Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

edosan wrote:

"The 51st State", New Model Army, 1986 (and still timely today):

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqOWBLugj9E

I get it, Brilliant..!

Missing teeth will influence the timbre.

And just when I was wondering where this thread was going, more please.

Cool.

K.

radi0gnome wrote:

edosan wrote:

Peter Kororo wrote:

Send me a link to your CDs or send me some sound files if you want to convince me of your expertise.

And where are YOURS, Ko Ro Ro?

I'd like to hear some sound files too, but a Dai Shihan from Yokoyama is a pretty convincing credential.

For playing expertise, I heartily agree. Does this extend to an understanding of acoustics as well, then?

This is exactly the reason why, despite Toby's seemingly bullet-proof argument, I think there is still some work to be done on the science side. No double-blind equals no conclusive scientific proof, particularly when the rationale behind the conflicting observations is chalked up to being that some very highly trained musicians must be hearing things that aren't there. I'll concede that they might be hearing things I can't hear, but then I very often hear new things in familiar recordings, so I know I may not be hearing everything that's there.

First, of course nothing is conclusive in science. Popper argues that nothing can ever be proven in empirical science, it can only be disproven. Science refines paradigms; as soon as one is disproved an new one must be found. The materials paradigm has not been disproved in 150 years of strenuous efforts to do so. Does this make it true? Not at all. But it appears to be much truer than any alternatives proposed until now, the beliefs of many musicians and makers notwithstanding. It is not a question of conflicting observations being "chalked up" to anything. It simply amounts to controlling for all variables except the one being tested for (materials). When the results return, the only reasonable explanation is that highly trained players are observing something and attributing the cause to something else. Since there are a number of variables at work here, and some (bore geometry and player expectation in particular) are extremely important and hard to control, it is quite natural that players cannot sort out what causes what--though there is no dispute that they are sensitive to differences.

An analogous situation exists among flute players. Not only players, but respected makers of the worlds finest flutes fill their website with rich descriptions of the differing tone and response of flutes in various metals. However, quite rigorous tests using a number of excellent players and critical listeners have shown this to be illusory.

For those with an open mind here is a good read:

iwk.mdw.ac.at/Forschung/english/linortner/linortner_e.htm

In the '70's when the famous "material doesn't matter" experiment was done, it was common for people be amused by how thier minds could be tricked to perceive things that aren't really there. It was pretty much common knowledge that psychosomatic illnesses existed due to a focus on the subject by popular TV shows. I'm not sure what the doctors thought back then, but these days I know for sure that doctors do not chalk up much as being psychological. If all the tests for conditions that would result in the symptoms turn out negative, they typically look for some other explanation, and wouldn't even think of suggesting it's all in the patients mind. So why, and in this day and age, would anybody doubt when almost every very highly trained musician says there's a difference in the sound when different materials are used.

When someone get's a double-blind set up using robotics or something and every highly trained musician tested can't tell the difference between music played on similar instruments with identical dimensions, that's when I'll start doubting the perceptions of the master players.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would dimiss the observations of so many credible and brilliant musicians based on old, obviously flawed (not double-blind) experiments where the experimenter explained away anyone saying that they can hear that his theory is wrong by saying they are being misled by pre-concieved notions and that they aren't in actuality hearing any difference.

Excuse me, but you are setting up straw men here. First of all, if anything (and as I have pointed out in the fMRI experiment with wines), the understanding of the effects of the psychological on perception, experience and even physiology has broadened and deepened. Coltman's experiment has never been disproved, and remains a classic in the field after some 35 years. You say "obviously flawed" but this is disingenuous. Just how and which of the many peer-reviewed studies on this subject are "flawed"? I'm quite happy to discuss this, but we must try to avoid demagoguery.

In that spirit, I am also happy to post many links to support my statements if you doubt them (as you so obviously do), and would ask you to similarly post links showing that "these days" doctors "do not chalk up much as being psychological". Just to get the debate out of the "he said, she said" trap.

