Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

Toby · 2011-01-31 00:22:30

oceanica wrote:
No one responded to my comment about being able to tell the difference between and oboe and a violin played at same pitch and volume ( frequency and amplitude ) or even a trumpet and a flute.....
Timbre and tone are related to pitch and volume, but not the same. Anecdotally ( and I think all would agree ) that one can hear differences in timbre and tone. No experiments to date ( none ) have addressed this point. This is where materials could play a role.
Toby, I have done enough reading to see that the flawed ( poor control, lack of adequate documentation of materials and methods, and statistically questionable data ) studies as well as equivocal conclusions are par for the course in this area. So the paper I cite is unacceptable while the studies you cite are....
Lastly,
It seems that you agree that the working properties of materials make a difference in tone. You have not addressed the questions of vibration ( sound ) transmitted through the jaw, a known phenomenon, and while the admittedly small affects to upper harmonics due to vibration are apparent, you conclude that such vibrations do not make detectable differences in tone or timbre based on 2 studies, neither of which can support this conclusion ( regarding woodwinds ) with any data.
IMHO, science has not provided sufficient evidence to disprove that widely differing materials effect tone or timbre in the woodwind family of instruments and certainly not shakuhachi and similar instruments.
I am not certain that any such experiment could be devised given the variables involved.
I am done now.

I didn't respond because I thought the answers were obvious. First of all, timbre and tone (which are the same thing) are not directly related to pitch and volume, except as those alter the spectral content of the sound. Obviously, notes of different pitches have different spectra, since the frequencies involved are different. Volume alters timbre in an interesting way: there is an acoustic law that says that as volume is increased, partials are raised in power as the square of their order. So if by blowing harder the fundamental is made twice as loud, the second partial increases 4x, the third 9x, the 4th 16x, etc. This is an ideal case; in reality there are limits due to differential losses at the boundary layer and for other reasons. These things hold true whatever the materials, and in fact further complicate the task of trying to judge the effect of materials, since the spectral content changes with dynamics. However I do not see how materials play any role here, as you assert, so please clue me in as to what you mean a bit more specifically.

Interestingly, there have been a number of studies done which find that when the attack transient of a note is eliminated, it is next to impossible to tell a steady-state violin tone from that or an oboe, or even a flute in certain ranges. The initial transient contains a unique signature for each instrument, which is mostly what we use to identify it. So neither are things in that sense as simple as you would have us believe.

The paper you quote is an undergraduate exercise. To become part of the scientific "canon" so to speak, any work has to be peer-reviewed. But even admitting the veracity of the results, they really don't apply. The paper is speaking about elliptical vibrations due to discontinuities in the circular cross-section of the tube near tone holes. This has been postulated as an area where tube vibrations might conceivably be strong enough to influence the final sound. However the latest research, done by Gilbert (and to which I believe I posted a link) has indicated that even when the tube vibrates quite heavily, the effect on the sound is specific to a few notes. Even the author of the paper only suggests that her research might indicate a mechanism whereby tube vibrations could influence sound. So don't read into that paper what isn't there.

Also, in Gilbert's work, he was using tubes with walls that were as thin as a human hair, and even then he had to make the tubes significantly elliptical before they would vibrate in breathing mode. Now let us consider shakuhachi. How thick do you think the walls of the shakuhachi are at their thinnest? At least several orders of magnitude greater than a human hair, wouldn't you say? Do you see what I am getting at here?

If your reading has indicated flawed studies, then you are reading the wrong papers, and thus you haven't done enough reading after all. General statements like that are sloppy, and possibly a cheap trick on your part? Please cite the studies you find sloppy, and we can discuss them here.

The question of vibrations through the jaw really doesn't apply to shakuhachi, although they might to instruments such as the saxophone. There is hardly any bone conduction across a soft interface lie the tissue of the mouth, and bone conduction in any case would not take place without significant vibrations to conduct. I refer you again to Smith's study in which 10 top professional trombonists were unable to distinguish between different instrument/bell combinations in which the partial content was signficantly different. Or would you prefer to ignore that inconvenient result?

