DMQuinn wrote:Some, and not just in this thread, have gone so far as to say that the material of the chanter has very little to do with its tone, although there doesn't seem to be universal agreement on this last point.
What conditions would need to be met in order to make an objective comparison of the effect of materials on tone quality?
Has this ever been done and reported upon?
Something like this has been done for flutes. John Coltman, a physicist whose papers are archived at Stanford
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Coltman/
did some comparisons between a flute made of cherry wood and one made of concrete; listeners (including experienced flute players) could not hear a difference.
I'm agnostic on this subject myself; I suspect the material might make a difference, but mainly in terms of how smooth it can be finished in the bore. A hard wood like blackwood or ebony finishes more smoothly than boxwood, for example, and I suspect the ever-so-slightly more rough surface of boxwood might set up some turbulence that affects the tone. But I think it would be well-nigh impossible to test, given the challenge of trying to produce two perfectly identical instruments to test.
Coltman sent me the following transcript of a talk he gave in 1997. Sorry for the weird line breaks:
Wind Instrument Materials and Tone Quality
I want to discuss briefly a subject that illustrates well the opposing
beliefs of musicians and scientists. Most musicians, and most listeners,
believe without question that the material of which a wind instrument is
made has a profound effect on its tone quality. A flute made of silver is a
requirement for any serious flutist, one made of gold is considered to
enhance further the lush tones of the artist who can afford it. On the
other hand, the metal clarinet is despised and consigned to the junk heap, while plastic ones are considered fit only for the student who cannot afford one made from the wood of the scarce mpingo tree.
Scientists, on the other hand, have long been skeptical of this view.
Examination of the physics of the situation reveals no evidence that the
walls of the wind instrument partake of an appreciable vibration. Quite a
number of experiments attempting to elucidate the effects been conducted over many years. Almost all of these have shown the effects to be non-existent. Let me give you a demonstration.
[DEMO -- two flutes, cherry wood and concrete]
Let me quote now from a 1916 work by Victor Mahillon, describing an early experience:
“Who does not know the brilliant sound of the cavalry trumpet? It would seem that if this same brilliance were produced in the same instrument totally constructed of wood, the error would disappear forever. Nothing of the sort. Over the years we have had the occasion to make heard almost every day, before a considerable number of instrumentalists, a trumpet of acacia wood constructed by Charles Mahillon to demonstrate the absurdity of an idea of which he was one of the leading adversaries. This instrument, constructed with the exact proportions of the cavalry trumpet, gives exactly the same brilliance as its equal in brass, to the degree that it is impossible to distinguish one from the other. Is this believed? We have astounded almost everybody, but have convinced
nobody! ”
Why is it, that 100 years later, the scientists have still convinced
nobody? Let me give you some thoughts.
First, it is certainly true that materials affect greatly the sound of
those instruments in which they are part of the acoustic mechanism, chiefly the string instruments. It is easy to assume that this is a general property of wall materials.
Second, there is the common mistake of confusing a correlation with cause -and - effect. I do not claim that a wooden flute sounds like a silver flute. This would be true only if the important acoustic dimensions, the smoothness of the interior surface, and the impermeability of the walls were identical. This is very difficult to achieve when the mechanical properties are so different. Naïve listeners often remark on the distinctive tone color of the baroque flute, and usually attribute it to the fact that it is made of wood.
If these were the only factors at work, it might not be difficult to get
general acceptance of the idea. But there is a third influence coming into
play -- the powerful psychological effect of association. Note that the
preferred materials are often expensive or rare ones, and have qualities of visual or tactual beauty that are in themselves appealing. My concrete flute is not likely to have a large market, whatever its tonal qualities might be.
We often prize things for their association, rather that for their intrinsic merit. Unknowingly, forged copies or imitations of Rembrandt
paintings have drawn appreciative critical comment - it is evident their
intrinsic merit is comparable, perhaps even superior, but once the forgery is discovered, their market value drops to an insignificant fraction of that of the real thing.
There is also the association with surrounding circumstances. A meal served on fine china, with silver place-settings, snowy table cloths, and floral centerpieces may be in fact be no more palatable or nourishing than one dished out with a thud on an aluminum plate in an Army mess – but somehow it really doesn’t taste the same!
Finally, there are the practical and traditional aspects of manufacture.
Student flutes are made of brass or nickel alloys because that is less
expensive. They are also mass-produced, with attendant lowering of quality.
A professional flute is carefully hand-crafted with attention to precision
fit and leak-free padding. Naturally, silver is selected as a base for such
work not only because it is easily worked by hand, but because it is
accepted as the standard for professional instruments. A fine wine is to be had only in bottles with corks - screw tops are instantly associated with cheap table wines, even though it could be argued that a screw top makes an inherently better seal.
While as a scientist, I am annoyed that few people believe me when I tell
them the tone quality of a wind instrument is not due to the material of
which it is made, I have come to realize that there is little harm done by
allowing the musicians to persist in their illusion. It was said of Dr.
Dayton C. Miller, one of the few scientists who was convinced of the
relationship, that when he played on his silver flute he was a fine flutist,
when he played on his gold flute, he was in inspired flutist. Perhaps it is
best that way.
John W. Coltman October, 1997