Research is continuing on the question of materials, and every new experiment seems to support the conclusion that it doesn't make a perceptible difference, to the point where this is the universally-accepted scientific consensus. The French experiment I described earlier is the latest in a continuing series of these. Again, I have an abundance of material at hand. I ask you what I have asked of others with similar views: please post one link from a credible, peer-reviewed publication which points to any evidence that normal materials in woodwind instruments, normally used under normal playing conditions can affect the final sound in a perceptible manner. This, then, would give us a foundation for carrying this debate forward.

And please, don't give me the tired argument that musicians are more "sensitive" than scientists, or that human perception beats any machine yet devised. As I mentioned, in a study of the spectral differences between trombone bells, not one of ten top professional players could detect any difference between several bells in different thicknesses, even though there was an easily-measured 2 dB difference between their response at the position of the players' ears.

Those players, BTW, could easily tell the difference when the test wasn't double-blind ;^}

It kind of sounds like my favorite definition of "scientific method": collect as many data points as you can, toss out the ones that do not fit your theory as "anomalous outliers" and forget about them.

I must say that I would not have expected such a luddite sentiment here. It shows how little you apparently know about how science is conducted. Every time you fly in an airplane (or ride in a car for that matter), among numberless other things,  you can thank the scientific method.

Toby

Last edited by Toby (2009-12-21 06:44:13)

Toby wrote:

radi0gnome wrote:

This is exactly the reason why, despite Toby's seemingly bullet-proof argument, I think there is still some work to be done on the science side. No double-blind equals no conclusive scientific proof, particularly when the rationale behind the conflicting observations is chalked up to being that some very highly trained musicians must be hearing things that aren't there. I'll concede that they might be hearing things I can't hear, but then I very often hear new things in familiar recordings, so I know I may not be hearing everything that's there.

First, of course nothing is conclusive in science. Popper argues that nothing can ever be proven in empirical science, it can only be disproven. Science refines paradigms; as soon as one is disproved an new one must be found. The materials paradigm has not been disproved in 150 years of strenuous efforts to do so. Does this make it true? Not at all. But it appears to be much truer than any alternatives proposed until now, the beliefs of many musicians and makers notwithstanding. It is not a question of conflicting observations being "chalked up" to anything.

I'm with you up until here, in the famous '70's acoustic experiment the experimenter made a huge leap in explaining the results that was not only unscientific but disrespectful to the musicians participating in the experiment.

Toby wrote:

radi0gnome wrote:

In the '70's when the famous "material doesn't matter" experiment was done, it was common for people be amused by how thier minds could be tricked to perceive things that aren't really there. It was pretty much common knowledge that psychosomatic illnesses existed due to a focus on the subject by popular TV shows. I'm not sure what the doctors thought back then, but these days I know for sure that doctors do not chalk up much as being psychological. If all the tests for conditions that would result in the symptoms turn out negative, they typically look for some other explanation, and wouldn't even think of suggesting it's all in the patients mind. So why, and in this day and age, would anybody doubt when almost every very highly trained musician says there's a difference in the sound when different materials are used.

When someone get's a double-blind set up using robotics or something and every highly trained musician tested can't tell the difference between music played on similar instruments with identical dimensions, that's when I'll start doubting the perceptions of the master players. 

I find it hard to believe that anyone would dimiss the observations of so many credible and brilliant musicians based on old, obviously flawed (not double-blind) experiments where the experimenter explained away anyone saying that they can hear that his theory is wrong by saying they are being misled by pre-concieved notions and that they aren't in actuality hearing any difference.

Excuse me, but you are setting up straw men here. First of all, if anything (and as I have pointed out in the fMRI experiment with wines), the understanding of the effects of the psychological on perception, experience and even physiology has broadened and deepened. Coltman's experiment has never been disproved, and remains a classic in the field after some 35 years. You say "obviously flawed" but this is disingenuous. Just how and which of the many peer-reviewed studies on this subject are "flawed"? I'm quite happy to discuss this, but we must try to avoid demagoguery.