If two highly-cited, peer-reviewed studies don't satisfy you, how many will it take? If I cited 100 studies, would you still say that the 101st might have a different outcome? Bear in mind here that there is not a single credible study that has ever come to the conclusion that materials, per se, have any perceptible effect on the final sound, and there are even studies, as cited, which show that with expert players, rather significant differences that are well above the known threshold of perception were not recognized.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I don't share it and neither do the professionals involved who have studied the question in detail and who actually have read all the available literature and understand it. I would add finally that most all those people, at some point in their careers, were either professional musicians (Wolfe, Scavone) or concert-level players (Fletcher, Coltman and Benade). Coltman also plays shakuhachi, although not as well as the flute, for which he designed a new and much improved scale.

I wish I were done now, but I know that I am not...

Last edited by Toby (2011-01-31 07:22:18)

Toby · 2011-01-31 00:24:10

rpowers wrote:
radi0gnome wrote:
What we would be doing in this experiment is using the top level players as scientific measurement instruments because while we know that our non-human instrumentation will always find subtle differences due to issues not related to material, we do not know how much difference there needs to be for a highly trained musician to detect it.
Top level players are valued because they are not precision scientific instruments; they are recognized as top level because of the subjective application of their physical/mechanical skills.

Do you know the difference between a poet and a word processor? (No punch line necessary, but sure to follow anyway.)

Please do not try to divert the real discussion with cheap sophistry.

Toby · 2011-01-31 00:34:48

Colyn Petersen wrote:
Ok, here's how it will go down. Acknowledging and accepting ahead of time that there is nothing that I, with my limited resources, or anyone else can do to to date that will make the experiment verifiable to the scientific community. I am in the process of making 2 flutes with stark differences in density. One in Eastern red cedar, one in something such as ebony or cocobolo. I will do my best to keep the tolerances to within 3 thousandths of an inch (I know this isn't good enough) and the bores sealed and similar in smoothness/texture. I will then send them off to be passed around for those curious enough to want to participate. Again, this is not science folks, but it may serve some purpose yet to be determined.

I do still think it a valid point, however, that in all of the cited experiments mentioned to date there were no softer materials listed. Are we forgetting this, or is it deemed unimportant? It was always metal and super dense wood. At best "various woods" which seems a pretty loose statement to me. I personally feel this is enough of an oversight to justify further experimentation. There is a question being asked here that, to my knowledge, has not been asked before. An element that has been left out that is now begging to be observed. If anyone can come up with an "acceptable" experiment, I am quite willing to try. Until then....

It is with my opening statement in this post, that I move to adjourn this head butting session and move the topic into another area. I thought we had come to a consensus here that the secondary attributes of differing materials do effect the end product. If so, it seems that we have forgotten that already and are back to the cyclic reiteration of the same old talking points. I'll accept the secondary attribute statement for now. But there are still questions to be asked that are seemingly valid to the player at least, even if the listener could not tell a difference. How about "what the player hears vs. the listener" Anyone game? A more rich experience to the player most certainly could be fed back into the music. What value have we in this related to material?

Colyn

This is generous of you, Colyn. I am glad that you recognize that there is no way to impose adequate controls to say anything definitive about the actual primary effect of the material. These flutes will look different, feel different, have different weights and smell different. As long as a player can identify them in any of these ways, there is no way to control for player perception, and if one can't control the player, neither can he control the final sound, so simple blind listening tests are also not going to yield any definitive results. It might be interesting for different players to write down their impressions: the difference in the way the flutes sound and respond in their experience, and keep these secret until all can be posted at the same time. We could then see if there was any congruence in perception. Perhaps a better idea would be to make a list of important attributes and rate the flutes according to those fixed points, such as:

Tone color: bright, medium, dark
Ease of response: free-blowing, medium, stuffy
Strength of low register: strong, medium, weak
Strength of high register: strong, medium, weak
Dynamic response.....etc.

Probably some thought should be put into this, so that answers cover the range of important variables and players can answer in some consistent, quantifiable manner.

Toby · 2011-01-31 01:12:40

radi0gnome wrote:
Toby wrote:
radi0gnome wrote:
Yes. The tone has a lot more kick than other flutes...
And that "kick" adds what to the equation? Speaking precisely do you mean that the shakuhachi has more power, equating to more pressure at the walls, or more high frequency content, which is lost differentially to the walls, or both? In both those areas, the sax has a lot more "kick" than the shakuhachi, and much thinner walls to boot, and materials don't matter there, so...?
Good point, Toby. Yes, I guess I was referring to the way it felt at the mouthpiece and the ability to "honk". And yes, sax has that.

