Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

World Shakuhachi Discussion / Go to Live Shakuhachi Chat

You are not logged in.


Tube of delight!

#101 2011-01-29 18:33:49

Toby
Shakuhachi Scientist
From: out somewhere circling the sun
Registered: 2008-03-15
Posts: 405

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Toby wrote:

I have a beautifully-made ebony QUENA and it sucks compared to the reed ones I have.

NOTE ADDED: Always be careful when autocorrect is on if using an iPhone to post.

Of course if that ebony quena had the same dimensions as my reed ones, I would expect it to play the same.

Last edited by Toby (2011-01-29 19:18:31)

Offline

 

#102 2011-01-29 18:53:32

Toby
Shakuhachi Scientist
From: out somewhere circling the sun
Registered: 2008-03-15
Posts: 405

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

radi0gnome wrote:

Toby wrote:

So what would happen is this: players would try Colyn's two flutes, find them different (because of weight or feel or due to small dimensional differences or because it is dark ebony instead of lighter rosewood) and say "flute A plays darker than flute B".

Are you that sure of the outcome? I guess I'm guilty too, if the experiment was conducted my bets would be that they would not find a difference... unless they were caused by dimensional variances and I suggested comparison to a flute of the same material in an attempt to rule that out.

I still trust the top players to be able to be objective. I trust that while they are flying this plane without instrumentation that they'd get on the announcement system and say "buckle up" rather than "I'm so good I just know where I'm going". 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.       

If you wanted to set up something less flawed, do an experiment similar to Coltman's but with musicians who we trust. Coltman does state: "Of course, it is possible that individuals exist whose discriminatory senses are keen enough to find a distinction, but if so they certainly are not common." That statement is pretty vague, does he mean high-level players? Those aren't common. I suspect that may be what Coltman meant, because in the next paragraph he says: "One player did, correctly, point out that one of the three instruments appeared at first to be slightly flat. This effect is due to the high thermal mass of the heavy copper tube...".  I'm surprised that only one of his test subjects noticed it, something like that should be perceptible to most high level musicians. There is another modification I'd like to make to Coltman's experiment aside from the test subjects, and that is to allow them to opt out and state that they cannot select a flute that they think they can find again if they can not hear enough difference and use that as a test result rather than encourage them to guess and say "see you guessed wrong" and conclude that musicians have preconceived notions skewing their judgment.

I find it very interesting how the mind moves around inconvenient facts when they clash with preconceptions. Of course I do it as well, but what I notice here is this: You have not understood the point of the aviation story at all. In the absence of visual clues, the graveyard spiral feels exactly the same as flying level, whether for an experience pilot or a novice, and this is exactly the reason that an experienced pilot knows he MUST trust his instruments, because he understands the limitations of perception and how they interact with the laws of physics.

Actually we DO know how much difference there must be for a highly-trained musician to detect them. Many tests have been done asking highly-trained musicians to distinguish relative loudness levels and relative pitch levels. Highly-trained flute players have also been asked to reproduce pitch between trials. In these tests, highly-trained musicians do better than amateurs, but there are clear thresholds. In tests where a tone is played for people, there is a short break, and another tone is played at a different level, people generally cannot reliably tell which is louder if there is a difference of less than 3 dB. No person was able to tell a difference of less than 2 dB reliably. Pitch differences measured the same way show that no one tested can reliably discern pitch differences of less than 5 cents. Non-musicians fare much worse, of course.

Highly-trained flute players were asked to play a note, take a short break and repeat the note on the same pitch. Not a single player could come closer than 6 cents at any time, and most of the trials varied by 10 cents or more. Some of the most highly-trained players couldn't hit it within 20 cents, but it was mostly amateurs who were in that range.

Finally, you pointedly ignore Smith's results with trombone bells:

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

In this paper ten top (read: highly trained) professional trombonists were asked to try to identify three different trombone bells fitted to an instrument in blind trials. Not one could do so, EVEN THOUGH THERE WE CLEARLY MEASURABLE DIFFERENCES OF UP TO 2 dB at the position of the player's ears. Not one out of ten. I'd ask for a comment on this.

You see, if you really read the literature, it gets harder and harder to deny the weight of the evidence. But of course it is always possible. The flat earth society, for instance, still exists.

Offline

 

#103 2011-01-29 18:54:31

Tairaku 太楽
Administrator/Performer
From: Tasmania
Registered: 2005-10-07
Posts: 3226
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Toby wrote:

I would have to have it say "The characteristics of the material, if they affect wall smoothness and/or geometry of the bore, are among many factors that can affect tonal quality and response of a woodwind instrument." Otherwise we are back where we started.