I'm only referring to the often referenced and "famous" '70's experiment. Has this one been duplicated double-blind? The only way I can see doing that is with robotics that exist now. I'd also think it would be important to see it done with some really top musicians in the test, I mean best of the best, like Galway.

Toby wrote:

In that spirit, I am also happy to post many links to support my statements if you doubt them (as you so obviously do), and would ask you to similarly post links showing that "these days" doctors "do not chalk up much as being psychological". Just to get the debate out of the "he said, she said" trap.

That was personal observation. Recently a relative of mine has been suffering a pain that several doctors and dentists have looked at but can't diagnose. None of them even hinted that it may be psychological. That's a big difference from when I was a kid with a doubling-over-in-pain stomach-ache and the doctor sent me back home telling my mom it was "nerves".

Toby wrote:

Research is continuing on the question of materials, and every new experiment seems to support the conclusion that it doesn't make a perceptible difference, to the point where this is the universally-accepted scientific consensus. The French experiment I described earlier is the latest in a continuing series of these. Again, I have an abundance of material at hand.

Well, my only real problem is with the famous '70's experiment you mentioned. I'm not familiar with the others. And I'll concede that the '70's experiment could be used as evidence that supports the argument that material doesn't matter. My problem is with his conclusion because the experiment is still inconclusive until you get rid of the problem that the player of the instrument knows what material it is made of, and so it can not be a true double-blind.

Toby wrote:

I ask you what I have asked of others with similar views: please post one link from a credible, peer-reviewed publication which points to any evidence that normal materials...

OK, you know I don't have links, but what's all this about "normal" materials? Less than normal materials used for experimentation purposes would most likely go to one extreme or the other. If a less than normal material at an extreme in density, for example, happened to sound different, wouldn't that suggest that maybe a listener with more acute hearing than the typical person would be able to perceive the lesser difference between the "normal" materials?

Toby wrote:

in woodwind instruments, normally used under normal playing conditions can affect the final sound in a perceptible manner. This, then, would give us a foundation for carrying this debate forward.

What? And allow the final word to revolve around an experiment that has inherent problems.

Toby wrote:

And please, don't give me the tired argument that musicians are more "sensitive" than scientists, or that human perception beats any machine yet devised. As I mentioned, in a study of the spectral differences between trombone bells, not one of ten top professional players could detect any difference between several bells in different thicknesses, even though there was an easily-measured 2 dB difference between their response at the position of the players' ears.

Those players, BTW, could easily tell the difference when the test wasn't double-blind ;^}

OK, those musicians couldn't tell the difference, even with the advantage that it wasn't a true double blind because the player the subjects listened to wouldn't necessarily play each instrument the same way. How "top" were these 10 "top professional" players? Were they equivalent to Galway in the trombone world (tippy top), or first trombonists in major orchestras (still pretty darn good subjects), or something less? It's a tired argument, as you say, but a good one. I pretty much know for a fact that I don't hear the things the same way as more skilled musicians.     

Toby wrote:

It kind of sounds like my favorite definition of "scientific method": collect as many data points as you can, toss out the ones that do not fit your theory as "anomalous outliers" and forget about them.

I must say that I would not have expected such a luddite sentiment here. It shows how little you apparently know about how science is conducted. Every time you fly in an airplane (or ride in a car for that matter), among numberless other things,  you can thank the scientific method.

I know enough about science to know that it's less numbers crunching than common-sense experimentation (think myth-busters), and I know that at least the famous '70's experiment wasn't double-blind (understandable, the experimenter didn't have the technology because it didn't exist) and double-blind is crucial to weighing psychological influences.   

Take a closer look at your excerpt:

"...the musician cannot, under normal playing circumstances, dissociate his personal preferences and prejudices from the question at hand...

