Ok, I play guitar, I own a few hand made boxes. Guess what, they all have
different woods and finishes. Can I tell the difference, you bet. Soft woods
absorb vibrations, harder woods are more reflective. Some louder (S.
American woods), curly maple brighter, poly finishes set the structure of
the cells. What you hear is what you will hear as it ages. No finish, is
best for aging wood. The cells change with use (vibrations) and practice,
environment, (drying) and age. All contributing to the wonderful warmth of
an old instrument. The best sounding boxes use thin walls with little
bracing, to enhance the vibrations of the strings and wood. Not too
practical if you don't want cracking. Swelling and shrinking will also
effect the tuning ..... And getting into air flow ...a symmetrical cylinder
(not taking length into this factor) is going to be less chaotic, air flow
much more predictable, less nuances. An asymmetrical cylinder is going to be
less predictable in the way the air bounces around, also velocity is less
predictable, more unusual nuances. Is it only air that bounces within those
chambers? In a guitar, strings make sounds, (sound is vibration) amplified
by a wooden box which vibrates( remember sound is vibration), so the total
makeup of the instrument vibrates, and what do we get, sound. If I remember
my physics correctly, if I create vibrations at so many cycles I can create
the color red. So with my logic the matter which vibrates (material used in
instrument) will add to the color of the sound, reminding myself that sound
is vibration. Therefore I can conclude that the less dense the material is,
the more likely it will vibrate, and the more likely this material will add
to the color of the sound( air flow), again reminding myself that sound is
vibration. The big question here is not what causes sound, but what sound we
feel is best. And I feel that is a combination of vibrations(again
vibration is sound) and player who gives life, breath, energy, vibration, to
a now vibrating instrument ..... bingo...... we get a beautiful sound. I
feel all parts of the equation vibrate, all parts effect the whole. The
question is do we like the whole, and how refined are we when it comes down
to judging so many different beautiful sounds. At this point we add taste to
the equation. And there is no accounting for taste. coree
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter" <shakahuna@yahoo.com>
To: <shakuhachi@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 1:17 AM
Subject: material and sound
> I also didn't check this account for a few days and found 48 messages.
> Looks like we've found a controversial topic here. Peter Ross and Brian
> Ritchey pretty much summed up my experience, so I'm really just
> seconding their eloquently expressed thoughts on the matter, for what
> that's worth (2 cents, do I hear 3 cents, 3 cents anyone?). I know I
> can hear a difference due to materials, but the other argument, that
> they don't matter, is very convincing as well, but more to my head than
> my ears. If there were fifty cast-bore shakuhachi makers out there
> instead of a few, perhaps the difference would be clearer. As it is,
> cast-bore flutes always sound purer, less complex to me. And wood ones
> sound heavier. One possibility that hasn't been brought up: bamboo
> (which is a grass, not a wood), unlike any of the other materials
> discussed, consists of parallel fibers running longitudinally, right?
> Perhaps that has something to do with the special sound, along with the
> much greater porosity of ji over resin or wood--note that non-porosity
> was a stipulation for the difference of material not affecting the
> acoustic properties. Just a hypothesis, but my experience, like Brian's
> and Peter's, is really strong on this point. I noticed Nelson talking
> about a purer sound, but that's what I find with these non-traditional
> flutes, that the sound is too pure, not "dirty" enough. That's purely a
> value judgement, as is that one is better than the other. If you want
> that pure sound, such flutes are probably more apt to deliver it.
> As for age affecting the sound, I also find that it does mellow it out.
> I'd have to strain to think of an old flute (an old flute that's been
> played a lot) I've played that didn't sound relatively, or very,
> mellow, or a new one that didn't have a more raw timbre.
> Tom Deaver and I had a talk about this one time and he pointed out, as
> did Paul Hirsch, that rounding the edges mellows the sound, and that
> the holes get rounded on the outside from the fingers, and a bit on the
> inside from the air stream; so that alone may account for the mellow
> tone. He also pointed out something that Nelson mentioned, that an oval
> bore will create a more complex sound. Traditionally, Native American
> flutes were made by hollowing out the top and bottom halves and fitting
> them together, giving the flute an oval bore, whereas many nowadays are
> made by turning them on a lathe, and since I own one of the former type
> and have blown a lot on it, and have played many of the latter type, I
> can say without a doubt the turned ones have a purer, less complex
> tone. But different woods sound different, and at least a couple makers
> have told me they use different woods to create different timbres. So,
> as that Daoist master Forrest Gump conluded, "maybe they're both
> right."
>
> Peter
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 03 2003 - 09:09:50 PST