Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

Karmajampa wrote:

This would support my feeling that there is a gradual difference in acoustic resonance from softer to harder materials. There would be virtually imperceptual differences between hard woods or between metals.

Kel.

This has been my observation as well, however flawed by the human experience it may be. IF there was going to be a perceivable difference at all, would it not be with softer materials such as those used for tonewoods on stringed instrument faces such as spruce and cedar etc...? I too sense that gradual difference from hard to soft related to resonance. Perhaps it is just what I am feeling with my hands, but there seems to be a difference nonetheless.

Problems with Coltman's paper.
1.  Humans were playing the flutes, how can exact consistency be verified, since it can not, and in your own words 2 variables render the experiment meaningless, the fact that subjects could not identify the flute they liked the best the second time around has no value.  Also, there is the question of listener fatigue and expectation -- that placebo like effect you use when you are trying to discredit others. 
Vibrations from sound are transmitted through the jaw to the inner and middle ear.  This should not be in dispute, though no studies have been done relating specifically to shakuhachi.  If you insist, I will do some digging on this and provide you with relevant information, though it is widely accepted in the medical community.
Benade's writings on this subject appear to be mostly conjecture.  I got my numbers the same place he got his, I pulled them out of my a, er a, the air.  He equivocates " if the walls are thick enough not to vibrate, and they are smooth and non-porous...switching materials will make damping ( differences ) less than 2%".
The trombone bell study -- I thought that dealt with listeners, not players, in any case, the materials are very similar, and, mass is identical, and still there was a difference, though the subjects could not perceive same, it does not mean that materials do not affect sound, just that the differences were not perceived in that instance. 
The wine experiment had not control group, the subjects were not wine experts, it was not a double blind study, et.c etc.....still this effect is well documented by hundreds of studies, so accepted.
You point out earlier in this thread that conductivity of heat of various materials may also make a difference in sound.  So now we have at least two ( porosity/smoothness/machining qualities and conductivity ) where you have said that materials make a difference...there is no need to artificially distinguish between " primary and secondary effects of materials" since, there was no such distinction made in my initial statement. 
I never said that the paper that I cited was anything other than a paper.
Backus uses metal vs plastic in his experiment, we are talking about wood, bamboo and the like, also he uses a steady state tone which, while necessary for his work, does not reflect real world application, when one is actually playing, there is no steady state tone.  Also, can you tell me what frequency he used for his measurements?  I must have missed it.  Over approximately 4khz the spectra for woodwinds changes dramatically, and small vibrations could have much larger effect.  The limit of hearing is about 20khz -- a lot of room there for overtones to be changed thus affecting sound. 
2 papers cited does not a conclusion make, especially since both have their apparent flaws.
I guess I was not done after all. (;o)....

question,
what about flute headjoints. Gold vs silver. Very obvious that gold Hj (or Gold riser) has a different sound from Silver. In my ears the difference is big.

geni wrote:

question,
what about flute headjoints. Gold vs silver. Very obvious that gold Hj (or Gold riser) has a different sound from Silver. In my ears the difference is big.

And you know for certain that the dimensions are EXACTLY the same? In my ears my two silver headjoints have a very big difference in sound, too.

Toby wrote:

Just what do you mean when you use the word "resonance"? Are you talking about significant radiation of sound from the body of the instrument? Because I can assure you that a round tube the thickness of a flute simply cannot vibrate like a violin body. It is important to realize that the sir column is exerting not distortional pressures on a certain part of a thin flat plate. It is exerting equal pressure around the inside: basically trying to blow the tube up like a balloon. How much internal pressure do you think it takes to expand the bore of a narrow diameter wooden tube with thick walls of whatever wood?  Do you really think the acoustic wave has such power? Just FYI, the output power of a shakuhachi is approximately ONE milliwatt.

Don't be fooled by the vibrations you feel when you tap the tube with your finger: those are elliptical distortional modes of vibration which are never seen in playing.

Essentially I am talking about the vibration I notice from the holes of the flute and the overall feeling that I get in general. Not just when I tap the holes. I realize that the flute is in a different category from a stringed instrument and does not resonate like a violin body. That was never in question in my mind. My question was that if one were to be able to observe ANY differences related to materials, would it not most likely be from materials that are known for their resonating qualities? I consider my comments subjective, and this is why I had recommended to move the conversation into another area. Especially since it has already been acknowledged that there is absolutely nothing that could be done to sway scientific consensus to the contrary. It is what I feel and observe. Whatever seemingly ineffable observations I am trying to describe here seem to be related to the fact that I think a bass NAF out of hardwood is half the flute of the same in a softwood. Regardless of sound to the audience, to the player, the experience is much more rich, and that counts.