Even if the experiment was reconducted with the flute-playing robot (double-blind) and the results were the same, how did the experimenter determine that the psychological problem was an inabiltiy to dissociate personal preferences and prejuduces from the question?

...In the case of the three 'flutes' I constructed, nearly every player who picked them up and tried them had a preference for one or the other. Often he would describe his impressions - the wooden flute has a 'fuller' tone, the silver one 'projects' much better, etc. He was then usually baffled to find that he could not identify any of the instruments under the 'blindfold' conditions I described.

OK, I see, the musicians played the flute and heard a fuller tone, or it projected better. Then, when someone played it back for them without them they couldn't hear the difference. Seems to me that it could be that there was some vibration in the material that caused differences in bone conduction that resulted in the perception of a fuller tone, or maybe some other reason I'm missing right now. Oh, but wait... that's just my luddite perspective, the scientific perspective is that the musician has an inability to drop his preconcieved notions and listen objectively. yea, right...

The plain facts are that his judgment is influenced by preconceived notions and mental associations of tone quality with other properties of the material.

Yup, that was just a plain fact. How foolish of me.

This is a normal human reaction, intensified in the case of those trained to incorporate feeling into their art, and to whom the instrument becomes, in effect, an extension of their own body and personality. It is just not suited for answering narrow, objective questions like the one I posed - namely: can the material of which a flute is made directly influence the tone quality produced? "

Why the heck is it this guy is so set against believing these musicians actually heard a difference when they tried the instruments? They said they heard the difference, it's just that they didn't hear it when it was played back to them by another player. Did this other player also believe that there was a difference and tried to play fuller? Or maybe the other player tried to play it more blandly. Or maybe the experimenter played the test subject's trial back to him on a tape recorder and he didn't hear the difference anymore, then the difference could've been lost due to the recording technology. It's kind of obvious the double-blind is neccessary to give this experiment some real credibility.


You've really got to wonder about the "famous" experiments of that era. Another one is the Milgram authority figure experiment where an actor pretended he was in pain as an authority figure instructed subjects to shock the actor with a fake device they were told would inflict pain. The wonderous thing about this experiment is that the subjects almost without fail would follow the authority figures orders to inflict pain. The experimenter goes on to use the results to suggest how easily a nazi-germany like situation could happen again when people will hurt other people so easily just because an authority figure tells them to. He may have a point, by why the heck wasn't everyone in the scientific community jumping up and down crying foul because the subjects might have at some level (maybe even unconsious one) perceived that those were the screams of an actor, and probably a student actor at that, and not of a person actually getting hurt. Not that I think they could have ethically done much better with that experiment, as it is the ethics of deluding innocent subjects into thinking they were hurting someone has been heavily debated, but in my opinion the results have that much less credibility the way the experiment was conducted.


So, Toby, show me the link where this experiment was done properly, with a flute playing robot for a true double-blind, normal materials like nickel-silver, sterling silver, and gold, with top musicians like Galway or Paula Robeson as subjects, and I'll readily believe that there is absolutely no difference in the sound the an observer hears in those materials. Wood and bamboo would be more difficult due to varying dimensions (hard for the robot to do the exact same thing), but the results of the metals that are pretty much commonly believed to produce different sound in the flute world would go a long way to help your argument.

Last edited by radi0gnome (2009-12-21 12:35:02)

edosan wrote:

radi0gnome wrote:

So, Toby, show me the link where this experiment was done properly, with a flute playing robot for a true double-blind, normal materials like nickel-silver, sterling silver, and gold, with top musicians like Galway or Paula Robeson as subjects, and I'll readily believe that there is absolutely no difference in the sound the an observer hears in those materials. Wood and bamboo would be more difficult due to varying dimensions (hard for the robot to do the exact same thing), but the results of the metals that are pretty much commonly believed to produce different sound in the flute world would go a long way to help your argument.

It appears that what you are saying here is that because the player in the experiment knew which instruments he was playing he/she could, consciously or unconsciously, play them all so that they sounded the same to the listening blind musicians, thereby eliminating any effect on the sound created by the material.

