Barrel length and tonehone placement
Moderators: Classitar, pied_piper, Phineas
-
fluteguy18
- Posts: 2311
- Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:11 pm
Re: Barrel length and tonehone placement
The wisdom on this board continues to amaze me. Joe, I hope that after I have the same amount of time at the repair bench that you do that I will be half as knowledgable. I never would have thought about measuring it that way though my thoughts were along the same line (just without the know-how).
Re: Barrel length and tonehone placement
I can only guarantee that you will be OLD by then... And not half as old either...fluteguy18 wrote:Joe, I hope that after I have the same amount of time at the repair bench that you do that I will be half as knowledgable.
but more than likely you'll be more knowledgeable by the time you reach my age and years at the bench!
Don't Forget. Knowledge is easy, Wisdom is what's hard!
Joe B
-
Silversorcerer
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:36 pm
Re: Barrel length and tonehone placement
I am quite new to this forum, but not to the general concepts and mathematics of musical instrument intonation concerning length and relative length. I have made some observations directly by comparing examples of vintage flutes and 1 very recent flute from various US makers. These are my thoughts and observations:
1) Thinking that one can adjust all of the pitches of a woodwind instrument simply by increasing or decreasing the total length of the instrument is tantamount to thinking one can put a guitar into various correctly intonated scales simply by moving the bridge without similarly moving every single fret by the same proportion. This is a ridiculous idea and I find it somewhat incredible that any Guilded instrument maker entertained this notion. Perhaps this happened, but I must doubt it. The tuning slide on any woodwind instrument will only tune a single selected note, and this has probably been common knowledge among instrument makers for hundreds of years. Within the range of the tuning slide, one can fudge the instrument, but just like a guitar with a misplaced bridge, as one moves up the length toward the higher notes, the further away from precise intonation these will be. On a guitar, one would need to bend all the notes except the open strings. The optimum intonation of an instrument is built to a pitch standard when a woodwind instrument is made. Move the pitch standard and for practical purposes all previous instruments are obsolete and new instruments must be built and bought to support the new bureaucratically selected standard pitch. Adoption of the A=440 standard made all A=435 woodwind instruments obsolete. Moving the standard to 442 or 444 would render all of the 440 instruments obsolete as well, or at least would compromise their performance capabilities significantly.
2) The barrel length is largely irrelevant as long as the head and body seal and the flute stays together.
3) I have a 1961 Gemeinhardt M-1 that I compared to my newer, probably 2011, KGB ltd. This KGB ltd. is so late that it's production series is not yet documented on the Gemeinhardt serial look-up page. If I align the low C tone holes on these flutes, the positions of the other tone holes match up all the way to the top. If there is any difference it is so slight that my eye does not pick it up. It would amount to fractions of mms if it exists at all.
4) If I place a mid 1960s Artley and a mid 1970s Armstrong 80, and a 1970 DeFord next to these two Gemeinhardts, there is no easily detectable difference in tone hole placement on any of these flutes. If there are differences, they would measure in fractions of mms. With a mid century Pedler flute, there are only slight differences in the spacing of the top 3 or 4 holes while the length between the top hole and bottom hole is the same as on the other flutes.
5) I have a few Bettoney flutes from different eras. One is a Boston Wonder, circa 1920. That is the only flute I have that is longer and has very differently placed tone holes. The Boston Wonder is apparently designed to the old European Concert pitch of A=435. Coincidentally it has a serial # of A 435! The other Bettoney (Cadets and one Columbia) flutes are shorter, but still have different tonehole placement from the more modern flutes mentioned above. These are also shorter overall than the later flutes by a mm or so. Comparing the early Boston Wonder and a later Cadet shows that the Boston Wonder is longer and that the shorter Cadet is shortened everywhere all up the scale. It has a completely adjusted tone hole placement, not just a shortened head joint or shortened end. I do not know the pitch standard these Cadets were built to, but I think all of these Bettoneys are pre-WWII. These are most likely intended to be A=440.