So things like bamboo (in its natural state) which has unique characteristics such as node points and wall striations, or ji, which affects the smoothness and geometry do matter? Or maybe bamboo from a certain area or time frame which has different characteristics than other bamboo also makes a difference?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!

I should probably close this thread. Does anybody see a reason not to?


'Progress means simplifying, not complicating' : Bruno Munari

http://www.myspace.com/tairakubrianritchie

Offline

 

#104 2011-01-29 18:54:57

Jim Thompson
Moderator
From: Santa Monica, California
Registered: 2007-11-28
Posts: 421

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Toby wrote:

I would have to have it say "The characteristics of the material, if they affect wall smoothness and/or geometry of the bore, are among many factors that can affect tonal quality and response of a woodwind instrument."

Toby,
        That's a good statement. I can accept it 100%. 
The debate between scientists and, let's call them, intuitivists,  is  a valuable one. I think they have much to offer each other.  It seems that once you sort through the semantics there is more agreement than disagreement. They are both, after all, looking at the same reality.

Last edited by Jim Thompson (2011-01-29 19:01:19)


" Who do you trust , me or your own eyes?" - Groucho Marx

Offline

 

#105 2011-01-29 19:13:22

Toby
Shakuhachi Scientist
From: out somewhere circling the sun
Registered: 2008-03-15
Posts: 405

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

radi0gnome wrote:

edosan wrote:

Moran from Planet X wrote:

Precisely.

And those of us that have a clue are profoundly thankful, eh, X?

Not sure, every once in a while a paradigm shift occurs that blows me out of the water.

Here's an excerpt:

"As a paradigm is stretched to its limits, anomalies — failures of the current paradigm to take into account observed phenomena — accumulate. Their significance is judged by the practitioners of the discipline. Some anomalies may be dismissed as errors in observation, others as merely requiring small adjustments to the current paradigm that will be clarified in due course. Some anomalies resolve themselves spontaneously, having increased the available depth of insight along the way. But no matter how great or numerous the anomalies that persist, Kuhn observes, the practicing scientists will not lose faith in the established paradigm for as long as no credible alternative is available; to lose faith in the solubility of the problems would in effect mean ceasing to be a scientist.

In any community of scientists, Kuhn states, there are some individuals who are bolder than most. These scientists, judging that a crisis exists, embark on what Thomas Kuhn calls revolutionary science, exploring alternatives to long-held, obvious-seeming assumptions. Occasionally this generates a rival to the established framework of thought. The new candidate paradigm will appear to be accompanied by numerous anomalies, partly because it is still so new and incomplete. The majority of the scientific community will oppose any conceptual change, and, Kuhn emphasizes, so they should. To fulfill its potential, a scientific community needs to contain both individuals who are bold and individuals who are conservative."


As in the excerpt, practitioners of the discipline, shakuhachi players, are observing the anomaly that material does seem to have an effect. Coltman is in the conservative camp, but rather than trying to tweak the current paradigm to fit observations of the practitioners, he is dismissing them as errors in observation.

At least Toby isn't about to report us to the Inquisition smile

Science does change it's mind sometimes, the phlogiston theory seemed like a good explanation for fire for a while.

You are positing a false paradigm. The fact is that there is no crisis in the scientific camp at all: ALL the scientists who have studied the issue agree that in the conditions we are discussing, material does not and cannot make a difference. There are limits, to be sure: there is still some controversy over how much difference material might make in very-thin-walled instruments, although Gilbert's work is the latest piece of peer-reviewed research to indicate that the answer is "very little":

http://perso.univ-lemans.fr/%7Ejgilbert … ll_vib.pdf

But since science can never be definitive, real science can never positively conclude anything. Nothing is black and white. Coltman should have used more-highly-trained flute players, or different highly-trained flute players. Coltman should not have been present in the room, since he might have been affecting the results through unconscious bodily clues. Coltman should not have been alive, since he might have skewed the results with extra-sensory perception. The flutes weren't real flutes. The flutes had identical heads made of a different material. The blind test intimidated the flute players so that they could no longer use their highly-trained perceptions.

There is always another significant factor which might have skewed the results. And if we have 100 tests which give one result, there is always the possibility that the 101st will come out differently. Yes, this is true. We have to weigh the evidence and come to a conclusion where none really exists, or can exist. I believe, though, that what is important is to sincerely and honestly weigh the evidence before coming to the conclusion, rather than simply gathering ammunition to point out how any given conclusion might be wrong.