Therefore, the experiment has a fatal flaw.

You are truly a remarkable critter...

Not fatal. Like I said, for the time it was the best he could do. However, the experimenter, presumably knowing the flaws, used the results to draw a conclusions like "musicians can't dissociate themselves from pre-conceived notions". Even if the results in a double-blind were the same, it's a stretch to conclude that is what is going on. Is there a possibility that bone-conduction from the vibration of the material (which other experiments Toby mentioned showed makes no difference to a listener) influenced the musician's perception? Not according to this experimenter, he states that it's just a plain fact that the musician can't drop the preconceived notions and listen objectively. Are you OK with that kind of science? 

And, Ed, you too are a remarkable animal, thank you for the compliment.

jaybeemusic wrote:

Maybe it's just me but........if the player has/had enough control over the sound to COMPLETELY negate the effects of the material and fool the listener.....

How much difference CAN the material actually make?  Pretty negligible from the sound of it....(pardon the pun)

I build guitars.....(and YES i know that they're different....save yourself the bother of typing)
but....there's NOTHING i can do to make an Electric guitar sound like an acoustic guitar..... no matter HOW i play them.....they're 2 different things.

Sounds like you kinda blew your argument out of the water.... 

just my 2 cents..

jacques

So if Galway picks up a wood flute and says that it has a particular characteristic but he wasn't able to identify the wood flute in a blind test when played by the best student flute player at the university where the experiment is being conducted, that means Galway obviously has pre-conceived notions that he is unable to drop and in reality didn't perceive any difference. I'm just rambling at this point, I think see what you and Ed were getting at but I'm not entirely following the logic.

I remember an "acoustics for musicians" class I took in the late '70's, one experiment that's pretty easy to set up is to take excerpts of long tones on a variety of instruments, edit off the start and ending of the note, and play the tapes to subjects and see if they can identify the instrument. It's amazingly difficult, and not only does one kind of flute start sounding like another, but even completely different instruments sound alike (I found fluegelhorn to be very flute-like). Is anybody convinced by this experiment that aside from the attack and decay, most instruments sound alike? In the days before sampling it sure helped synthesizer designers get more authentic sounds.

With the results of this experiment (easy to try yourself with digital recording technology) would you say: "How much difference CAN the instrument actually make?  Pretty negligible from the sound of it..."  Somehow I don't think so.

Some thoughts from this Lay Scientist.

I don't think the 'material' makes a difference other than that the surface texture will/may differ and this will influence resonance.

I don't feel any vibration is happening in the material itself that influences the sound, it is the vibrating air that influences the sound. Why do I think this ? Take a cymbal or bell for example. This is an instrument that does vibrate by being struck and makes a sound...but....if you place a finger on that vibrating instrument what happens ? The sound stops, so, if the sound from a Shakuhachi was influenced by the material vibrating I would expect the sound to be muted by our fingers, but it isn't !

Again, listen to the sound when you run your finger around the rim of a crystal glass, why does this initiate a ring ? And why does this not happen on a plastic beaker, a wooden bowl a paint tin ?
I think that regarding a vibrating instrument, such as a struck cymbal, the material does make a difference. We don't use cardboard for a cymbal.

Does the material for the blow edge make any difference, bamboo, plastic, bone ? Again, I don't think so, but I do notice a difference if the surface texture is smooth or rough, and this seems to influence the ratio of 'white noise'/sibilance, to clean 'sound',
Similarly I hear a difference in different surface textures of the tube/resonator. And my main example is my ceramic flute which has a glazed bore surface. The 'sound' is very clean and bright, compared to the darker tone of jinashi raw bamboo.

And it wouldn't bee too difficult to test different materials for resonator response, if that is all you are testing, you would simply need tubes of the same length and diameter, plug a fipple into the end and fix that to a stable compressor and measure the spectrum. But if you are wanting to test the 'material' the inner surface texture must be taken into the equation.

