In case of woodwind instruments the material that sets the vibration in motion is the wooden reed mounted on your mouthpiece. Destpite of the fact that the saxophone is made of brass which is metal, it is categorised as woodwind instrument, because the sound vibration is created by a wooden reed. The material of which a woodwind instrument is made only shapes the sound column. When the soundwave leaves the instrument it has certain wavelenght and frequency. And these two properties are not affected by the body material of the woodwind instrument. But shape of the body and expecially the shape of the mouthpiece and the quality and material of the reed affect this absolutely. Sorry for my english.

I coated the inside of my Selmer Series 10 clarinet with a 50/50 mixture of liquid dish soap and water. I did not like the way it played.

Removing the coating and re-oiling the clarinet returned it’s fine sound.

Plastic Clarinets are sold with a mirror like bore. I have found that removing this mirror like finish with very fine (0000) steel wool improves the sound. (I only do this when I am repadding the clarinet.)

Perhaps clarinet makers hobble plastic clarinets so as not to interfer
with the sales of “Professional” wooden clarinets.

If I was buying a new clarinet it would be a Buffet Greenline.

Then I could say to players with a traditional clarinet:

“That sounds good; too bad it’s made of wood”

Dan Kennedy

A few years back I came across another in a market, bought it and had it serviced so that iit played perfectly. An identical instrument, except it was chrome (yes chrome not silver) plated.

I could not tell the difference between the sounds of them.

I now own two Selmer 10S clarinets. There *is* a slight sound difference – but I think that may because one has leather pads, the other the more usual white ones. That one is going to get a repad …

I agree that in the case of a gong, which is an idiophone, the vibrations of the material itself are significant. But in the case of a flute (for example), which is an aerophone, I maintain that the material does not “set the vibration in motion” (Dr. Joe Wolfe gives an excellent summary of how this actually works); nor does the material interact in a significant way with the air column, other than to give it its shape (see Backus’s article, “Effect of Wall Material on the Steady-State Tone Quality of Woodwind Instruments, JASA, October 1964, which specifically addresses this point. To my knowledge, this article is not freely available online, but check your local library).

No doubt Coltman would have preferred to use flutes made entirely of the same material for his experiment. But this would have created an even more fallacious result, since, as you and I know, every headjoint plays differently. There’s no verifiable scientific evidence (yet?) that the material of the headjoint have the “most impact” on tone. (However, there is a great deal of advertising from headjoint makers that makes this claim, invariably suggesting that the most shiny and expensive metals sound the best.)

I do think you make a good point about the care that instruments made from nicer materials are likely to receive.

I have a few observations I’d like to add.

“The mistake here, according to scientists, is thinking that the vibrating instrument is what is producing the sound. Basic acoustics tells us that the woodwind instrument is merely a container for the real sound-producing body—a vibrating column of air.”

True enough, but the material that sets the vibration in motion and the material against which the vibrating air moves does affect the quality of the sound. Consider a gong. Would it sound the same if made of plastic? No! It’s the brass of the gong that initiates the vibration of the surrounding air, giving it the quality of the sound that you hear.

The fallacy of Coltman’s experiment with flute tubes of different materials was his use of a plastic headjoint. The headjoint, more specifically the riser, has the most impact on the sound produced by the instrument. If he had used headjoints constructed of the same materials as the tubes, there probably would have been a more noticeable difference. He could easily have blindfolded the players and hidden the headjoints from view of the listeners to attain as much anonymity as he needed without using the plastic headjoints.

I agree that “It is also possible that the vibration of the instrument’s body is, in fact, audible to the player through the phenomenon of bone conduction.” I tell my students this all the time. Just as a singer (or speaker) hears their voice differently from the listener, so, too does the instrumentalist.

“But the most convincing theory of why musicians are so sure about gold flutes and maple bassoons is that the materials do, in many ways, affect the way the player feels. And, as any musician will tell you, nothing affects the music more than the way the musician feels. The smooth, polished wood of a fine oboe, the patina of the silver keys, even the gold of the maker’s emblem, lend the oboist confidence, comfort, perhaps a sense of luxury?—that come through in the way he or she plays.’

True again. Additionally, one is more apt to take better care of a quality instrument – regular cleanings, keeping it in good adjustment, handling it with care – than one would a student model horn. This adds to the better quality of sound produced.

Thanks for a well written summary of this debate, which rages on and on and on and on. . .