Toby wrote:
Your study would really not prove anything. Here is a story to illustrate the point: Some time ago a flute player and professor of flute named Joan Lynn White wanted to do the materials test. She and her researchers obtained five exactlingly hand made Prima Sankyo flutes in four materials: one was in palladium, one in 14K gold, one in 9K gold and two in silver. The two silver ones were a control, to see how much small manufacturing differences might contribute to variations in the sound spectrum. Once that was known as a benchmark, they would know the range of variability due to manufacturing tolerances and could then factor that out.
This is very similar to what I proposed, close to the same except for the sequence.

Toby wrote:
The experiment basically stopped before it started, because they found the variability between the two silver flutes so great that it completely overshadowed any differences that could be attributed to the metal. {...}

So you get Colyn to make two flutes, which will certainly have differences greater than the flutes drawn on mandrels. In addition there will be different bore smoothness profiles, based on the fact that wood is not a homogeneous material, and different woods have different cellular and grain structure. You give them to players to hold and touch, in plain sight where preconception can add to the mix. Of course they will report differences, and consistent differences.

What, then, does that prove?
True, if the outcome is that the testers hear a difference, it "proves" nothing, and more work is needed. But, a single piece shakuhachi is a much simpler instrument mechanically than a modern transverse flute. Would the experiment you just mentioned have stopped at the point of testing the controls if the researchers only concerned themselves with the headjoints? Why are you so sure of the outcome with Colyn's shakuhachi?

I also find it curious why you keep gravitating towards Coltman's experiment when discussing this issue. That particular experiment had an awful small sample size with testers whose musicianship is questionable. Which isn't all that bad, it still goes a long way to suggest that material does not make a difference. But questions are left open about why none of the testers gave up and said they couldn't hear a difference even though they apparently could not.

However, Coltman then, in a related letter, not the scientific paper, goes on to state some stuff about how ""...the musician cannot, under normal playing circumstances, dissociate his personal preferences and prejudices from the question at hand". Coltman apparently had an axe to grind. You, Toby, support Coltman's statement by mentioning some psychology experiments, one where wine testers objectivity fell apart when they did know what wines they were testing. How you and Coltman can extrapolate that this is definitively the reason Coltman got the results he did is beyond me, and is insulting to every musician out there, particularly ones who say they hear a difference with different materials.

If an experiment similar to the wine experiment was conducted where testers pleasure with playing a Yuu stepped up a few notches when they were told (and somehow believed) it was a Shigemi I'd say Coltman nailed it. However, as it stands, I trust most high level musician's (particularly some here that I've met) ability to drop their preconceived notions and test two identical flutes objectively.

For anyone still following this, here is Toby's description of the wine experiment:
Toby wrote:
There was an experiment done several years ago in which some test subjects were hooked up to an fMRI machine (to measure brain activity in real time) and given two different wines to drink. One was a decent but ordinary table wine, the other a rare and costly vintage. The subjects reported enjoying the rare vintage more, and the brain scans showed more activity in the pleasure centers of their brains--they actually were enjoying it more. The punch line is that the wines were exactly the same.

If you are interested in reading a very credible and oft-cited study comparing full metal flutes, go here:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour … mp;cad=rja

You're a bright and inventive chap, I'm sure you'll find some creative way to discredit it in your own mind

You managed to do that well with Coltman. I'm amazed that you get the feeling that he had an axe to grind. I've carried out correspondences with Dr. Coltman, and he is a top scientist, not only in the field of acoustics, but in many other areas as well, full of awards. He is also a very accomplished flutist who also plays the shakuhachi. In fact he has experimentally redesigned the bore of the shakuhachi so that the dai-kan is more in tune, but I'm not sure the traditionalists would want to hear about it.

