Yet another Rudall for sale on eBay!

[Terry McGee]

Looking at that kinky G# key on the current Canadian eBay RC&Co #7232, I do rather wonder whether it was bent like that originally or if that is an adaptation - it appears to extend rather far head-wards even shortened as it is by the kink in the shank, and would do so even more if straightened and both get in the way of L3 on the A hole and be hard to operate with L4 rather tucked under L3; but then, it looks rather low on the side of the flute to me as-is.... I wonder why they didn't go for the French lateral G# - by far the best design and present on some late RC&Co flutes I've seen...

I'd be confident it was intended like that. Firstly, we have seen other RC flutes with at least assymetric G#, like this one from my Unusual Rudalls page:


Secondly, as you point out, straightening the shaft would put the touch too far up the flute, and that is really annoying.

Thirdly, straightening the shaft would put it in the way of L3 accessing its hole. With it bent like that, it's really wrapping neatly around the end of L3 and providing a well positioned landing place for L4.

Fianlly, look at the rivet position, shown here as a little dot at the top edge of the touch. It's definitely off-centre to the touch. You can just make out the spring too following the curve of the bent shaft.


Some scoff at these late RC flutes as the cheap beginners instrument, made out-of-house using cheap metals, and they certainly don't have the visual appeal of the heyday RR flutes. But details like this I think remind us that the maker was trying his best to make a flute that worked as well as it could.

Dimensions: overall length at 650mm doesn't reliably tell us all that much. Last week's #6409 (which I went to see/measure/test) has the same overall length and plays just fine at 440 with the slide open c20mm (just beyond the barrel part of the slide). It is the sounding length and C#-Eb lengths we need, + maybe the emb-C# length, to establish the probable scaling and whether or not this flute is truly an HP one (quite probable) or just, as #6409 seems to be, one with basically the old scaling, just a slightly shortened foot and head (so less flat foot and a need to pull the slide further open, but good 440 intonation....).

I've asked the vendor for the C#-D# length, so hopefully we can answer this question. Given the late serial number, I was expecting the flute to be aimed at modern pitch, unless it happened to be an Eb. Ah, he has just this minute got back to me with the figure 248mm, which supports modern pitch. It is interestingly the same as my 7120, which was build around 1898, just after High Pitch crashed in favour of modern pitch.

Terry

[RudallRose]

no that unusual a find for such a late R/C. The serial numbers reach to the 76xx.

they did make a few of the "old style" flutes at this period, which was starting to be dominated by the "French" slide and the solid-body and the boehm-style foot keys.

Notice, too, how the stamps changed location....they are above the G hole at the RH joint rather than between the G and F# holes.

Not sure it will even get $1,000, quite honestly. In part b/c it's likely >440, it's GS keys and such a late flute in pillar mounts.
but i hope i'm wrong.

[RudallRose]

so why do you figure the seller posts it as Rudall ROSE Carte when it's a Rudall Carte (NO rose)?

geeze

[jemtheflute]

so why do you figure the seller posts it as Rudall ROSE Carte when it's a Rudall Carte (NO rose)?

geeze

Quite! I was wondering.... probably the dangers of a little well intentioned but inadequate research?

Terry, Yeah - you're right about the G# on #7232, I reckon.... I hadn't thought to look at the spring and the "show" of the screw on the touch surface (they will be screws, not rivets, I'm sure - another Frenchification! [which will put Ben off even more ])

OK, I'll take a price-punt now: I really don't know where to aim, mind - no confidence in this prediction - could go for as little as £800, unlikely to go above £1800..... OK, that's too broad/vague (though I will quote it later....). I'll plump for between £1250-1500.

[Terry McGee]

I was interested that Jem included an embouchure-to-hole (specifically the c# hole) measurement in the following:

For comparison, #4683 has an OL of 661mm, a SL of 578mm, a C#-Eb of 258mm, an Eb-foot of 102mm, an emb-C# of 218mm, and plays for me at 440 with c 10mm slide extension.

