What is your favourite beginner flute? Has it been ousted?

[fluteguy18]

I leave for a while, and a post pops up like this...LOL Interesting....

Indeed. We've missed you here.

[Silversorcerer]

Finally, I'll end with this: The '57 Chevy is a classic car which I greatly admire and have enjoyed driving in the past. A return to a classic car can be an interesting diversion, however, it's not a car I would want to use for my daily commute. I prefer the comfort and reliability of a more modern car with power steering, power windows, 8-way power seats, automatic transmission, A/C, and air bags for safety. Similarly, I prefer to play a flute with all the conveniences and ease of playing in tune. Now, if you like playing older flutes, then by all means do so, but that is not necessarily best for everyone else.

I won't address all the reasons why the automobile analogy is overly facile, but just let me simply ask which older flutes you have played and found to be difficult to play in tune with ensembles tuned to A=440Hz ? I admit that I am a novice, but if you are an expert you need to qualify that with experiences, since expertise is the sum of experiences. On the other hand if you are just repeating rumors, such as those that all seem to start with some rather ridiculous claims by Trevor Wye, then you may as well be reading a teleprompter. Have you actually inspected a dozen or more flutes made over 6 or 7 decades to identify differences in dimensions? When you have done both then you will have experiences that you can draw from rather than some dubious rumors. And there are others that have independently influenced flute design who are not associated with Cooper or Bennett. What about their ideas and contributions? What is so special about the Cooper club?

Here's another fellow that was surprised to see his suggestions taken seriously:
http://www.namm.org/library/oral-history/mark-thomas
Is this guy in the Cooper club?

[pied_piper]

I won't address all the reasons why the automobile analogy is overly facile, but just let me simply ask which older flutes you have played and found to be difficult to play in tune with ensembles tuned to A=440Hz ? I admit that I am a novice, but if you are an expert you need to qualify that with experiences, since expertise is the sum of experiences. On the other hand if you are just repeating rumors, such as those that all seem to start with some rather ridiculous claims by Trevor Wye, then you may as well be reading a teleprompter. Have you actually inspected a dozen or more flutes made over 6 or 7 decades to identify differences in dimensions? When you have done both then you will have experiences that you can draw from rather than some dubious rumors. And there are others that have independently influenced flute design who are not associated with Cooper or Bennett. What about their ideas and contributions? What is so special about the Cooper club?

Yes, the automobile analogy is simplistic, but valid nonetheless.

I never said the older flutes were difficult to play in tune. Flutists like Jean-Pierre Rampal, Geoffrey Gilbert, William Kincaid, Marcel Moyse, William Bennett, and Julius Baker all played flutes with pre-Cooper scales and they did so magnificently and with excellent intonation, however that was due to their skill, not their flutes. All flutes, even those with a Cooper-type scale, are not automatically in tune scale-wise. What I said was flutes built to the newer scales require less effort to play in tune.

I don't consider myself an expert in scales but I am very experienced having played flute since 1970 and repaired flutes since around 1974. For my primary flutes, I started on and old Artley, later I moved to an Armstrong 80, and later still to a Muramatsu AD which is built to a Cooper scale. During my repair career, I have play tested hundreds of older, pre-Cooper flutes including many Artleys, Armstrongs, Emersons, and Gemeinhardts as well as a number of other less well known brands. I've also played many recent, professional grade, newer scale flutes like Haynes, Powell, Brannen, Burkhart, Pearl, Altus, Sankyo, Miyazawa, upper-end Yamahas, and others. So, yes, I can speak with some authority on the greater ease of playing these in tune.

Trevor Wye and his contemporaries (Deveau, Cooper, Bennett, Spell, and others) ARE the experts. They are the only ones who have done scientific research into improving flute scales. Some worked together, some worked independently, but they all arrived at the the same conclusion that the scale of earlier flutes was less than ideal and they then set out to improve it. That they all converged onto similar findings is a major statement of their correctness. To discount their research as "ridiculous claims" is unfounded. Earlier, you alluded to a visual inspection where you could see no difference in the tone hole locations. A visual inspection is inadequate. The tone hole sizes, their location, and their chimney height require measurements with an accuracy of 0.1 mm and in some cases even 0.01 mm. You cannot make comparisons that accurate with a simple visual inspection.

