A comparison of acoustic effects of two stopper and crown systems in the modern flute
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new stopper and crown system developed by flute maker Robert Bigio is reported to produce a louder, harmoni cally richer and faster response in the orchestra flute.Using spectral analysis software, the author compared the two systems (Standard and Bigio) in a test flute to find any significant differences in relative loudness and amplitude of recorded test note harmonics.A homemade impedance head mounted on the flute's embouchure plate was used to measure the pressure response of the flute sound wave produced in response to signal excitation (Schroeder chirp, 500 to 5000 Hz).Results showed that the Bigio unit was associated with stronger levels of amplitude and total power, higher amplitude in harmonics, and a slightly higher pressure response.The Bigio unit may be important for improv ing the timbre of the flute, but more work must be done to ensure that harmonic changes are more consistent, and to decide whether pressure differences make for an easier or harder blowing flute. RSUMPlusieurs annoncent qu'un nouveau systme de taquet et couronne dvlopp par le fabricateur de fltes, Robert Bigio produit un rponse plus fort, plus vite et des harmoniques plus prononces dans la flte d'orchestre.En util isant des logiciels d'analyse spectrale, l 'auteur avait compar deux systmes (Standard et Bigio) dans une flte d'preuve pour dcouvrir de diffrences en force relatif et l'amplitude harmonique de notes enregistres.Un appareil de mesure d'impdance fait la maison, install sur la plaque d'embouchre tait utilis pour mesur la pression de
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".