To the contrary also, I do not necessarily have a total softwood bias here. A super high key flute (let's say F#, 2 octaves above middle C) in a soft wood can be rather harsh and even obnoxiously bright if treated the same way as a hardwood. I make flutes in over 30 keys spanning 3 octaves. From 12" long (G , 2 octaves above middle C) to 53" (C below middle C). I see a pattern with density here. If science does not have the means to detect what I am talking about, I'm guessing it is just a matter of time until it does. Until then, I guess I'm just deluded.

geni wrote:

you are right of course ;-) I find my self in both sides. When i play its all about the feeling..but in the workshop all about the science. I use a GUO flute (grenadite material, kind of like plastic) & that one sounds like wood flute. I use a D Williams wood HJ. I worked as HJ tester for a bit. Very interesting conclusions in the end ;-)
expression A friend of mine uses the Matit flute (carbon-fiber) & I am planing will to try that with my HJ. I did try the shakulute with it once & sounded very close to shakuhachi tonal expression. It sounds different with other flute bodies.

I played a Matit and didn't like it much sound-wise, although the action seemed nice. At the same time in the shop there was a concert recitalist in town to give master classes. He tried it too, and then said, "Do people actually play these things?"

The HJ is not well cut. Hopefully will sound better with another one. All about the cut!!! I played an Albert Couper last week!!! I was SINGING! It felt like i was playing with a bow. All about the Cut, dimensions .
And practice!! My conclusions of trying so many HJ was...The player is what matters. if i put a 1000 extra hours of focuses practice will sound much much better. We are the instrument!!

Toby wrote:

Colyn Petersen wrote:

Toby wrote:

Just what do you mean when you use the word "resonance"? Are you talking about significant radiation of sound from the body of the instrument? Because I can assure you that a round tube the thickness of a flute simply cannot vibrate like a violin body. It is important to realize that the sir column is exerting not distortional pressures on a certain part of a thin flat plate. It is exerting equal pressure around the inside: basically trying to blow the tube up like a balloon. How much internal pressure do you think it takes to expand the bore of a narrow diameter wooden tube with thick walls of whatever wood?  Do you really think the acoustic wave has such power? Just FYI, the output power of a shakuhachi is approximately ONE milliwatt.

Don't be fooled by the vibrations you feel when you tap the tube with your finger: those are elliptical distortional modes of vibration which are never seen in playing.

Essentially I am talking about the vibration I notice from the holes of the flute and the overall feeling that I get in general. Not just when I tap the holes. I realize that the flute is in a different category from a stringed instrument and does not resonate like a violin body. That was never in question in my mind. My question was that if one were to be able to observe ANY differences related to materials, would it not most likely be from materials that are known for their resonating qualities? I consider my comments subjective, and this is why I had recommended to move the conversation into another area. Especially since it has already been acknowledged that there is absolutely nothing that could be done to sway scientific consensus to the contrary. It is what I feel and observe. Whatever seemingly ineffable observations I am trying to describe here seem to be related to the fact that I think a bass NAF out of hardwood is half the flute of the same in a softwood. Regardless of sound to the audience, to the player, the experience is much more rich, and that counts.

To the contrary also, I do not necessarily have a total softwood bias here. A super high key flute (let's say F#, 2 octaves above middle C) in a soft wood can be rather harsh and even obnoxiously bright if treated the same way as a hardwood. I make flutes in over 30 keys spanning 3 octaves. From 12" long (G , 2 octaves above middle C) to 53" (C below middle C). I see a pattern with density here. If science does not have the means to detect what I am talking about, I'm guessing it is just a matter of time until it does. Until then, I guess I'm just deluded.

The vibration from the holes is from the air column, and the overall feeling you get is a feeling, a synthetic impression based on countless factors. I appreciate your skill and experience, but it is really not possible to comment on why a high-key softwood flute would be bright without a thorough analysis of its dimensions and other relevant factors. Science is the same institution which enabled us to understand material properties enough to send men to the moon and create aircraft that can fly at multiple mach speeds safely and consistently. If anyone is deluded between science and you, I would politely suggest that it might be you.

Check out the optical illusions. If you have two lines, one capped with inward facing arrows and the other with outward facing arrows, even the most accomplished painter can't help but feel that the actual lines are of different lengths. Who do you think is deluded in this case, the artist or the ruler?

I can also barely count on my two hands the number of times in my life that science has made an abrupt u-turn. Forgive me for not lending my utmost confidence in the process. It is a great method, but it is not foolproof. I made no claims, just observations. Perhaps though I might have some sort of clue considering I have made hundreds of softwood and hardwood high key flutes with the same dimensions, the only thing essentially different being the wood. One or two, whatever, but hundreds? I quite clearly stated in the last post that I could be deluded, and that my comments were based from a clearly subjective and observational standpoint. At least I am willing to admit the possibility of not having all of the answers.