6) The tonehole placement of the shorter Bettoneys is not the same as any of the Artley, Armstrong, Gemeinhardt, or DeFord flutes. Bettoney went their own path apparently in making the adjustment to A=440, but my observation seems to support that the entire scale was adjusted, just not precisely the same way other manufacturers adjusted their scales. Bettoney, perhaps Pedler also appear to be the only major US makers that did anything different. Bettoney went out of business in the 1950's, Pedler the 1960s?
7) Most of my flutes were purchased in need of new pads, however the DeFord, the Artley, the Armstrong 80, and the KGB ltd. are all in good playable condition and I have only repadded the M-1 so far, thus auditory comparisons have been restricted to these flutes. While they each have a different voice, they intonate similarly as would be expected. All of the Bettoneys need new pads as does the Pedler, but the observations of the dimensions of these is not unexpected when compared to the very obviously A=435 Boston Wonder. But certainly most significant is that in the manufacturing of a truly large majority of US built flutes, there has been very little or no change in the dominant scale used for decades. Not since at least 1961 for Gemeinhardt, not since at least 1962 for Artley, and not since at least 1949 for Armstrong, not since 1969 for DeFord. I will soon obtain an early Emerson for comparison as well. The shocking finding, IMO, is not the consistency in the vintage flutes of the post war era, but in the consistency of the very recent KGB ltd. model with those earlier flutes.
Eight) I will attempt soon to obtain a "Cooper Scale" marked French Buffet-Crampon flute, which I will also compare to these others and see how it fits into the picture.
Suffice it to say that if the 1961 Gemeinhardt has a poorly intonated scale, so do the vast majority of flutes built in the US since 1961. Whatever the changes since then, these would have to be measured in micrometers to be positively identified.
Modern changes in pitch standards appear to be somewhat like daylight savings time. I have never heard a compelling reason for adoption of A=440, let alone adoption of A=442, or A=444 as international standards. Derivation of A=435 goes back to the time of Bach when C was pegged at 256 Hz. C 256 is the result of successive doubling of 1Hz, so the value has a foundation in math, albeit an arbitrary one that depends on the definitions of the divisions in time. Deriving A from C 256 can yield different values depending on whether one uses just harmonic relations or equal temperament. One can get values from 430ish to 435ish. In some places in old Europe, A=432 is the orchestra pitch standard to this day.
And one must ask, just when was that oboe built that I hear the orchestra tuning up to each time I go to the symphony? How many orchestras actually are playing at A=435? If vintage Cabart oboes are acceptable in the orchestra, then why not A=435 flutes? These are good questions to consider.
1) Thinking that one can adjust all of the pitches of a woodwind instrument simply by increasing or decreasing the total length of the instrument is tantamount to thinking one can put a guitar into various correctly intonated scales simply by moving the bridge without similarly moving every single fret by the same proportion. This is a ridiculous idea and I find it somewhat incredible that any Guilded instrument maker entertained this notion. Perhaps this happened, but I must doubt it. The tuning slide on any woodwind instrument will only tune a single selected note, and this has probably been common knowledge among instrument makers for hundreds of years. Within the range of the tuning slide, one can fudge the instrument, but just like a guitar with a misplaced bridge, as one moves up the length toward the higher notes, the further away from precise intonation these will be. On a guitar, one would need to bend all the notes except the open strings. The optimum intonation of an instrument is built to a pitch standard when a woodwind instrument is made. Move the pitch standard and for practical purposes all previous instruments are obsolete and new instruments must be built and bought to support the new bureaucratically selected standard pitch. Adoption of the A=440 standard made all A=435 woodwind instruments obsolete. Moving the standard to 442 or 444 would render all of the 440 instruments obsolete as well, or at least would compromise their performance capabilities significantly.
2) The barrel length is largely irrelevant as long as the head and body seal and the flute stays together.
3) I have a 1961 Gemeinhardt M-1 that I compared to my newer, probably 2011, KGB ltd. This KGB ltd. is so late that it's production series is not yet documented on the Gemeinhardt serial look-up page. If I align the low C tone holes on these flutes, the positions of the other tone holes match up all the way to the top. If there is any difference it is so slight that my eye does not pick it up. It would amount to fractions of mms if it exists at all.