Last edited by Toby (2011-01-29 19:15:29)

Offline

 

#106 2011-01-29 19:43:54

Karmajampa
Member
From: Aotearoa (NZ)
Registered: 2006-02-12
Posts: 574
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Why not do a test that does not involve a player, have a series of tubes of differing materials, all of the same length and bore diameter, attach them sequentially to a fipple that is attached to a stable pressure cylendar and read the outcome with a spectral analysing program.

K.


Kia Kaha !

Offline

 

#107 2011-01-29 20:22:00

Tairaku 太楽
Administrator/Performer
From: Tasmania
Registered: 2005-10-07
Posts: 3226
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Karmajampa wrote:

Why not do a test that does not involve a player, have a series of tubes of differing materials, all of the same length and bore diameter, attach them sequentially to a fipple that is attached to a stable pressure cylendar and read the outcome with a spectral analysing program.

K.

Why not ask the best players and makers what they think?

Nelson Zink did a huge amount of work on these quasi-scientific theories and then came out with his own flutes which are basically unplayable (for Japanese music) and don't sound good.

Guys like Inoue Shigemi, Gudo Ishibashi and countless others search far and wide for the right bamboo and the flutes are great.

The best players look for the best flutes to perform on. What do they play?

It would be really nice if we could get great flutes made out of recycled pressed compost material, but until that happens I'll stick with bamboo! (most of the time).

So far I think all the "scientific" stuff that's been cited have applied to instruments other than shakuhachi. Are there any studies based on shakuhachi (other than anecdotal)? Citing silver flute, trombone and clarinet in relationship to shakuhachi is itself unscientific. It's like when they used to correlate birds, butterflies and bats in systematics.


'Progress means simplifying, not complicating' : Bruno Munari

http://www.myspace.com/tairakubrianritchie

Offline

 

#108 2011-01-29 20:25:12

Toby
Shakuhachi Scientist
From: out somewhere circling the sun
Registered: 2008-03-15
Posts: 405

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

oceanica wrote:

I am going to reopen and wade into this topic again, so get your hip-waders on!

As you know, my friend Colyn Peterson is now making and selling wooden shakuhachi.  This has given those of us in Omaha the chance to play several flutes that are virtually identical in every aspect except the type of wood used in construction. 
The verdict is this:  About 90% to 95% of the tonal qualities of the sound produced by any given shakuhachi is due to bore profile and the player.
A very small percentage ( say 2% or so ) is due to the construction of the utaguchi and area surrounding the utaguchi.
The rest of the variation is due to the material used, in this case the different kinds of wood used.  The harder and more dense the wood, the brighter the sound, this has been true with several different players also.  Conversely the softer and less dense the wood the warmer and darker the sound. 
There you go -- have fun!  Mark

How did you arrive at those figures? Just a feeling, or something more concrete and testable? I am in contact with a number of acoustic scientists, and when I ask questions about this or that, they usually refuse to say anything definitive without NUMBERS, and numbers dervied through testing whose methodology has been carefully examined.

Any perceived differences might be explained by the difference in grain structure and microporosity, as it exhibits on the interior walls. There also might be some differences in the edges of the holes, as different woods respond differently to cutters. Nor can we rule out dimensional differences without very careful measurements: did you carry them out?

Finally, to be sure, after all those other factors, those several players should not be able to see or sense in some other way which flute was which, and try to consistently name which was which in randomized trials, not to mention having audience members on the other side of the curtain doing the same.

If you have a single one of those variables uncontrolled, it becomes impossible to say what is causing what. In scientific tests with all those variables controlled, material has not been shown to make a difference.

Last edited by Toby (2011-01-29 20:30:56)

Offline

 

#109 2011-01-29 20:46:06

Toby
Shakuhachi Scientist
From: out somewhere circling the sun
Registered: 2008-03-15
Posts: 405

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Tairaku 太楽 wrote:

Karmajampa wrote:

Why not do a test that does not involve a player, have a series of tubes of differing materials, all of the same length and bore diameter, attach them sequentially to a fipple that is attached to a stable pressure cylendar and read the outcome with a spectral analysing program.

K.

Why not ask the best players and makers what they think?

Nelson Zink did a huge amount of work on these quasi-scientific theories and then came out with his own flutes which are basically unplayable (for Japanese music) and don't sound good.

Guys like Inoue Shigemi, Gudo Ishibashi and countless others search far and wide for the right bamboo and the flutes are great.

The best players look for the best flutes to perform on. What do they play?

It would be really nice if we could get great flutes made out of recycled pressed compost material, but until that happens I'll stick with bamboo! (most of the time).