Toby wrote:

Absolute rubbish, I cannot be polite, nor will I take a lot of time trying to explain to you why you are wrong ...

What? Only eleven paragraphs?

Colyn Petersen wrote:

Toby wrote:

Colyn Petersen wrote:

Essentially I am talking about the vibration I notice from the holes of the flute and the overall feeling that I get in general. Not just when I tap the holes. I realize that the flute is in a different category from a stringed instrument and does not resonate like a violin body. That was never in question in my mind. My question was that if one were to be able to observe ANY differences related to materials, would it not most likely be from materials that are known for their resonating qualities? I consider my comments subjective, and this is why I had recommended to move the conversation into another area. Especially since it has already been acknowledged that there is absolutely nothing that could be done to sway scientific consensus to the contrary. It is what I feel and observe. Whatever seemingly ineffable observations I am trying to describe here seem to be related to the fact that I think a bass NAF out of hardwood is half the flute of the same in a softwood. Regardless of sound to the audience, to the player, the experience is much more rich, and that counts.

To the contrary also, I do not necessarily have a total softwood bias here. A super high key flute (let's say F#, 2 octaves above middle C) in a soft wood can be rather harsh and even obnoxiously bright if treated the same way as a hardwood. I make flutes in over 30 keys spanning 3 octaves. From 12" long (G , 2 octaves above middle C) to 53" (C below middle C). I see a pattern with density here. If science does not have the means to detect what I am talking about, I'm guessing it is just a matter of time until it does. Until then, I guess I'm just deluded.

The vibration from the holes is from the air column, and the overall feeling you get is a feeling, a synthetic impression based on countless factors. I appreciate your skill and experience, but it is really not possible to comment on why a high-key softwood flute would be bright without a thorough analysis of its dimensions and other relevant factors. Science is the same institution which enabled us to understand material properties enough to send men to the moon and create aircraft that can fly at multiple mach speeds safely and consistently. If anyone is deluded between science and you, I would politely suggest that it might be you.

Check out the optical illusions. If you have two lines, one capped with inward facing arrows and the other with outward facing arrows, even the most accomplished painter can't help but feel that the actual lines are of different lengths. Who do you think is deluded in this case, the artist or the ruler?

I can also barely count on my two hands the number of times in my life that science has made an abrupt u-turn. Forgive me for not lending my utmost confidence in the process. It is a great method, but it is not foolproof. I made no claims, just observations. Perhaps though I might have some sort of clue considering I have made hundreds of softwood and hardwood high key flutes with the same dimensions, the only thing essentially different being the wood. One or two, whatever, but hundreds? I quite clearly stated in the last post that I could be deluded, and that my comments were based from a clearly subjective and observational standpoint. At least I am willing to admit the possibility of not having all of the answers.

Pretty depressing isn't it? Takes all the romance out of it

The answers work pretty well in other situations where science is applied. I have no real reason to believe that the paradigm will suddenly fail when it comes to shakuhachi. The shakuhachi and its sound are physical phenomena and therefore follow physical laws. If there are effects for which scientific analysis has not found the causes, then science needs to address those, but only after all known causes are controlled for, and in your case even having made hundreds of flutes doesn't cut it if you cannot confirm your impressions with objective numbers.

Note added: Colyn, when you talk about sealing the bore, are we talking about a thick, smooth and even coat of urushi, like in a jiari, or is it more like a thin coat that leaves the surface characteristics of the wood somewhat exposed? If the latter, it could well explain the consistent differences you experience. I have had wooden flutes in cocuswood, grenadilla and English boxwood, and the latter had a much different inner surface than the hardwoods.

Last edited by Toby (2011-02-02 09:34:50)

So does this mean that I should shut up now and let everyone go back to blissful ignorance? Looks like shakuhachi players just ain't got the same grit as saxophonists. We've had similar threads run to many hundreds of posts, with suggestions to read whole books and with multiple correspondences with famous acoustic scientists.

But I will give you one thing, you're a lot better than flute players, where the word "airy" applies to more than their sound

Toby wrote:

So does this mean that I should shut up now and let everyone go back to blissful ignorance? Looks like shakuhachi players just ain't got the same grit as saxophonists. We've had similar threads run to many hundreds of posts, with suggestions to read whole books and with multiple correspondences with famous acoustic scientists.

OK now that you bring it up, you probably know who Steve Lacy is. He told me he's played a lot of saxophones and the best sounding ones were the original Adolph Sax ones. He also said his old Selmer sounded better than the new one.

Explain.

Why do the Adolf Sax ones sound better?