I've been wondering about such a measurement to augment the C#-D# "flute-scale" measurement system (which seems to be gaining some traction). Whereas the flute-scale measurement suggests at which pitch a flute will be best tuned, an emb-to-specified-hole measurement will give us an idea of what the highest pitch can be, or, to put it in reverse, how far will you need to extend the slide to get to what pitch.

Questions include:
- do we need such a measurement?
- what hole should we measure to? Theoretically any hole could be a candidate, as long as we are consistent.

Thoughts, anyone?

Terry

[paddler]

Given the number of antique flutes that seem to be best in tune with themselves with the slide pulled out a long way (2cm or more in some cases) I think it would be nice to know the useable tuning slide length in addition to an embouchure to C# hole measurement. These two pieces of information would nicely complement the C# to D# measurement.

[apossibleworld]

How about this question -- at what point along the tuning slide is a certain fifth interval in tune, and what is that length, relative to the pitch of A at that scale? Well we can't use low D of course, nor E, but maybe G to middle D? or the fourth up from G to C? That would tell us something useful. Experiment with the tuning slide until you get a pure fourth or fifth, and at that point, is A at 440? And at that point, what is the length from embouchure to C#.

Or much simpler than that: What is the ratio of D#-C# to embouchure-C#? Hey now, that's an interesting notion.

[paddler]

If we want a good approximation of the range of frequencies the flute will play for the note A, then we should measure the distance from the embouchure to the hole that vents A, and we should also measure the length of the tuning slide. From those two measurements we may be able to get a rough estimate of the amount of slide extension required for this particular flute to play A=440 hz. Here I'm assuming that there is not a wide range of distances from embouchure to A hole that all play A = 440 hz on different flutes (for example with different bore profiles), but I may be wrong about this ...?

But continuing this line of thought, if we had the embouchure to C# hole measurement (with slide closed), and the C# to D# measurement, we could then calculate the embouchure to C# and the embouchure to D# measurements for the tuning slide extension that was required to get A=440hz (you get the first by adding the slide extension to the embouchure to C# distance, and you get the second by adding the C# to D# distance to that). This should give us a good idea of the degree to which this flute will be in tune with itself at A=440 hz.

But this line of reasoning might be overly simplistic. Is it reasonable to assume that the ratios of these distances (emb - C#, emb - A, and emb - D#) should be constant for flutes that are in tune? For example, how much can factors such as bore profile and tone hole sizes influence this? At least you can see tone hole sizes in photos, and get a rough idea of whether a flute has unusually small or large tone holes, but bore profiles ...

[jemtheflute]

Responding to Terry, and thinking about a recent related discussion on Earlyflute, I chose the emb-C# because, together with the C#-Eb and the SL, one can then do some other sums which one could not do if one chose another tone-hole without needing other supplementary measurements. My thinking was predicated less on trying to determine details of the tuning/scaling in sound terms than on asking a small set of practical Qs of a non-specialist vendor. I was also thinking about trying to establish comparative physical info between flutes with a view first to see how their constructional details vary. Of course those affect tuning and one would wish to move on to looking at the actual sound production/tuning, but you need hands-on contact with the flute for that.

With regard to this particular flute and to compare it with others whose measurements I have to hand, I would also like to know the C#-E (R3) length and the emb-edge of barrel socket distance ("SL" of head/barrel). In combination with the other 4 lengths already on my list, those would enable one to establish what parts of the flute were having their proportions changed. If you look at the comparison I made above between #6409 and #4683, you'll see what I'm getting at. One cannot say anything absolute about design/optimum pitch or scaling/intonation from these observations alone, but when the intonation behaviour of at least one of the sample flutes is known, one can make some inferences about the probable behaviour of a (distant) comparator.

[RudallRose]

why aren't we seeing anything discussed on the relative placement of the embouchure to the cork? or is that of inconsequential consequence (how's that for a phrase?)?

have a rudall here that just was awfully dicey at the bottom end, wasn't where it should be tone-wise and clarity. After the usual pad adjustments, etc....i took a whack at the cork and pulled it back for a nick of about 1/8". Boom. That did the trick.

