explanation (theory) needs to be formulated to explain it. This is exactly where this falls except we still don't know exactly how it happens. Through experimentation the exact mechanics of it are still unknown.

Just because a phenomenon is undiscovered does not mean it does not exist. Science has been able to repeatably adding mass to system somehow changes the system's interaction with the standing wave. There are many things in nature that can be perceived with our understanding of their mechanics remaining a mystery to us. That is what science is all about.

So using current known phenomenon, the effect is theorized to be in this same realm, and as I have said, the mechanics of how that happens is still beyond our discovery.

This is not a blanket acceptance or denial of well known and perceived phenomenon, but it is a reconciliation with known phenomenon and it accurately can account for the discrepancies. It's a working theory, not a proof.

Currently it appears that the ability to first identify and then isolate the particular variables for controlled experimentation is too complex and beyond our current methods. There are so many variables that would need to be isolated out and tested in a double method that makes my head spin just thinking about it. We just can't do it...yet.

Once again I would caution you not to dismiss perceived phenomenon due to limited physical constraints for experimentation. Theoretically it can be explained and it would be foolish to out rightly dismiss a perceived phenomenon on the basis of our limited current knowledge.

There are many variations on this theme for many instruments. It is too large of a phenomenon to be dismissed based on one variation of it without reconciling the whole of the phenomenon with known and reasonable postulating based on current scientific knowledge.

Joe B

Micron wrote:

no research of this type has any validity uless the flute is mounted in such a way that the player cannot detect the weight differences.

I would think that any mounting system that would hold a flute steady enough for playing would dampen the vibrations and negate any validity of the test.

Test 1: We hold the flute securely enough around the head tube both left of the embouchure plate, and at the far end of the foot section. Say double blind tests indicate that the player plays no differently when mass is added OUTSIDE the tube, in locations away from the crown.

Well you've already condemned the test with this method and this is the inherent problem. Adding a clamp adds Mass and Damping to the system, you've possibly corrupted the exact variable we are checking for..

I don't think it's possible to do a double blind test for this phenomenon. I've thought about it a lot and every test I can come up with potentially corrupts the data.

JB

There is a huge difference between an optical illusion convincing my brain that some lines are curved, and a straight edged ruler test demonstrating that they are not. I get the feeling that Joe is trying to tell me that if the lines appear curved, then we should accept that this is so, along with the fact that the ruler is an inadequate test for straightness. It certainly does not make sense to me!

Flawed analogy...You have no Ruler in this instance to verify if it's an illusion or reality...

Again, this is the inherent problem.

Light travels in a straight line right? Ah yah, except when they discovered black holes...All I'm saying is that there are many phenomenon we still don't understand.

Joe B

Remember we are experimenting for changes in mass at the crown.

Incorrect, We are looking at a change in mass..period. The Crown is just an advantageous place to do it. Foster extensions, Valgon Rings, Heavy wall flutes, all exhibit these same phenomenon for SOME players. On brass instruments these include heavy bottom caps, mass enhancers in various places, sometimes specifically targeted, and heavy mouthpieces. The reason people have given for the individual products may be snake oil and not a real explanation of this shared actual effect. Remember, I said the phenomenon appears to by dependent on mass as it it related to stiffness for it's impact on the air column. The whole damping vs coupling effect is a nightmare to calculate. I don't think it can be done with our current knowledge to even provide sufficient experimentation.

What we are witnessing in this effect is therefore relegated to the small window where the phenomenon exists when all the variables combine to allow it to happen. That is why the results appear inconsistent. Not everyone affects the variables to sufficiently open that window to witness the effect. It also make repeatability difficult, but ONLY because we don't understand the mechanics and have a sufficient method for controlling/isolating the variables for repeatable experimentation. The reason is that the mass is a balancing point against a number of other variables cooperating together for mutual effect within a window the combination of variables creates for itself. It certainly is not static and is very dynamic making it even more difficult to do controlled experimentation.

Joe B

I believe that you are talking about a coupling to the vibration of the metal, which AFAIK vibrates with about 1/20000 the amplitude of the air column, i.e. at a volume insignificant relative to the vibrations in the air column.

Yes, but not in the manner you describe. This is not about external mass contributing to volume output. As you point out that particular variable in that manner is insignificant, (no argument on that point here.) What I'm talking about is relative to mass effect on stiffness and how that affects the response curve and the subsequent dampening or reinforcement of various partials at certain threshold dependent on variation of the air driving mechanism of the air reed.

There's more to it than that, but that's as simply as I can explain the major variables that might be able to be controlled.

Joe B

If most players, via Patricia George's 'experimentations' with her students, notice differences between heavy and light crown mass, could this not be describing the difference in playing due to the weight balance of the flute?

It is pretty obvious to me that rolling in vs rolling out, and how much one covers the embouchure hole, has a big effect on tone. Jen Cluff describes some 'homework' wherein the player should experiment with placement of the embouchure plate and rolling in/out until the ideal sound is achieved- because many times, the flutist will find a new, better 'tone' place for the flute-on-the-face.
http://www.jennifercluff.com/tone2.htm

So, if Patricia George's students are essentially changing the flute's position in a different plane, due to the different weight distribution, it makes sense to me that there is an 'appropriate' placement here as well. Joe's 'experiment' could also be measuring this effect-the finding of the tone sweet spot in a different plane than roll in/out.

So, if Patricia George's students are essentially changing the flute's position in a different plane, due to the different weight distribution, it makes sense to me that there is an 'appropriate' placement here as well. Joe's 'experiment' could also be measuring this effect-the finding of the tone sweet spot in a different plane than roll in/out.

This would be yet another of the myriad variables that needs to be isolated. It would however be unusual that all students experience this given the limited and usual parameters I'm assuming are being employed. I would myself question the consistency of these results based on many of Micron's described concerns in this instance.

One must also remember that there are two separate things at work potentially and also that the effect is very subtle. Feel (feedback to the player in this case) may be more of the resultant effect than the exterior perceived phenomenon. In due deference to Micron, this is also a distinct possibility of the effect.

Joe B