4) If I place a mid 1960s Artley and a mid 1970s Armstrong 80, and a 1970 DeFord next to these two Gemeinhardts, there is no easily detectable difference in tone hole placement on any of these flutes. If there are differences, they would measure in fractions of mms. With a mid century Pedler flute, there are only slight differences in the spacing of the top 3 or 4 holes while the length between the top hole and bottom hole is the same as on the other flutes.
5) I have a few Bettoney flutes from different eras. One is a Boston Wonder, circa 1920. That is the only flute I have that is longer and has very differently placed tone holes. The Boston Wonder is apparently designed to the old European Concert pitch of A=435. Coincidentally it has a serial # of A 435! The other Bettoney (Cadets and one Columbia) flutes are shorter, but still have different tonehole placement from the more modern flutes mentioned above. These are also shorter overall than the later flutes by a mm or so. Comparing the early Boston Wonder and a later Cadet shows that the Boston Wonder is longer and that the shorter Cadet is shortened everywhere all up the scale. It has a completely adjusted tone hole placement, not just a shortened head joint or shortened end. I do not know the pitch standard these Cadets were built to, but I think all of these Bettoneys are pre-WWII. These are most likely intended to be A=440.
6) The tonehole placement of the shorter Bettoneys is not the same as any of the Artley, Armstrong, Gemeinhardt, or DeFord flutes. Bettoney went their own path apparently in making the adjustment to A=440, but my observation seems to support that the entire scale was adjusted, just not precisely the same way other manufacturers adjusted their scales. Bettoney, perhaps Pedler also appear to be the only major US makers that did anything different. Bettoney went out of business in the 1950's, Pedler the 1960s?
7) Most of my flutes were purchased in need of new pads, however the DeFord, the Artley, the Armstrong 80, and the KGB ltd. are all in good playable condition and I have only repadded the M-1 so far, thus auditory comparisons have been restricted to these flutes. While they each have a different voice, they intonate similarly as would be expected. All of the Bettoneys need new pads as does the Pedler, but the observations of the dimensions of these is not unexpected when compared to the very obviously A=435 Boston Wonder. But certainly most significant is that in the manufacturing of a truly large majority of US built flutes, there has been very little or no change in the dominant scale used for decades. Not since at least 1961 for Gemeinhardt, not since at least 1962 for Artley, and not since at least 1949 for Armstrong, not since 1969 for DeFord. I will soon obtain an early Emerson for comparison as well. The shocking finding, IMO, is not the consistency in the vintage flutes of the post war era, but in the consistency of the very recent KGB ltd. model with those earlier flutes.
Eight) I will attempt soon to obtain a "Cooper Scale" marked French Buffet-Crampon flute, which I will also compare to these others and see how it fits into the picture.
Suffice it to say that if the 1961 Gemeinhardt has a poorly intonated scale, so do the vast majority of flutes built in the US since 1961. Whatever the changes since then, these would have to be measured in micrometers to be positively identified.
Modern changes in pitch standards appear to be somewhat like daylight savings time. I have never heard a compelling reason for adoption of A=440, let alone adoption of A=442, or A=444 as international standards. Derivation of A=435 goes back to the time of Bach when C was pegged at 256 Hz. C 256 is the result of successive doubling of 1Hz, so the value has a foundation in math, albeit an arbitrary one that depends on the definitions of the divisions in time. Deriving A from C 256 can yield different values depending on whether one uses just harmonic relations or equal temperament. One can get values from 430ish to 435ish. In some places in old Europe, A=432 is the orchestra pitch standard to this day.
And one must ask, just when was that oboe built that I hear the orchestra tuning up to each time I go to the symphony? How many orchestras actually are playing at A=435? If vintage Cabart oboes are acceptable in the orchestra, then why not A=435 flutes? These are good questions to consider.