If you had to spend countless hours carefully building and refining a flute, would you make it out of bamboo or pressed compost (assuming it was smooth enough)? The word "right" when attached to bamboo is pretty loaded and untestable. What makes a piece of bamboo "right"?

Some years ago, I was invited to an exhibition of flutes by Shinzan. There were about 50 1.8's there and I played many of them. The most expensive was about $50,000, an incredible piece of bamboo. The cheapest was a rather ugly piece, much lighter, for $3000. They played the same, or nearly so. At my local recycle shop is a beautiful-looking 1.8 made with a lovely piece of bamboo, heavy, symmetrical, beautifully aged. It is crap.

You know as well as I do that makers are looking for an aesthetic, a shape, a size, a weight, node spacing, mottling, end rings with 32 roots. It has nothing to do with the vibratory characteristics of the bamboo, or some other metaphysical factor that might influence the sound.

Again, everyone here seems to be missing the salient point: Both makers and players are eminently qualified to comment on the quality of a flute in terms of playability and tonal quality, but neither players nor makers are equipped to say with any certainty what effect material has on those qualities.

In the same way, test pilots can tell you precisely how well an aircraft flies, and aircraft manufacturers should know how to build and assemble itheir parts with precision, but neither ihas the fundamental knowledge of the physics and aerodynamics to know why the plane flies as it does, and to decide which materials are appropriate to do their intended jobs. Likewise, I wouldn't want my interior decorator to design my apartment building...

Last edited by Toby (2011-01-29 20:59:18)

Offline

 

#110 2011-01-29 21:05:22

Karmajampa
Member
From: Aotearoa (NZ)
Registered: 2006-02-12
Posts: 574
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Teraku wrote;
"So far I think all the "scientific" stuff that's been cited have applied to instruments other than shakuhachi. Are there any studies based on shakuhachi (other than anecdotal)? Citing silver flute, trombone and clarinet in relationship to shakuhachi is itself unscientific. It's like when they used to correlate birds, butterflies and bats in systematics."

The question being 'does material influence sound', and if we stay with sound produced by vibrating air in a tube, not bells or drums.

I am still ambivalent, I have my ceramic glazed shakuhachi beside a bamboo one jof similar shape and pitch, they sound different but too many variables to definitely say it is the material.

I 'feel' bore shape has a greater influence than material, based on a few hundred bits of bamboo I have worked through.

But I like bamboo, I grow bamboo, I eat bamboo, my opinions sway like bamboo, my roots are embedded in millions of generations like a grove, I wither and crack like bamboo, blow me to the end of Love.

K.


Kia Kaha !

Offline

 

#111 2011-01-29 21:13:22

Tairaku 太楽
Administrator/Performer
From: Tasmania
Registered: 2005-10-07
Posts: 3226
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

"Right" in this case means, "Bamboo the maker thinks is right for making shakuhachi". wink

I've had the pleasure of working closely with Ken LaCosse on a lot of flutes and we have kept completely open minds about the issue of materials. We've experimented with all kinds of bamboo, not only madake. We've made performing shakuhachi from building bamboo we picked up at the hardware store. "Seaweed tube of wonder", PVC. We've ignored all the rules about node placement, and sometimes we've followed them. This has not been systematic but would still fall under the category of experimentation.

The best flutes have come from Japanese madake, followed by Chinese madake and the rest have been fun but fell short in some way or another.


'Progress means simplifying, not complicating' : Bruno Munari

http://www.myspace.com/tairakubrianritchie

Offline

 

#112 2011-01-29 21:20:26

Moran from Planet X
Member
From: Here to There
Registered: 2005-10-11
Posts: 1524
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Tairaku 太楽 wrote:

I should probably close this thread. Does anybody see a reason not to?

That gives too much power to some of the intractable personalities involved.

It'll die of it's own accord.


"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I am all out of bubblegum." —Rowdy Piper, They Live!

Offline

 

#113 2011-01-29 21:20:44

Toby
Shakuhachi Scientist
From: out somewhere circling the sun
Registered: 2008-03-15
Posts: 405

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Karmajampa wrote:

Why not do a test that does not involve a player, have a series of tubes of differing materials, all of the same length and bore diameter, attach them sequentially to a fipple that is attached to a stable pressure cylendar and read the outcome with a spectral analysing program.

K.