K.

Ah, it's the old feelers vs. the logicians battle. It's good to know the tradition is alive and well. Here's my log on the fire. If you change the thickness of the walls on a saxophone or any metal instrument you change the sound. That is true to the point that saxophone players who find an old Selmer MarkVI will almost never get it relacquered because to relacquer you have remove what's left of the old lacquer and in the that process a certain amount of metal comes off also. That changes the thickness of the wall and thus the sound. That's why some times you see a high end horn player playing a crappy looking horn. The inner dimension of the horn hasn't changed. The inner surface hasn't changed and yet the sound has changed. What do it mean?

because the wood used directly affects the resonance of the speaker itself.......and the speaker vibrating is what creates the sound....so ANTHING that changes how the speaker vibrates will change the sound.....

With a guitar....you pick the string...and it causes the body of the guitar to vibrate and THAT amplifies the sound.  So the vibration of the wood is of supreme importance.  If it doesn't vibrate properly.....the guitar will sound like crap.....

here's an experiment....push on the front of an acoustic guitar with your hand (the side with strings)...and pick the guitar.....it will sound really small.
now...while the string is STILL vibrating....take your hand off....BANG!!!  the guitar will get louder and fuller sounding.

BUT.

Shakuhachi DON'T work the same way as a guitar cabinet/speaker/drum/piano/violin/harmonica or almost every instrument out there. The WAY they generate the sound has NOTHING to do with the material.....it's the AIR that's vibrating.....that's it...

You can squeeze the shakuhachi as hard as you want and it won't change the sound AT ALL.....this is proof that the shakuhachi IS NOT vibrating...
try it...you'll see....(or hear)

Jacques

Last edited by jaybeemusic (2009-12-21 16:37:16)

jaybeemusic wrote:

because the wood used directly affects the resonance of the speaker itself.......and the speaker vibrating is what creates the sound....so ANTHING that changes how the speaker vibrates will change the sound.....

With a guitar....you pick the string...and it causes the body of the guitar to vibrate and THAT amplifies the sound.  So the vibration of the wood is of supreme importance.  If it doesn't vibrate properly.....the guitar will sound like crap.....

here's an experiment....push on the front of an acoustic guitar with your hand (the side with strings)...and pick the guitar.....it will sound really small.
now...while the string is STILL vibrating....take your hand off....BANG!!!  the guitar will get louder and fuller sounding.

BUT.

Shakuhachi DON'T work the same way as a guitar cabinet/speaker/drum/piano/violin/harmonica or almost every instrument out there. The WAY they generate the sound has NOTHING to do with the material.....it's the AIR that's vibrating.....that's it...

You can squeeze the shakuhachi as hard as you want and it won't change the sound AT ALL.....this is proof that the shakuhachi IS NOT vibrating...
try it...you'll see....(or hear)

Jacques

Jacques, here is another experiment.
First, take an acoustic guitar, lightly grip the head end between your teeth, close your eyes and ears while someone else plays. You should hear the sound vibrations being transmitted through your teeth to your ears, a bit like wearing headphones.
Now, do the same with a Shakuhachi, if you can get someone else to blowa note, particularly Ro. do you hear sound similarly, at this moment, with only one test performed, the answer is No.
But I have to do some more experimenting with another player.

This is called "Getting your teeth into Shakuhachi".

I do suspect material thickness may have an influence, most Shakuhachi are hard and thick, relatively, but occasionally I make one from a thin one year old culm,.........?

K.

Taldaran wrote:

If materials for acoustic "devices" never made a difference, why do so many people come up with various designs, even using computer software for speaker cabinet construction?

The box surrounding the speaker which just produces the actual vibration is passive. Why does it make such a difference then?