-
Silversorcerer
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 6:36 pm
Re: Barrel length and tonehone placement
I have now compared an Emerson, oval monogram on body model, serial # 12785 - 1, student flute to the group of flutes in my previous post. From various posts on this board concerning the Emerson line, this is apparently an Emerson from the production period prior to 1987. Because these were designed by Emerson DeFord, I compared this flute directly to the E L Deford for Bruno flute, # 1155. The scale is shorter, indeed when the head joints are all the way inserted, the entire Emerson flute is shorter than the Deford.
The scale: On the Emerson, the distance from the center of the top tone hole to the center of the bottom tone hole is 35.5 cm. On the DeFord this distance is 36 cm. This is a substantial difference in the scale length of the two instruments. Laying these side by side it is easy to see that distance between all the holes has been contracted proportionately on the Emerson. This might imply that while these are designed using similar mathematics, they are designed to a different pitch standard. The headjoints are identical dimensions;- it is the flute body where all the shortening was done in the design. Apparently whatever pitch standard the DeFords of the early 70's were built to, the Emersons of the 1980's were built using a higher pitch standard? Curiously when the head joints are completely inserted, the distance from the riser hole center to the top tone hole is the same on these two flutes. This would seem to indicate that not only was the pitch standard different, but also that the Emerson flute would play flatter as one ascends the scale than the DeFord flute. E.L. DeFord did indeed change something about the way the Emerson flutes are scaled when he began building the Emerson line;- flatter at the top, sharper at the bottom.
This brings the number of pitch standards I have identified in USA made flutes to 3 total, all seeming to be linked to period of manufacture. There is the pitch standard represented by the 1915 era Boston Wonder, which is quite plausibly A= 435/432. There is the pitch standard of the bulk of flutes made post-WWII, which is quite plausibly A=440. And now there is the pitch standard represented by the 1980's Emerson, which can only be a pitch standard above A=440. Given the substantial difference in dimension, I would guess this is an A=444 flute? Just a guess. It needs pads, so I can't put it up against a tuner yet. If the head joint is brought out so that the Emerson matches the total length of the DeFord, so that the lowest pitches would match, the upper end of the Emerson would be markedly flatter than the DeFord. If this adjustment were meant to correct the scale design while maintaining A=440, then the earlier and predominant flute scale must have been considerably sharp in the high end of the scale.
The Emerson is earlier than the Gemeinhardt KGB special by two decades at least, however it is designed to a higher pitch standard? The latest Gemeinhardt in the comparison group is pitched to what is most plausibly the same A=440 standard and scaled the same as most of the earlier post-WWII flutes. Either Gemeinhardt does not anticipate the largest instrument market (USA) switching away from the A=440 standard, or they are just a bit recalcitrant when it comes to changing what might have been considered a proven design.
And quite frankly, I can see some wisdom in Gemeinhardt's conservatism regarding this issue. Until I see some compelling reason for changing pitch standards, I question whether these changes are about anything other than planned obsolescence. The reason for adopting 440 was presumably so that all orchestras would be on the same page, so to speak. However this was not a page that anyone was on to start with. It was an entirely new standard with no foundation. And now what is the reason for moving the pitch standard upwards again? The true result of moving everyone to A=440 was that both previous high pitch and low pitch woodwind instruments were obsolesced. And the true result of moving the standard upwards again is that all A=440 instruments are again obsolesced. If that is the case, such pitch standard mandates should be resisted not only by manufacturers, but by musicians and ensembles alike. Can anyone tell us why A=444 is any more desirable a standard than A=440 or A=435? If we truly just want everyone on the same page, shouldn't we stay on the same page once we have achieved that? The shifting sand of the pitch standard is daunting. One could have a wonderfully voiced older instrument that is rendered useless. Why?
I am still looking for a Buffet "Cooper scaled" flute, which I anticipate to be similarly dimensioned/scaled to the Emerson. If someone has one of these, I welcome the posting of the relevant dimensions. If my guess is the case, kudos to E. L. DeFord for being decades ahead of the game. And so that there is no confusion about how the flutes are pitched, he changed the name of his company 3 times! I should also note that in other manufacturing details the Emerson is identical to the DeFord of a decade earlier. The two headjoints could easily get mixed up if the Emerson didn't have an alignment slash. The keys, rails, indeed most of the keywork details are identical on Emersons and DeFords with only very minor differences in the key shapes of the foot joints and the backside thumb keys.