Anyways, i figured with all the mathematics going on here that even a trivial amount could make a key difference. I'm hardly the scientist or mathemetician you boys seem to be.

[jemtheflute]

Easy answer to that, David. The stopper's position is not a fixed design feature; like the tuning slide, it has a range and it was expected that the player would adjust it to suit. Nor, even if one had a fixed position stopper, could its distance back from embouchure centre tell us anything helpful in trying to determine the likely scaling or design pitch-range of a given flute. Sample bore dimensions at chosen points and the full set of tone-hole placements and sizes would tell much more, but are far too complicated even for an expert to take casually, let alone an uninformed and not necessarily highly literate eBay vendor. That line of detail requires special tools and hands-on inspection, just as sound-testing does.

I'm not saying that stopper position/adjustment isn't important in setting a flute up to play its best/how you want it to, but it has no relevance to the present discussion.

[RudallRose]

exc explanation, Jem. Glad I poked my head up.....but that's as far as I wanted to put it on this topic! Completely understand the physics of it all....but glad I don't have to make a living at it!

[jemtheflute]

OK, vendor of #7232 has given some more measurements. I think the following is rather interesting - looking forward to Terry's analysis!

All measurements in mm. I haven't checked additions - there may be the odd (insignificant) mm discrepancy!

OL = Overall Length; SL = Sounding Length; E-BE = centre of embouchure to lower end of barrel, slide closed; the rest should be obvious - hole-centre to hole-centre.

Code: Select all

Flute     date     OL    SL    E-BE   Emb-C#   C#-E   C#-Eb   Eb-end
#2130    c1833    *661  *586   162     221     200     261     *104
#4683    c1843     661   578   158     217     200     258      102
#6409    c1851     650   569   155     213     201     255      100
#7232 ?late C19th  650   565   155     215     200     248      100

* - of course, #2130 has a Bb foot - these measurements, taken to the centre of the low C hole are not strictly comparable to the open end terminations of the other three flutes, but it is interesting how similar they are. FWIW, the measurements to the extremity of the low Bb foot are respectively 746, 672 and 189.

I think it would be fascinating to get some more comaparators across the Rudall date range! Adding in flutes by other makers would be interesting too, especially from the Wylde/Fentum group. I realise, however, that this is to some extent revisiting work Terry has long ago done and published - but not SFAIK/can tell with a sample limited to a single major manufacturer.

As for interpretation, to me the stand-out thing is the almost total lack of change in the C#-E length - to whit, no fundamental change of the scaling over c 50 years. What they seem to have done (a trend Terry identified in his old research) is to shorten the head &/or move the embouchure down-tube and reduce the E-Eb distance (primarily by shortening the lower end of the lower body joint), plus a small shortening of the foot (at both ends).

Of course, the actual tuning of each flute will be individual, with variations in tone-hole sizes, maybe undercuts (not much sign of it on the ones I have examined) and bores, not to mention the possible influence of different embouchure cuts. But, FWIW, I suspect that, as #6409 still has a slightly flat foot, there's a good chance that #7232 will play with good intonation at 440 with a long-ish slide extension and maybe even a slightly sharp foot.

[LorenzoFlute]

I like this game, I wanna play too! Here are the measures of my Thomas Glen:

Code: Select all

T. Glen   c1850   654   577   167   217   201   257   106

It looks like the right hand section is shorter than usual, but the headjoint is slightly longer, giving the same distance Emb-C#. I'm surprised with the Eb-end measures, because the foot notes on my flute are very well in tune, not flat at all. The rest fits very well.

[O_Gaiteiro_do_Chicago]

Given the sounding length, what are the odds this could be made into an Eb flute by having a new head or barrel made? I'd really like an Eb flute and this just might be a cheap solution provided it doesn't go into the stratosphere price wise. I'm very fond of Boehm style footjoints especially since my carpal tunnel cursed hands are loosing the strength to operate a claw style foot.