On what grounds do you call the musicianship of the subjects in Coltman's test questionable? That is just another of your straw men, which you seem to take such pleasure in setting up and then knocking down. Just for the record, Coltman first did listening tests with 27 people, 20 of whom were either professional or skilled amateur musicians, and 13 were flutists. Flutists blew both steady tones and some sequences with the silver and the wooden flute. In total with those 27 people there were 927 trials, and statistically, the results were no better than random. Basically the people listening didn't have a clue, and were guessing. Interestingly, the unskilled observers actually did slightly better than the musicians in judging which flute was being played for a given trial.

In the test of players, there was no "pressure to perform", nor was their first impression of the flutes even part of the experiment. The flutes were mounted in a closed cylinder that was counterweighted. They played one of the three identical heads (attached to the hidden bodies), were told to spin the drum so that the original choice was lost, and then try to find it again in five trials. In the first phase they could only play a steady note, in the second, they could play and tongue at will. The flutists were all "reasonably skilled performers". Other trials were performed as well, and the upshot is that they actually scored lower than pure chance guessing would give, though still within the standard deviation.

Perhaps there is the rare individual who is so super-attuned that s/he could score above chance, but that is rather a moot point and does not change that fact that reasonably skilled performers cannot tell the difference. In Smith's study, which you pointedly ignore, ten top professional trombonists could not tell the difference in blind trials between different horn/bell combinations, even though in that case there WAS significant difference in the sound, measured and found to be well above the threshold of perception.

Of course none of this is going to convince a doubter, nor, in the final analysis, is it definitive, but I am hoping that it will at least start making people question the orthodoxy that the great flute needs that "special" piece of bamboo, which only a master, searching the hills long and wide, can find. I have nothing against romantic legends, and if they can be a crutch for people to be able to play better then they serve a positive purpose.

There are multitudes who believe in fairies and elves, but that does not make them manifest physical phenomena. Of course it is always easy to answer, "Just because no one has ever seen one, doesn't mean that they do not exist."

Last edited by Toby (2011-01-31 01:15:36)

Tairaku 太楽 · 2011-01-31 02:53:55

Toby wrote:
Of course none of this is going to convince a doubter, nor, in the final analysis, is it definitive, but I am hoping that it will at least start making people question the orthodoxy that the great flute needs that "special" piece of bamboo, which only a master, searching the hills long and wide, can find. I have nothing against romantic legends, and if they can be a crutch for people to be able to play better then they serve a positive purpose.

This is obnoxious.

Even if your theories about bore shape being the only determinant in tone, that would only apply to such things as jiari flutes, plastic flutes, cast bore, etc.

In the case of jinashi flutes there is no argument that the only way to produce them is with a good piece of bamboo, is there? And since getting a similar shape to a jinashi bamboo flute bore with other materials is more difficult than simply working bamboo, master jinashi makers will still have to search for bamboo that suits?

Take the case of Kodama and Ken Mujitsu, they both go out hunting bamboo together but since their preferred profile is different Ken goes for one piece and Kodama goes for another. What's the alternative for guys like this?

Toby · 2011-01-31 03:52:18

I certainly agree that when the material determines the bore shape, then the material is of utmost importance. Please do not misunderstand my posts. In this thread I am arguing from the position that the material *of the walls* does not affect the sound or response if they are of sufficient rigidity and all other factors are equal. And even apart from sonic considerations, aesthetic and tactile attributes are of prime importance in the shakuhachi experience. I love the look and feel of shakuhachi as much as the sound. Each culm of bamboo and each flute, even a jiari, therefore has a unique personality apart from the sound, to the extent of no other instrument I know, apart perhaps from the Korean taegum.

So all my comments apply to the contribution of wall materials to sound ONLY.

Last edited by Toby (2011-01-31 03:53:39)

Thomas · 2011-01-31 10:24:53

......................................__................................................
.............................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,..........................................
.......................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,....................................
..................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,..................................
...............,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\.......................... .......
.............;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\................................
..............\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,......................... ..
...............\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,..........................
................\llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-\..*`*;..)..........................
.................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................/.....................
..................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;................/.\..................
................./.../.../.../..,-,..*~,.`*~*................*...\.................
................|.../.../.../.*`...\...........................)....)¯`~,..................
................|./.../..../.......)......,.)`*~-,............/....|..)...`~-,.............
..............././.../...,*`-,.....`-,...*`....,---......\..../...../..|.........¯```*~-,,,,
...............(..........)`*~-,....`*`.,-~*.,-*......|.../..../.../............\........
................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|..............\........
...................*,.........`-,...)-,..............,-*`...,-*....(`-,............\.......
......................f`-,.........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*....,-*......|...`-,..........\........