This is an excellent idea, keeping in mind that the bore smoothness is an important factor. When these kinds of tests have been run (often), and the results come up showing no difference according to materials (always), the gainsayers always complain that it is not a fair test, because it simplifies the real-world conditions too much: i.e., they are not really flutes and they are not really being played. This is the conundrum of science: as soon as you break a problem down to its components so that they can be analyzed separately, you change the problem. It is not unlike Heisenberg's discovery that it is impossible to accurately measure both the position and velocity of an electron at the same time: the more you know about one quality, the less you know about the other. And of course the very act of measuring something changes it to some extent. Whether that extent is important is always a hot topic, especially to those who have some interest in the result one way or the other.

Again, science is based on falsifiability:

http://science.jrank.org/pages/9302/Fal … ility.html

The claim that material does not affect sound is never going to be verifiable; we need only a single instance to the contrary to falsify it. That being said, people have been trying to find that single instance for a long time in a lot of ways for the specific conditions under question (woodwind instruments made to normal dimensions and played normally) and have not succeeded.

It is important to note that not a single post by those who take the "materials matter" position in this thread has demonstrated a full understanding of the actual research which has been carried out over the last century and a half in regard to this topic, or a careful analysis/synthesis of the results of that research. It shows, in a way, a basic disrespect and disregard for the efforts of a lot of very bright, highly educated and talented people who have dedicated their lives to further the understanding of this and related issues. I'm happy to sit here and try to be an interpreter for what they are saying, but at the end of the day, if you are really interested in getting more understanding, you will have to do what I did: roll up your sleeves and get dirty by actually reading all the literature available and getting at least a basic understanding of the physics involved. Otherwise this is all parlor-room chatter.

Last edited by Toby (2011-01-29 21:22:51)

Offline

 

#114 2011-01-29 21:28:07

Karmajampa
Member
From: Aotearoa (NZ)
Registered: 2006-02-12
Posts: 574
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

I wouldn't euthenase my Grandmother !

'tea' anyone ?


Kia Kaha !

Offline

 

#115 2011-01-29 21:35:55

Tairaku 太楽
Administrator/Performer
From: Tasmania
Registered: 2005-10-07
Posts: 3226
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Toby wrote:

It is important to note that not a single post by those who take the "materials matter" position in this thread has demonstrated a full understanding of the actual research which has been carried out over the last century and a half in regard to this topic, or a careful analysis/synthesis of the results of that research. It shows, in a way, a basic disrespect and disregard for the efforts of a lot of very bright, highly educated and talented people who have dedicated their lives to further the understanding of this and related issues. I'm happy to sit here and try to be an interpreter for what they are saying, but at the end of the day, if you are really interested in getting more understanding, you will have to do what I did: roll up your sleeves and get dirty by actually reading all the literature available and getting at least a basic understanding of the physics involved. Otherwise this is all parlor-room chatter.

Right, and we must all read Isaac Newton to know that it's a dumb idea to let go of an anvil we are holding directly above our foot?

Your comment is condescending. The norm in shakuhachi is to believe that the bamboo combined with design and craftsmanship of the maker creates a great shakuhachi. You and a few other people are trying to eliminate the bamboo from this simple equation, thus the burden of proof is upon you, not those of us who think the bamboo does matter. Until there are actual examples which prove that point nothing has been proven and the default position remains valid.

Where are these superior flutes made of other materials?

I am a fan of the Yuu and I like Colyn's wood flute and those of Peter Ross and David Brown. But they're as good as $2000 bamboo flutes, not the premium Kindo, Shiro or Inoue flutes.

I have really nice bamboo composite flutes made by Inoue Shigeshi. They are not as good as the traditional shakuhachi I have by the same maker. If Shigeshi could not do it (one of the greatest makers of the last 50 years) what makes you think anyone else will do it?

I thought hypotheses require proof?


'Progress means simplifying, not complicating' : Bruno Munari

http://www.myspace.com/tairakubrianritchie

Offline

 

#116 2011-01-29 21:42:52

Tairaku 太楽
Administrator/Performer
From: Tasmania
Registered: 2005-10-07
Posts: 3226
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

I just asked my wife who is an actual scientist (Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian, NASA, Pentagon) and outlined the argument to her. She says:

"Science isn't always right. You can come up with so many theories but it's the player that matters. If the player says 'this doesn't sound good' that's the end of the argument." wink


'Progress means simplifying, not complicating' : Bruno Munari

http://www.myspace.com/tairakubrianritchie

Offline

 

#117 2011-01-29 21:47:43

Toby
Shakuhachi Scientist
From: out somewhere circling the sun
Registered: 2008-03-15
Posts: 405

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Karmajampa wrote:

Teraku wrote;
"So far I think all the "scientific" stuff that's been cited have applied to instruments other than shakuhachi. Are there any studies based on shakuhachi (other than anecdotal)? Citing silver flute, trombone and clarinet in relationship to shakuhachi is itself unscientific. It's like when they used to correlate birds, butterflies and bats in systematics."