You state that you are a novice. No problem there, everyone has to start someplace. However, until you put in the 10,000+ hours of flute practice that is required to become a truly competent flutist, you simply don't have the experience or skills needed to say that the Cooper scale and its derivatives are snake oil and no better than the old scale(s).

[Silversorcerer]

Piedpiper, I have asked you numerous questions, but instead of answering these questions you simply point to some nebulous qualifications that imply that people should accept an expert opinion that flies in the face of physical evidence. I'll ask you a few more questions but we'll assume from now on that these are just rhetorical questions, since you haven't really filled in too many of the previous blanks.

Since you've been repairing flutes since 1974, and therefore could easily be expected to see quite a few that would be older than 1974, how many of those flutes that you have inspected would substantiate this statement by Trevor Wye:

"As the orchestral pitch became higher in the 1930s, makers seemed to have shortened the head joint, but also, as time passed, made alterations to the existing scale by moving a few holes. Perhaps the reason why a complete revision of the scale was thought unnecessary was that the rise in pitch was too small, or perhaps the knowledge of how to achieve this was wanting. They should have calculated a new scale, but the method of calculation seems to have died with Boehm."


I've inspected probably a little less than 50 flutes that were made prior to 1974, and not a single one of them substantiate Wye's statement. All of them appear to have been built to scales mathematically derived to produce an equal temperament scale when tuned to A=440 (under conditions of constant temperature and pressure)

The person who made the statement above is either attempting a deliberate deception or has not done any kind of carefully measured studies of actual physical flutes. If what Wye says is true, it should be easily observable. But it is not observable at all. And this is an "expert" as you say. Well, OK, but I'd say that he is simply an expert via your opinion, not by careful study or any demonstration of careful study. He is certainly not a scientist. And neither was Albert Cooper a scientist. It appears he was a repairman with an incomplete knowledge of the instruments he was repairing and how these function and are built. Kudos to him for wishing to perfect a design, but he should realize that these instruments have to follow the laws of physics, and one of the most vexing laws of physics concerning the tuning and intonation all of the woodwind instruments has to do with the speed of sound varying with ambient temperature.

As you can see, by perusing this page, which definitely documents a law of physics that is recognized by all scientists, the influence of temperature variation is a significant contributing factor, if not an over-riding factor in the performance of a woodwind instrument regarding reliable intonation and pitch:

http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-pitchchange.htm


You would give the studies of Bennett (I'm not aware that Wye himself tinkered with the machines used by Bennett for his experiments) the weight of peer reviewed science, but they certainly are not science at all, let alone peer reviewed science. These studies are akin to a poorly informed fellow tinkering in his garage, which may or may not have been climate controlled.

Assuming he had typical climate control, the thermostats of which are designed to trigger the cooling and heating when a difference of 5 degrees F is detected, we can easily see that his results are next to meaningless if the temperature varied even just 5 degrees F. A 5 degree F variance will produce a deflection in pitch between 5 and 10 cents. So here is this fellow trying to determine where to locate the tone holes and all the while the temperature is going back and forth across the 5 degrees it takes to trigger his HVAC unit. That doesn't sound to me like the scientific method I learned. His controls are inadequate to produce the accuracy required for the corrections he is trying to make. This can't possibly lead to anything but superstitious revisions to the scale that he attempting to correct.

So really all of the validity of Cooper, Bennett, Wye, & Co. depends on constant temperature during the collection of data, and it could not have possibly been constant enough for the purposes. That's why competent makers, guild trained makers, people like Kurt Gemeinhardt, only one master removed from Boehm, would not pay much attention to Wye, Bennett, or Cooper. They know better than to trust observations made under variable conditions. Leaving intonation to pure mathematical calculations would produce more predictable and reliable results than data collected under such inconstant temperature conditions.