indigo · 2011-01-31 10:51:52

Many thanks to everyone posting in this thread. I sincerely hope that this topic is not closed even though some passions may be elevated.For myself a non scientist, considering acoustics is like practicing a piece over and over, a little more information seeps in with each repetition or reconsideration of the information posted here and of course elsewhere. It would be fantastic if we had an acoustics science moderator who might help those of us who need to learn more. Perhaps a basic reading list might be compiled etc.

Last week I was in a woodwind and brass shop here in Brooklyn. Inevitably the shakuhachi was unearthed from my bag and I played a few notes badly and showed the notation to the guys who run the shop. They were fascinated as the shakuhachi is an instrument that has floated on the edges of their experience. They both played flute and sax etc. Their comment on the sound even from the first several phrases of Rokudan was that shakuhachi soud is the sound of nature. Subjective response for sure.

Last night I wondered what the sound of a closed chamber might be. Can it be defined scientificly, as say the fundamental frequency of an open tube at both ends or 1 end can be defined and heard if one holds the flute or bottle up to one's ear. Assuming there is air in the closed chamber, as in living bamboo, is there a constant sound as in the shakuhachi as an open tube? If there is sound within the the bamboo resonating within all of the closed chambers as a function of the plant movement mostly via wind and growth perhaps the sound is part of a feedback mechanism within the plant's metabolism etc.

I remember the sounds trees make in big winds where I grew up. Not just wind through the leaves or needles but the trunks creaking and sounding in response to the somtimes imense stress on the trunks caused by the wind. This is especially true in winter when all is frozen.

Jim Thompson · 2011-01-31 10:52:52

For the scientist, everything becomes increasingly complicated. To the mystic everything gets simpler and simpler. No wonder when they try to communicate it doesn't go well.

radi0gnome · 2011-01-31 10:55:59

Toby wrote:
If you are interested in reading a very credible and oft-cited study comparing full metal flutes, go here:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour … mp;cad=rja

You're a bright and inventive chap, I'm sure you'll find some creative way to discredit it in your own mind

I already read that one and most of the links you posted. I don't have a problem with those. I agree that all the data, even Dr. Coltman's, suggests that there is no perceptible difference due to material.

Toby wrote:
You managed to do that well with Coltman. I'm amazed that you get the feeling that he had an axe to grind.

Then what the heck is with his statement that "...The plain facts are that his judgment is influenced by preconceived notions and mental associations of tone quality with other properties of the material. 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. I do not belittle this attitude; it is, I believe, a desirable condition for the achievement of the fullest artistic expression."

My problem is that somehow Dr. Coltman (and I think you, Toby) has come to the conclusion that musicians are incapable of being objective. Neither Dr. Coltman's experiment or the wine tasting experiment demonstrate that musicians lack of objectivity is what is causing the perception that material makes a difference.

Toby wrote:
On what grounds do you call the musicianship of the subjects in Coltman's test questionable?

Simply because I find it unbelievable that so many high-level musicians would not give up and say that they can't find the instrument they thought they could find again, rather than make a guess and then be "baffled to find that he could not identify any of the instruments under the 'blindfold' conditions {Coltman} described."

Toby wrote:
In the test of players, there was no "pressure to perform", nor was their first impression of the flutes even part of the experiment.

So most of these test subjects chose a flute that they thought they could find again. That I find believable.

Toby wrote:
The flutes were mounted in a closed cylinder that was counterweighted. They played one of the three identical heads (attached to the hidden bodies), were told to spin the drum so that the original choice was lost, and then try to find it again in five trials. In the first phase they could only play a steady note, in the second, they could play and tongue at will. The flutists were all "reasonably skilled performers". Other trials were performed as well, and the upshot is that they actually scored lower than pure chance guessing would give, though still within the standard deviation.