The question being 'does material influence sound', and if we stay with sound produced by vibrating air in a tube, not bells or drums.

I am still ambivalent, I have my ceramic glazed shakuhachi beside a bamboo one jof similar shape and pitch, they sound different but too many variables to definitely say it is the material.

I 'feel' bore shape has a greater influence than material, based on a few hundred bits of bamboo I have worked through.

But I like bamboo, I grow bamboo, I eat bamboo, my opinions sway like bamboo, my roots are embedded in millions of generations like a grove, I wither and crack like bamboo, blow me to the end of Love.

K.

I love bamboo, although I have to admit that my metal Okuralo is also one pretty hot babe. 

Just one comment here  on the quote by Teraku (which I can't find in the original): you're making a paradigm error here: the "scientific stuff" applies to shakuhachi to the extent that the shakuhachi shares significant characteristics with those other instruments. We have gone over all those similarities at length, so I'm not letting you get away with such a sloppy statement, just in case others are swayed by such demagoguery ;-)

There is a set "flying things" which contains a subset "flying animals". All three of those animals are appropriate for that set and that subset. They are not all appropriate for the subset "flying insects" or "flying mammals", and only two are appropriate for the subset "flying egglayers". All of the instruments cited are appropriate for the set "musical instruments which use a standing wave in an air column with fixed resonances excited by a nonlinear generator". As such principles applying to all members of that set can be correlated. For any characteristic not shared by all members of that set (i.e., shakuhachi as the only member of the set "musical instruments using a standing wave in an air column with fixed resonances defined by bamboo walls, end-blown and excited by a nonlinear generator in the form of an air reed which strikes an particular [shakuhachi-like] edge"), we would have to show that there is a distinct acoustic parameter of that subset that is significant to the question at hand and does not apply to instruments of the higher-order subset.

Taking this further, we could say that the principles don't apply to a 1.9, since it is distinguished by being 1 sun longer than a 1.8; therefore we are talking about a different animal.

If you are interested (and Tairaku doesn't close this thread), we can go on and have a merry discussion about why the cited scientific studies done on trombones, flutes and clarinets do indeed apply to the shakuhachi.

Last edited by Toby (2011-01-29 21:49:51)

Offline

 

#118 2011-01-29 21:51:41

Toby
Shakuhachi Scientist
From: out somewhere circling the sun
Registered: 2008-03-15
Posts: 405

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Tairaku 太楽 wrote:

I just asked my wife who is an actual scientist (Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian, NASA, Pentagon) and outlined the argument to her. She says:

"Science isn't always right. You can come up with so many theories but it's the player that matters. If the player says 'this doesn't sound good' that's the end of the argument." wink

Whenever wives say something, it is always the end of the argument. If she'd like, I can give her the email addresses of Drs. Fletcher, Wolfe, Coltman and Scavone, and she can tell them that as well.

Offline

 

#119 2011-01-29 22:09:16

Karmajampa
Member
From: Aotearoa (NZ)
Registered: 2006-02-12
Posts: 574
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

My wife doesn't know and doesn't care !

K.


Kia Kaha !

Offline

 

#120 2011-01-29 22:10:29

Moran from Planet X
Member
From: Here to There
Registered: 2005-10-11
Posts: 1524
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Toby wrote:

Some years ago, I was invited to an exhibition of flutes by Shinzan. There were about 50 1.8's there and I played many of them. The most expensive was about $50,000, an incredible piece of bamboo. The cheapest was a rather ugly piece, much lighter, for $3000. They played the same, or nearly so.

And this is a scientific experiment ... how?

Toby may be dead-on in his assessment. I know Riley and a few other masters have said that flutes by respected makers beyond the $3,000 or $4,000 level aren't necessarily any better than the those same makers flutes in the $7,000 - $10,000 (and up) range.  Aesthetics and reputation have a tremendous value in instrument making of any kind, especially shakuhachi. There is nothing new there.

But the problem with the "played the same, or nearly so" statement is that maybe Toby is 1.) an average player with a tin ear,  2.) an average player with a good ear;  3.) a mediocre player with a good ear or 4.) a mediocre player with a tin ear. (No disrespect to tin, of course.)  How are we to know?

Okay, Maybe Toby could be a great player with a great ear, but there is no common evidence of that either — even if he had a Shihan or Dai Shihan licence, because that too relies on a great degree of subjective opinion and style preferences.