Another observation: If Wye, Cooper, Bennett & Co., were working with sufficiently constant conditions, which I do not think are adequately achievable in any case, and were truly adhering to the scientific method, they would arrive at a scale that worked and that would be that. But alas, the scale they are perfecting shifts in the sand over the decades they have been perfecting it. Have you seen the latest revision for 2012? It's there like the moving target that would inevitably result from studies done under conditions where slight temperature variations that result in significant pitch movements were ignored.

Let me tell you why I believe sufficiently constant temperature conditions will be impossible to achieve. The problem with an automated system (no human) is that while it might be more consistent than using hot human breath, is that the typical HVAC system is not capable of producing "constant temperature". The problem with using a breathing human is that the temperature of the air in the flute is constantly fluctuating. Can you show me anywhere that there is evidence of these so-called experts dealing with those problems in any scientifically acceptable way? If they can't cancel all of the variables except the position of the tone hole, then their tools are too crude to improve on the theoretical mathematics inherited from Boehm.

There are companies who had sufficient capital resources to engage in meaningful science. And the stakes of improved intonation will generally translate into a better product and therefore higher sales of that product. Musical instrument design is highly competitive, but mostly a done deal. Large companies, particularly C.G. Conn Ltd., had very well funded R&D departments capable of critical scientific study. I am quite certain that they were constantly engaged in such research for most of the 20th century. Conn was building quite a few of the state of the art electronic devices, spectroscopes, etc. that were being used to do their own research. It's not very likely that a tinker-guy like Bennett is going to find something that a well financed R&D department is going to miss.

There are many scientists who contributed greatly to the understanding and design of musical instruments. Lloyd Loar comes to mind first, but before him there was Ernst Chladni, and there are many others. Trevor Wye is not one of these people.

[JButky]

I've inspected probably a little less than 50 flutes that were made prior to 1974, and not a single one of them substantiate Wye's statement. All of them appear to have been built to scales mathematically derived to produce an equal temperament scale when tuned to A=440 (under conditions of constant temperature and pressure)

Out of curiosity, what is your inspection method to derive a scale at A=440. Can you show us your calculations? I'm assuming you've compared these pre 1974 flutes against post 1974 flutes? Or something declared as a "long scale" vs a "short scale".

One must also remember that scaling is a relative exercise and impossible for a single tube to play perfectly in tune in three registers. Refining a scale due to this acoustical requirement forced upon a single tube is a noble venture.

But please, what is your measurement/calculation routine? I am very curious

[fluteguy18]

Someone's playing with fire...

[Silversorcerer]

There are others who aren't in the Cooper Bennett cult;- and some are probably much more experienced than I am. If you wish to know more, just google flute scales and intonation and you'll see that scale preferences are quite subjective among pro players. There are blogs I could direct you to, but I am not promoting any one player or maker's ideas.

As far as pitch standard, if it's flatter than your flute;- turn up the AC, sharper;- turn up the heat. One can retune a flute from 440 to 442 simply by raising the temperature 7 degrees F.

I'll provide you a list of flutes, makers and their serial numbers that I compared for differences in scale. I'm not doing it immediately because I have to look through a number of image files and I really don't answer to anyone here as a task master. You could also do your own homework. What I looked for were differences in side by side comparisons of tone hole positions. I found few differences.

One that stands out is the earliest, a circa 1915 Bettoney-made Boston Wonder. It is longer than all of the other later flutes. The toneholes are proportionately wider spaced. It is most plausibly an A=435 scale, which was the old LP orchestra standard in the US in the early 20th century.

All but one of the later flutes are the same length, a few mm shorter and all have a different and shorter scale than the Boston Wonder. These include several later Bettoney models, a Pedler, a couple of early Arnolds and Bundy/Selmers, early and later Armstrongs, Artleys, Gemeinhardts, E.L. DeFords from the 70s, but no later Conn-Selmer products. The latest one that has the same scale as all of these is a Gemeinhardt from about 2012. There are only a few flutes that have any variation in this scale and those are the Bettoney flutes and the Pedler, and those two are the same. So there are two A=440 schemes, one that was clearly the most dominant.