And I find this believable too. They could not find the flute they thought they could find again. However, what I find unbelievable is that apparently they thought they found the flute they originally chose with such conviction that they were "baffled" when it wasn't. Did they have a choice to opt-out and say they couldn't find their original flute? If not, why were they "baffled" when it turned out they could not find the correct flute?

Dr. Coltman says it's because "The plain facts are that his judgment is influenced by preconceived notions and mental associations of tone quality with other properties of the material."

How did Dr. Coltman determine this? That statement implies that somehow he was able to see what the participants mental processes were.

Toby wrote:
In Smith's study, which you pointedly ignore, ten top professional trombonists could not tell the difference in blind trials between different horn/bell combinations, even though in that case there WAS significant difference in the sound, measured and found to be well above the threshold of perception.

I ignored it because I do not have a problem with it. It does not support Dr. Coltman's implication that the controversy is caused by preconceived notions.

Toby wrote:
There are multitudes who believe in fairies and elves, but that does not make them manifest physical phenomena. Of course it is always easy to answer, "Just because no one has ever seen one, doesn't mean that they do not exist."

Come on, you know an awful lot of musicians holding onto the belief that material matters developed that belief from observation, unlike those who believe in fairies and gnomes. Most of the explanations for their observations are good ones, variation in dimensions, smoothness of the bore, edge sharpness...

My beliefs are leaning toward your side, Toby, but I think Tairaku has an excellent point when he brings up the question as to why he hasn't found a high-level instrument made out of an alternative material, even though material isn't supposed to matter.

Last edited by radi0gnome (2011-01-31 14:11:43)

Taldaran · 2011-01-31 11:44:57

Can't a sticky on this subject be placed?

lowonthetotem · 2011-01-31 11:48:02

To the mystic everything gets simpler and simpler

Who is the the mystic here, exactly, since we are calling each other names? I'll play the idiot; things are simple for them right from the start.

Jim Thompson · 2011-01-31 12:38:50

lowonthetotem wrote:
To the mystic everything gets simpler and simpler
Who is the the mystic here, exactly, since we are calling each other names? I'll play the idiot; things are simple for them right from the start.

I should have said the maturing mystic. I'm still aspiring. Sounds like your there.

Karmajampa · 2011-01-31 14:53:15

Jim Thompson wrote:
For the scientist, everything becomes increasingly complicated. To the mystic everything gets simpler and simpler. No wonder when they try to communicate it doesn't go well.

Life is full of Mysteries, be careful when you know all the answers,

K

Colyn Petersen · 2011-01-31 15:14:38

Karmajampa wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:
For the scientist, everything becomes increasingly complicated. To the mystic everything gets simpler and simpler. No wonder when they try to communicate it doesn't go well.
Life is full of Mysteries, be careful when you know all the answers,

K

Exactly!

Karmajampa · 2011-01-31 17:05:51

Here is something that has'nt been mentioned yet......Bamboo and wooden Shakuhachi will absorb moisture from the breath whereas plastic, metal, glass and resins will not.
This can be a problem with a fipple which will block somewhat, I wonder how much the build-up of moisture influences the bore profile. If a bore is'nt cleaned regularly the build-up of dirt etc. will alter the sound. This is noticed after a thorough cleaning of a gunky bore.

K.

Tairaku 太楽 · 2011-01-31 18:23:19

Good point Karmajampa. The holes frequently get gunked up as well. I usually don't clean them because I'm worried about removing urushi or whatever. Sometimes makers themselves use rough materials to tune after the flute is "finished".

Of course we use the "water test" to see if a flute has cracks, this usually brightens up the tone a bit. I don't know how that fits into this discussion except to show that water, which is a "material" in the bore doesn't change the shape of the bore significantly but does change the tone.

edosan · 2011-01-31 18:29:08

Tairaku 太楽 wrote:
Good point Karmajampa. The holes frequently get gunked up as well. I usually don't clean them because I'm worried about removing urushi or whatever. Sometimes makers themselves use rough materials to tune after the flute is "finished".

Of course we use the "water test" to see if a flute has cracks, this usually brightens up the tone a bit. I don't know how that fits into this discussion except to show that water, which is a "material" in the bore doesn't change the shape of the bore significantly but does change the tone.

What water DOES do is change the boundary layer effect on the bore surface, which one of the significant determinants of sound.