The reason speaker cabinet design makes such a difference is that, even though the enclosure itself is supposed to be passive to vibration
(more or less, depending on material limitations—concrete is best...), the enclosure must be designed so that it affects the SPEAKER'S behavior. This can vary considerably with loudspeaker design, as there are quite a few ways to skin that cat. The speaker cannot produce optimal results unless the enclosure design facilitates it. Critically  important, actually.

radi0gnome wrote:

edosan wrote:

radi0gnome wrote:

So, Toby, show me the link where this experiment was done properly, with a flute playing robot for a true double-blind, normal materials like nickel-silver, sterling silver, and gold, with top musicians like Galway or Paula Robeson as subjects, and I'll readily believe that there is absolutely no difference in the sound the an observer hears in those materials. Wood and bamboo would be more difficult due to varying dimensions (hard for the robot to do the exact same thing), but the results of the metals that are pretty much commonly believed to produce different sound in the flute world would go a long way to help your argument.

It appears that what you are saying here is that because the player in the experiment knew which instruments he was playing he/she could, consciously or unconsciously, play them all so that they sounded the same to the listening blind musicians, thereby eliminating any effect on the sound created by the material.

Therefore, the experiment has a fatal flaw.

You are truly a remarkable critter...

Not fatal. Like I said, for the time it was the best he could do. However, the experimenter, presumably knowing the flaws, used the results to draw a conclusions like "musicians can't dissociate themselves from pre-conceived notions". Even if the results in a double-blind were the same, it's a stretch to conclude that is what is going on. Is there a possibility that bone-conduction from the vibration of the material (which other experiments Toby mentioned showed makes no difference to a listener) influenced the musician's perception? Not according to this experimenter, he states that it's just a plain fact that the musician can't drop the preconceived notions and listen objectively. Are you OK with that kind of science? 

And, Ed, you too are a remarkable animal, thank you for the compliment.

I'm at the airport on the way from Beijing back to Tokyo. I'll answer your earlier post when I have a bit more time. But perhaps you would, in the meantime, read the full published text of the Coltman experiment, instead of his commentary in a debate similar to this one:

https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Coltman/Papers.html

1.06 Effect of material on flute tone quality

I've corresponded with Coltman about my Okuralo. He is actually an amateur shakuhachi player, and has experimented with a new design for the area near the utaguchi to bring the dai-kan more in tune, as well as completely redesigning the scale of the Boehm flute.

Coltman's isn't the only double-blind experiment of this type. Smith did one with trombones:

la.trompette.free.fr/Smith/IOA/material.htm

And of course the famous Linortner experiment, to which I already posted a link.

Both of these last two used professional musicians.

Galway, is of course, famous for playing a concrete flute behind a curtain, and no one can tell the difference...

The bone conduction argument has been forwarded in another group. My research indicates that bone conduction is not a factor, considering the fact that the actual vibration of the bamboo is almost nil and there is soft tissue between the flute and the bone of the chin. Anyway, you only get good bone conduction in the teeth, or better near the temple where cochlear implants are placed.

Toby

radi0gnome wrote:

Are you OK with that kind of science?

Actually, yes I am, particularly if you mean the kind of science that you don't seem to understand.

The point of the experiment, was not to take into account anything about the musicians' perceptions when playing an instrument; it
was about what the musicians reported when listening to identical instruments made of different materials, and not being able to
see said instruments. What they reported was that they couldn't tell the difference by listening.

This was the case even though the musicians professed a bias toward one or another of the three instruments when they actually played them.

The other important point to keep in mind is that subsequent researchers have been unable to refute those results. That's another critical element
to the method: peer review. He wasn't just some lone wolf howling off in the dark somewhere.

Kinda science I like.

One more thing: what I said above was not an attempt at a compliment. The point I was trying to make is that it would be a very rare player indeed
who could take three identical instruments made of different materials and play them all in such a way that their inherently different sonic qualities,
due to the different materials of course, would not be discernable. Ridiculous. The listeners just couldn't HEAR any differences, because there
weren't any.

Last edited by edosan (2009-12-22 01:04:32)