The shortest flute, the single short exception compared was an early Emerson which is a few more mm shorter than the majority and it has a contracted scale with proportionately less space between the toneholes. Logically, the Emerson is higher pitched than 440, perhaps 442?.

There is not a single flute in the batch that is dimensioned like the A=435 Boston Wonder with a shortened head. Not a single one. If that was the way it was done, like Wye says, where are those flutes? Show me one. I can show you a large sampling with 100% that weren't made that way. So his basic premise at the beginning of his discussion is false. And the rest of the Cooper Bennett refinements reflect very subjective situations and experiences where tight scientific controls are simply not possible. At best, it is a "school of thought" regarding flute scales. It isn't the result of peer reviewed tightly controlled scientific method. And if you check the latest numbers at Wye's page, it's already been changed since 2012.

[JButky]

There are others who aren't in the Cooper Bennett cult;- and some are probably much more experienced than I am. If you wish to know more, just google flute scales and intonation and you'll see that scale preferences are quite subjective among pro players. There are blogs I could direct you to, but I am not promoting any one player or maker's ideas.

Trust me, I am quite well versed in the history and mechanics of flute and scaling design

I'll provide you a list of flutes, makers and their serial numbers that I compared for differences in scale.

It was a simple question. What methodology are you using to measure the scale length, looking at image files doesn't cut it. How have you typically measured these scaling to reach your conclusions?

One that stands out is the earliest, a circa 1915 Bettoney-made Boston Wonder. It is longer than all of the other later flutes. The toneholes are proportionately wider spaced. It is most plausibly an A=435 scale, which was the old LP orchestra standard in the US in the early 20th century.

Are you familiar with the Conn drawn tone hole patent, most notably, the LP Dec 8, 1914 and its historical significance regarding all of this?

The shortest flute, the single short exception compared was an early Emerson which is a few more mm shorter than the majority and it has a contracted scale with proportionately less space between the toneholes. Logically, the Emerson is higher pitched than 440, perhaps 442?.

Once again, what is your measurement criteria and methodology? Do you understand how a tone hole lattice design affects pitch and subsequently scaling and can vary even within the same length?

[cflutist]

Thank you Joe.

Too hot in the kitchen for me which is why I didn't engage.

[Silversorcerer]

Trust me, I am quite well versed in the history and mechanics of flute and scaling design

Then you understand what a "corps de rechange" is, and you realize that the existence of such is evidence that flute makers 150 years ago knew that any change in pitch standard required not only that the flute be able to be lengthened but also that the spacing between the tone-holes must also be increased? And you will no doubt be forced to agree with history that Boehm's book and design and mathematical explanations came after the practice of flutes made to play in several different standards of tuning by way of the "corps de rechange". Review the history and let me know what that tells you about Wye's statement that flute makers simply shortened the head of a 435 flute to get a 440 flute. It doesn't fit into the sequence of basic historical flute making acumen.

It was a simple question. What methodology are you using to measure the scale length, looking at image files doesn't cut it. How have you typically measured these scaling to reach your conclusions?

When I asked how and to what degree of precision Cooper and Bennett measured temperature, humidity, pressure, etc. in their unscientific investigations, that was also a simple question. Answer my simple question and I will answer yours. The flutes are in my possession. I can measure them any time and any way that I want to. It is easier for me to reference serial numbers from images than to physically open and go through around 50 flute cases. I put the serial numbers on the image files. Now if some flute company was paying me to measure old flutes, I might spend a few days with calipers with verniers, but for the purposes of generally identifying scales made to different pitch standards, a visual side-by-side inspection is more than sufficient. The human eye is a superb comparator of relative size and distance.