Colyn Petersen · 2011-01-31 18:33:06

Karmajampa wrote:
Here is something that has'nt been mentioned yet......Bamboo and wooden Shakuhachi will absorb moisture from the breath whereas plastic, metal, glass and resins will not.
This can be a problem with a fipple which will block somewhat, I wonder how much the build-up of moisture influences the bore profile. If a bore is'nt cleaned regularly the build-up of dirt etc. will alter the sound. This is noticed after a thorough cleaning of a gunky bore.

K.

Interesting, Yes. I have noticed that some woods will not even sound until sealed. That is not to say that afterwards they do not perform well. I have had questions in the past about condensation buildup in the bore. Often I notice that after playing long enough that the bore is lined with moisture, I actually prefer the sound better than prior to. Thoughts?

Last edited by Colyn Petersen (2011-01-31 18:37:00)

Jim Thompson · 2011-01-31 19:29:23

Yamato Sensei would frequently swab his shakuhachi and would often tell me to swab mine far more often than I normally do. Claimed he could hear the difference.

Last edited by Jim Thompson (2011-01-31 19:30:06)

Moran from Planet X · 2011-01-31 22:15:00

Thomas wrote:
......................................__................................................
.............................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,..........................................
.......................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,....................................
..................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,..................................
...............,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.\.......................... .......
.............;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\................................
..............\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,......................... ..
...............\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,..........................
................\llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-\..*`*;..)..........................
.................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................/.....................
..................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;................/.\..................
................./.../.../.../..,-,..*~,.`*~*................*...\.................
................|.../.../.../.*`...\...........................)....)¯`~,..................
................|./.../..../.......)......,.)`*~-,............/....|..)...`~-,.............
..............././.../...,*`-,.....`-,...*`....,---......\..../...../..|.........¯```*~-,,,,
...............(..........)`*~-,....`*`.,-~*.,-*......|.../..../.../............\........
................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|..............\........
...................*,.........`-,...)-,..............,-*`...,-*....(`-,............\.......
......................f`-,.........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*....,-*......|...`-,..........\........

Nice ASCII palmface, Thomas!

Toby · 2011-01-31 22:17:21

I have been searching for a study dealing with the effect of water in the bore, without any luck. Personally I do think it makes a difference, but very slight. In any case water is not rigid like the material of the wall, so it certainly wouldn't present a real perturbation, but it might affect acoustic efficiency somewhat.

A note about acoustic efficiency: it isn't necessarily always a good thing. Acoustic losses can lead to a feeling of resistance, which some people like, and can mellow the sound by inhibiting the higher partials. We all love jinashi for their personalities

@radi0gnome: I still don't really understand what you are objecting to in the Coltman experiment. The subjects were in no way fooled or tricked. As Coltman commented later, most all (but not all) claimed to be able to perceive a consistent difference in the different flutes. Then "in the dark", they were asked to play one flute and then find it again out of three choices. If they really had been able to tell a difference in the sound, neither the feel nor the look of the flutes should have been necessary to distinguish them. They were asked to play one flute, then find it again in five trials. To simply say "I can't find any difference" ends the experiment before it starts, since there will be no results. Assume instead that if they did have some slight perception of difference, multiple trials would give them a good chance to favor the correct instrument. Much better than a single trial, in which any number of factors might be influencing them for a short instance. At the end of the day, if they did say "I can't find a difference", it would lead to the same conclusions, wouldn't it?

Nor can I fathom your objection to Coltman's observation about perceptive bias. It clearly exists, as shown by the wine experiment and many others like it. Have I mentioned my own personal experience? In high school I took an English composition course in which essays, after being written and handed in, were returned with criticisms and a grade. The papers then could be rewritten according to the criticisms offered, after which (if people chose to rewrite them) they were regraded and the new grade became the final grade.

A friend of mine received one paper back with a C- and a raft of criticisms. He recopied the paper word for word and resubmitted it, receiving a grade of B+ with the comment "much improved".