More later.
The scale: On the Emerson, the distance from the center of the top tone hole to the center of the bottom tone hole is 35.5 cm. On the DeFord this distance is 36 cm. This is a substantial difference in the scale length of the two instruments. Laying these side by side it is easy to see that distance between all the holes has been contracted proportionately on the Emerson. This might imply that while these are designed using similar mathematics, they are designed to a different pitch standard. The headjoints are identical dimensions;- it is the flute body where all the shortening was done in the design. Apparently whatever pitch standard the DeFords of the early 70's were built to, the Emersons of the 1980's were built using a higher pitch standard? Curiously when the head joints are completely inserted, the distance from the riser hole center to the top tone hole is the same on these two flutes. This would seem to indicate that not only was the pitch standard different, but also that the Emerson flute would play flatter as one ascends the scale than the DeFord flute. E.L. DeFord did indeed change something about the way the Emerson flutes are scaled when he began building the Emerson line;- flatter at the top, sharper at the bottom.
This brings the number of pitch standards I have identified in USA made flutes to 3 total, all seeming to be linked to period of manufacture. There is the pitch standard represented by the 1915 era Boston Wonder, which is quite plausibly A= 435/432. There is the pitch standard of the bulk of flutes made post-WWII, which is quite plausibly A=440. And now there is the pitch standard represented by the 1980's Emerson, which can only be a pitch standard above A=440. Given the substantial difference in dimension, I would guess this is an A=444 flute? Just a guess. It needs pads, so I can't put it up against a tuner yet. If the head joint is brought out so that the Emerson matches the total length of the DeFord, so that the lowest pitches would match, the upper end of the Emerson would be markedly flatter than the DeFord. If this adjustment were meant to correct the scale design while maintaining A=440, then the earlier and predominant flute scale must have been considerably sharp in the high end of the scale.
The Emerson is earlier than the Gemeinhardt KGB special by two decades at least, however it is designed to a higher pitch standard? The latest Gemeinhardt in the comparison group is pitched to what is most plausibly the same A=440 standard and scaled the same as most of the earlier post-WWII flutes. Either Gemeinhardt does not anticipate the largest instrument market (USA) switching away from the A=440 standard, or they are just a bit recalcitrant when it comes to changing what might have been considered a proven design.
And quite frankly, I can see some wisdom in Gemeinhardt's conservatism regarding this issue. Until I see some compelling reason for changing pitch standards, I question whether these changes are about anything other than planned obsolescence. The reason for adopting 440 was presumably so that all orchestras would be on the same page, so to speak. However this was not a page that anyone was on to start with. It was an entirely new standard with no foundation. And now what is the reason for moving the pitch standard upwards again? The true result of moving everyone to A=440 was that both previous high pitch and low pitch woodwind instruments were obsolesced. And the true result of moving the standard upwards again is that all A=440 instruments are again obsolesced. If that is the case, such pitch standard mandates should be resisted not only by manufacturers, but by musicians and ensembles alike. Can anyone tell us why A=444 is any more desirable a standard than A=440 or A=435? If we truly just want everyone on the same page, shouldn't we stay on the same page once we have achieved that? The shifting sand of the pitch standard is daunting. One could have a wonderfully voiced older instrument that is rendered useless. Why?
I am still looking for a Buffet "Cooper scaled" flute, which I anticipate to be similarly dimensioned/scaled to the Emerson. If someone has one of these, I welcome the posting of the relevant dimensions. If my guess is the case, kudos to E. L. DeFord for being decades ahead of the game. And so that there is no confusion about how the flutes are pitched, he changed the name of his company 3 times! I should also note that in other manufacturing details the Emerson is identical to the DeFord of a decade earlier. The two headjoints could easily get mixed up if the Emerson didn't have an alignment slash. The keys, rails, indeed most of the keywork details are identical on Emersons and DeFords with only very minor differences in the key shapes of the foot joints and the backside thumb keys.
More later.