One that stands out is the earliest, a circa 1915 Bettoney-made Boston Wonder. It is longer than all of the other later flutes. The toneholes are proportionately wider spaced. It is most plausibly an A=435 scale, which was the old LP orchestra standard in the US in the early 20th century.

Are you familiar with the Conn drawn tone hole patent, most notably, the LP Dec 8, 1914 and its historical significance regarding all of this?

I have known of the Conn patent for drawn and rolled toneholes, mostly as it applies to saxophones. Suffice it to say that there are flutes in the group that have soldered tone holes and flutes that have drawn and cut tone holes and drawn and rolled tone holes. The type of tone hole does not seem to determine the location of the tone hole.

Once again, what is your measurement criteria and methodology? Do you understand how a tone hole lattice design affects pitch and subsequently scaling and can vary even within the same length?

Firstly, these small effects don't cause a 435 scale to be mistaken for a 440 scale. While there are small pitch effects, the primary lattice effects are timbre, not pitch, and not nearly as significant as the effect of inconstant temperature. Just as the Emerson flute that is shorter is obviously a different pitch standard, the difference between an A=435 flute and an A=440 is easily detectable in a visual side by side comparison. Think about what I said earlier about the "corpe de rechange". It's a similar situation. The corps was typically closely spaced pitch standards, not unlike 435 to 440. But one would not reach into the batch with calipers with verniers to get the right one. One would simply look for the small, medium, or large, so to speak.

To make any kind of decisions about tone hole placement based on latice effects would require the most rigorous of controlled laboratory environments, including absolutely constant temperature.

I'll tell you what tape measure I used when you tell me if and how Cooper and Bennett were able to keep a constant temperature of plus or minus 1 degree F. My guess is that these fellows were not doing science. Certainly not the way it was being done at Conn by fellows like this:
http://orgs.usd.edu/nmm/News/Newsletter ... earch.html

And for those who are interested in "peer reviewed science", here's some peer review for you:
http://www.justflutes.com/blog/in-my-opinion/

[JButky]

You are confusing too many issues to make anything in this conversation relevant. And FWIW I agree with you... at least about the RS2012. It is a good revision, but it falls under negligible because the differences are greater due to other factors that influence natural pitch variation. And temperature is not that big a deal for purposes of this discussion. In other words, you've got part of the basic idea, but the reasons are not really correct.

You need to discuss Scale length and effective sounding length, You cannot get to these with your tape measure. We are talking about proportions within a scale which is the difference between the two scales we are discussing. Within these scales there can be variation both from within the design itself and the effect the player places on it. (the player does complete the air column length and that does figure into the equations.)

It is pretty well known which flutes Haynes originally copied and their scales (the Lot and the Mendler)
and as the pitch standard was raised the scale was not adjusted until the 50's. Cooper merely experimented being aware of the problem to improve the scale. Elmer Cole went back to boehm and actually did new calculations to put scaling on a better footing. Landell was probably first, then Powell to introduce a scale modeled after Cooper's work. WIBB had Landell make a flute after he visited Cooper and brought a better scale to the US. But these were also copies... THAT'S WHAT FLUTE MAKER'S DID... COPY WHAT THEY KNEW WORKED. The Conn patent represent low pitch to be A=440, making the Haynes copied scale the wrong octave length and effective length for that pitch standard. You could play it in tune at that pitch standard, but it took effort. (Enter orchestral players affinity for alternate fingering, the Mariano school of embouchure development...all because of a long scale flute with a shortened headjoint to facilitate flutists getting to pitch they needed. )

You forget that Baroque flutes have a cross over frequency that is quite low, making a third register difficult. That comparison is just not on the table. The problem with a long scale flute and shortened headjoint is that the proportionally the left hand tone holes when acting as third register vents are too far north in the bore causing sharpness. (among other difficulties)

If you want to complain about scaling, just do it for the right reasons. IMNSHO where Wye and company got off the track is in using a static set and not considering affectual causes that change the internal proportions. (Temperature doesn't affect these internal proportions. There's an effect, but not an internal one). My gripe has always been that headjoint taper, embouchure hole size (volume), player interface. are never accounted for, mostly because the last one cannot be consistent and presents considerable variation when combined with the other two variables mentioned.