So how can we take Toby's assessment at anything but face value that a particular flute player (Toby, in this case) doesn't perceive any difference in playing a moderately expensive flute ($3,000) from a VERY expensive flute ($50,000).

If the player (Toby, in this case) doesn't perceive it, he doesn't perceive it. Other players might perceive quite essential and subtle differences according to their art.


"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I am all out of bubblegum." —Rowdy Piper, They Live!

Offline

 

#121 2011-01-29 22:18:04

Toby
Shakuhachi Scientist
From: out somewhere circling the sun
Registered: 2008-03-15
Posts: 405

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Tairaku 太楽 wrote:

Toby wrote:

It is important to note that not a single post by those who take the "materials matter" position in this thread has demonstrated a full understanding of the actual research which has been carried out over the last century and a half in regard to this topic, or a careful analysis/synthesis of the results of that research. It shows, in a way, a basic disrespect and disregard for the efforts of a lot of very bright, highly educated and talented people who have dedicated their lives to further the understanding of this and related issues. I'm happy to sit here and try to be an interpreter for what they are saying, but at the end of the day, if you are really interested in getting more understanding, you will have to do what I did: roll up your sleeves and get dirty by actually reading all the literature available and getting at least a basic understanding of the physics involved. Otherwise this is all parlor-room chatter.

Right, and we must all read Isaac Newton to know that it's a dumb idea to let go of an anvil we are holding directly above our foot?

Your comment is condescending. The norm in shakuhachi is to believe that the bamboo combined with design and craftsmanship of the maker creates a great shakuhachi. You and a few other people are trying to eliminate the bamboo from this simple equation, thus the burden of proof is upon you, not those of us who think the bamboo does matter. Until there are actual examples which prove that point nothing has been proven and the default position remains valid.

Where are these superior flutes made of other materials?

I am a fan of the Yuu and I like Colyn's wood flute and those of Peter Ross and David Brown. But they're as good as $2000 bamboo flutes, not the premium Kindo, Shiro or Inoue flutes.

I have really nice bamboo composite flutes made by Inoue Shigeshi. They are not as good as the traditional shakuhachi I have by the same maker. If Shigeshi could not do it (one of the greatest makers of the last 50 years) what makes you think anyone else will do it?

I thought hypotheses require proof?

Ah, the gloves are off...

My comment is no more condescending that those that argue out of hand that material matters without considering all the evidence at hand. Nor do I care about convention or norms of belief if there is evidence that they are in error.

Sacred cows die hard. I am citing hard scientific evidence, and there is lots of it and it is consistent, whether that is convenient or not. It wasn't for Galileo, for instance, where the norm was to believe that the earth was the center of the universe, around which all else rotated.

There are countless reasons why there are no great shakuhachi made out of material other than bamboo. We've been over most of them. First, one must define "great", and that might include the tautology that a great shakuhachi is made of bamboo. Second, as we have seen from our "burden of proof", no judgment can be made about the effect of the material until we can discount any effect of dimensional difference. Before continuing the argument about the composite flutes made by Inoue, please provide detailed bore measurements for one of your great flutes and one of the composite flutes, down to .01mm. Let's compare those first and see if we have a level playing field.

I have traditional shakuhachi by a number of very good makers, and they are all different. Are we now going to attribute the difference to subtle differences in the bamboo grown is Yamanashi or Sado, or it is more logical to conclude that perhaps they have different bore structures? And since I have made flutes of very different quality out of very similar bamboo, how does that fit into the paradigm? The bamboo does not make the flute--the flutemaker makes the flute, and he makes every one different. Are you arguing then that there is not a single Inoue bamboo flute of playing quality lesser than his best composite flute?

My wife does tea ceremony, and sometimes I accompany her to the store where they sell items for it. Sometimes I see tea bowls that are very similar. One costs $10,000 and the other $100. I daresay that if I closed my eyes the tea would taste the same out of either of them, although with my eyes open the experience of drinking the tea might well be very different.

Do you remember the story about the wine drinkers? People who believed that a wine was rare and expensive not only reported that they enjoyed the wine more than an ordinary wine, but fMRI scans showed that the pleasure centers of their brains were more active: they were literally having a different physiological and perceptive experience, even though the wines were exactly the same, and they drank them one after another.

Hypotheses do require experimental verification, which is why the burden of proof is on you to come up with two identical flutes in different materials and show that you can distinguish between them in randomiozed trials on the basis of sound and response alone, in blind conditions in which you have no tactile or visual clues as to which is which.

Until you can and do, I will go with and defend the numbers and the studies that generate them, rather than any norms of belief or tradition.