Coltman is saying that a good player invests emotion in the her/his playing, which is the polar opposite of dispassionate objectivism. Those two things cannot coexist simultaneously. Playing, for an artist, is an all-consuming experience, and as Coltman says, is not a good stance from which to answer narrow objective questions. Nor are perceptions themselves stable, which is why we have instruments with readouts in all fields of endeavor. They are not synthetic, but analytical. You cannot have a meter that gives you a readout on musical value of a recording of Casals playing Bach as compared to Lady Gaga, but you can have an absolute measure of the relative loudnesses of those two recordings at any given time, or an average over the whole recordings. No instrument will be able to measure the "beauty" of one shakuhachi sound compared to another, but we can get hard readouts of the spectral content of the sound. Perception is an affair by which the influence of many quantitative factors, measurable individually, combine to form something judged by some internal algorithm to be at a certain place on a unique scale. Mastery of any aspect of an art doesn't change that fact: perception is qualitative, not quantitative.

Nor are the instruments of our perception perfect. This is a fun page:

http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/

Navigate over there and look at the optical illusions presented. Not even the most skilled pilot or optometrist can avoid falling prey to the illusions presented there.

Tairaku 太楽 · 2011-02-01 00:26:14

Toby wrote:
I have been searching for a study dealing with the effect of water in the bore, without any luck. Personally I do think it makes a difference, but very slight. In any case water is not rigid like the material of the wall, so it certainly wouldn't present a real perturbation, but it might affect acoustic efficiency somewhat.

If testing a jiari shakuhachi or a jinashi with a coat of urushi in the bore for leaks by lining the bore with water, there is some increase in volume and the tone changes a bit.

However with jinashi flutes which have not been lacquered, we put water in the bore to simulate the effect of a coat of urushi to predict what it will sound like. In this case the difference is very large. This tells us whether to put a coat of urushi in the bore or not.

Toby · 2011-02-01 07:30:07

I'm surprised that the jiari flute would be louder with a wet bore. That might be explainable, though, if the moisture coated any sharp edges, rounding them, since that would reduce turbulence that can limit maximum dynamics. The effect of moisture in an unsealed jinashi is easier to explain, as the water would fill the micropores that can cause major acoustic losses at the walls.

Thomas · 2011-02-01 07:49:38

Moran from Planet X wrote:
Nice ASCII palmface, Thomas!

.'/,-Y" "~-.
l.Y ^.
/\ _\_ "THANKS!"
i ___/" "\
| /" "\ o !
l ] o !__./
\ _ _ \.___./ "~\
X \/ \ ___./
( \ ___. _..--~~" ~`-.
` Z,-- / \
\__. ( / ______)
\ l /-----~~" /
Y \ /
| "x______.^
| \
j Y

Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

#151 2011-01-31 00:22:30

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

oceanica wrote:

#152 2011-01-31 00:24:10

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

rpowers wrote:

radi0gnome wrote:

#153 2011-01-31 00:34:48

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Colyn Petersen wrote:

#154 2011-01-31 01:12:40

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

radi0gnome wrote:

Toby wrote:

radi0gnome wrote:

Toby wrote:

Toby wrote:

Toby wrote:

#155 2011-01-31 02:53:55

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Toby wrote:

#156 2011-01-31 03:52:18

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

#157 2011-01-31 10:24:53

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

#158 2011-01-31 10:51:52

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

#159 2011-01-31 10:52:52

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

#160 2011-01-31 10:55:59

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Toby wrote:

Toby wrote:

Toby wrote:

Toby wrote:

Toby wrote:

Toby wrote:

Toby wrote:

#161 2011-01-31 11:44:57

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

#162 2011-01-31 11:48:02

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

#163 2011-01-31 12:38:50

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

lowonthetotem wrote:

#164 2011-01-31 14:53:15

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Jim Thompson wrote:

#165 2011-01-31 15:14:38

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Karmajampa wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:

#166 2011-01-31 17:05:51

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

#167 2011-01-31 18:23:19

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

#168 2011-01-31 18:29:08

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Tairaku 太楽 wrote:

#169 2011-01-31 18:33:06

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Karmajampa wrote:

#170 2011-01-31 19:29:23

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

#171 2011-01-31 22:15:00

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Thomas wrote:

#172 2011-01-31 22:17:21

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

#173 2011-02-01 00:26:14

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Toby wrote:

#174 2011-02-01 07:30:07

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

#175 2011-02-01 07:49:38

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Moran from Planet X wrote:

Board footer