That being said, you can play any of those flute perfectly well in tune with ease at the pitch they were designed to be played. The more you deviate, the harder it gets. There is ONLY ONE optimal location for a headjoint draw for any given player to match the scaling of the rest of the flute. ANY deviation from that optimal point requires a level of gymnastics by the player and is proportional to the amount of deviation.

The reason I asked you what you were measuring is because temperature is not where it's at, nor is a tape measure. You need to consider a lot of factors and calculations.

Give me two identical tubes of equal length and I can make you two flutes that differ by as much as a semitone! You HAVE to get those calculations right. In a 3 octave flute, it will never be perfect. We all have to play with different internal scales even if the pitch standard is correct. But the initial work of
rescaling to higher pitch standards was commendable. RS2012 is not that and justly criticized. But let us not confuse all the issues here..

[Phineas]

Ok, I am go to engage in this.....probably for the wrong reason, but here it goes.....all in love friends....

1. I can appreciate this discussion from a scientific point of view. However, what does this have to do with the original subject. I kind of took this thread as an attempt to have some fun and bring back memories of our first flutes.

2. Scale Schmail. In the end, if you suck, the scale of the flute will not help you one way or the other. I have heard great players play on cheap flutes that were not made with any kind of precision. I have a flute made of sugar cane with holes burnt in it. I have never had any complaints about the scale of it. It just sounds nice.

3. Unless you play with a tuner, who cares what pitch the flute is. Most of the time we do not play with a tuner in our face. Granted, modern flutes are easier to play in tune. This does not mean that you cannot play on an older one. I own and play on a Sopranino Saxophone. With some practice, I was able to consistently play that instrument in tune. I was not that hard, just required a little practice. It would be the same if I had a flute with a strange scale.

4. How many times have you played in an environment that was exactly 75 degrees F. Even if the thermostat say 75F, just the presents of people around you will change the temperature near where you are playing.

5. If you are going to play smart, and hijack a thread with techno babble. At least have your stuff together. I really can not stand when beginners get on here and try to be smart with bad or incomplete information. The guilty parties know who they are and it is not JButky!

In my life travels, I have met players that knew a lot of useless facts, and use them as a excuse for why they cannot perform. It is a bunch of bull. If you cannot perform something well enough under many different conditions, you need to practice more...PERIOD! Practice time beats techno babble time any day of the week.

JUST PLAY THE D**N THANG!!!!....Gee

Now back to the topic.

[cflutist]

Ok, I am go to engage in this.....probably for the wrong reason, but here it goes.....all in love friends....

5. If you are going to play smart, and hijack a thread with techno babble. At least have your stuff together. I really can not stand when beginners get on here and try to be smart with bad or incomplete information. The guilty parties know who they are and it is not JButky!

In my life travels, I have met players that knew a lot of useless facts, and use them as a excuse for why they cannot perform. It is a bunch of bull. If you cannot perform something well enough under many different conditions, you need to practice more...PERIOD! Practice time beats techno babble time any day of the week.

JUST PLAY THE D**N THANG!!!!....Gee

Now back to the topic.

And it is not FG18 or PP either as both have music degrees and a lifetime of flute performance. They along with Joe B have my upmost respect.

[Phineas]

And it is not FG18 or PP either as both have music degrees and a lifetime of flute performance. They along with Joe B have my upmost respect.

There are quite a few more on the board as well. Including yourself cflutist.

[flutego12]

And it is not FG18 or PP either as both have music degrees and a lifetime of flute performance. They along with Joe B have my upmost respect.

And mine. I second cflutist in having the utmost respect for pied pier, Joe B, fluteguy18, mirwa, Phineas ... in their flute expertise. These guys know what they are talking about and do so with the utmost patience and respect for the individual.