Last edited by Toby (2011-01-29 22:21:44)

Offline

 

#122 2011-01-29 22:23:24

Moran from Planet X
Member
From: Here to There
Registered: 2005-10-11
Posts: 1524
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Karmajampa wrote:

I wouldn't euthenase my Grandmother !

'tea' anyone ?

You know, my brother would have euthanized our grandmother if he had been able.

But the idea of tea sounds lovely.

smile smile smile


"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I am all out of bubblegum." —Rowdy Piper, They Live!

Offline

 

#123 2011-01-29 22:31:12

Toby
Shakuhachi Scientist
From: out somewhere circling the sun
Registered: 2008-03-15
Posts: 405

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Moran from Planet X wrote:

Toby wrote:

Some years ago, I was invited to an exhibition of flutes by Shinzan. There were about 50 1.8's there and I played many of them. The most expensive was about $50,000, an incredible piece of bamboo. The cheapest was a rather ugly piece, much lighter, for $3000. They played the same, or nearly so.

And this is a scientific experiment ... how?

Toby may be dead-on in his assessment. I know Riley and a few other masters have said that flutes by respected makers beyond the $3,000 or $4,000 level aren't necessarily any better than the those same makers flutes in the $7,000 - $10,000 (and up) range.  Aesthetics and reputation have a tremendous value in instrument making of any kind, especially shakuhachi. There is nothing new there.

But the problem with the "played the same, or nearly so" statement is that maybe Toby is 1.) an average player with a tin ear,  2.) an average player with a good ear;  3.) a mediocre player with a good ear or 4.) a mediocre player with a tin ear. (No disrespect to tin, of course.)  How are we to know?

Okay, Maybe Toby could be a great player with a great ear, but there is no common evidence of that either — even if he had a Shihan or Dai Shihan licence, because that too relies on a great degree of subjective opinion and style preferences.

So how can we take Toby's assessment at anything but face value that a particular flute player (Toby, in this case) doesn't perceive any difference in playing a moderately expensive flute ($3,000) from a VERY expensive flute ($50,000).

If the player (Toby, in this case) doesn't perceive it, he doesn't perceive it. Other players might perceive quite essential and subtle differences according to their art.

There were subtle but noticeable differences between all the flutes. For my playing, there were other flutes that were better between those two.

Marcel Moyse, arguably the greatest concert flutist of the 20th century, or at least in the top few, played his entire career on a nickel flute. Georges Barrère, another in the top few, hated his platinum flute, but was resigned to playing it after Varèse wrote a highly-acclaimed piece for it, not to mention that he had to honor his endorsement contract with the maker (Haynes).

These guys played what worked for them. Play what works for you, drive the car that helps you win the race, but I suggest that you don't have to believe that red cars go faster (just because they are red).

Offline

 

#124 2011-01-29 22:34:55

Moran from Planet X
Member
From: Here to There
Registered: 2005-10-11
Posts: 1524
Website

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Toby wrote:

Until you can and do, I will go with and defend the numbers and the studies that generate them, rather than any norms of belief or tradition.

And G-d bless you Toby.

I'm sure Karl Popper is somewhere in looking down on you from Heaven —and a very, very high place in Heaven at that — and smiling right now.

http://dcairns.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/vlcsnap-497445.png


"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass...and I am all out of bubblegum." —Rowdy Piper, They Live!

Offline

 

#125 2011-01-29 22:58:19

Toby
Shakuhachi Scientist
From: out somewhere circling the sun
Registered: 2008-03-15
Posts: 405

Re: Do materials used affect sound?

Moran from Planet X wrote:

Toby wrote:

Until you can and do, I will go with and defend the numbers and the studies that generate them, rather than any norms of belief or tradition.

And G-d bless you Toby.

I'm sure Karl Popper is somewhere in looking down on you from Heaven —and a very, very high place in Heaven at that — and smiling right now.

http://dcairns.files.wordpress.com/2008 … 497445.png

Moran (is that spelled right?),

Your posts and words of wisdom always bring a smile. I'm sure that Marcel is smiling down upon you too. I always wondered what kind of sound his urinal would make if you blew it.

BTW I have a lovely antique ceramic xiao flute, probably about the same material that the urinal is made of, that is a copy of a bamboo xiao, right down to the narrowed scepta inside the (rough, unglazed) bore. It sounds very much like a bamboo xiao, but the sound is quite a bit duller and darker. Imagine that, ceramic duller and darker than bamboo! Just goes to show what happens with that pesky bore smoothness thing.

Offline

 

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson

Google