Mujitsu and Tairaku's Shakuhachi BBQ

Toby wrote:

I certainly would not invest (from a business standpoint) in a plastic shakuhachi factory...

Toby

Where's the courage of your convictions?

I would be surprised if any conventional shakuhachi maker makes as much $$$$$$$ as the guy who sells the Yuu. So I would invest in plastic shakuhachi. But FIRST I would have to be convinced as a player that it was as good and cheaper. Your clarinet and flute examples are real world examples but I have yet to play a shakuhachi made of any other material than bamboo which would do it for me. Do you think it will happen someday?

Not to harp on an old (but very valid) point, but where this experiment would also shine would be in the creation of shakuhachi of various lengths, i.e. 1.8, 2.0, 2.4, and say 2.8.  Those would keep most people pretty happy.  Well, I would be pretty happy anyways.

Last edited by Lorka (2010-06-07 08:45:49)

Jon Kypros wrote:

I'm surprised by Toby's comments.

It's not only possible to copy a spot tuned jinashi bore it's actually easier in some cases than a jiari. The only problem I forsee is large ikigeashi. I told Brian I intend to make a complete carbon copy of one of my spot tuned jinashi out of ultra light strong food grade plastic and I intend to let him and anyone else test the two side by side.

I've thought about this, mostly on the toilet, and I thoguht how cool would it be to have a shakuhachi library. The goal in my mind is to get people copies of the best instruments for the purpose of people taking more lessons and not having to worry about a 1.8 until they want that special living piece of bamboo and Ji artistry. Anyway one step at a time.

I'll be back with the Franken jinashi in a month or so. I am making a cast bore for Ronnie's students right now and theres a camp to go to and some custom jinashi orders and ebay to keep up with but I have no life so a month

I don't see how you will manage to copy the slight (and not so slight) irregularities that are characteristic of natural bores. Further, there is the fact that jinashi bores contain a lot of texture imparted by the structure of the bamboo. These factors will definitely affect the sound.

Toby

Tairaku 太楽 wrote:

Toby wrote:

Further, there is the fact that jinashi bores contain a lot of texture imparted by the structure of the bamboo. These factors will definitely affect the sound.

Toby

Doesn't this contradict your usual position that material is, well, immaterial?

Since "bore smoothness" is an absolute necessity in Tobysan's optimized equation, the contradiction is artfully dodged.

In essence, jinashi are exempt from following the commandments of Tobysan's particular branch in the faith of Scientism.

On a microscopic level, the bamboo is anything but smooth, and as I sight down my 2.6 jinsahi, I can see that there are parallel striations running the length of the bore. There are extremely rough patches with complex geometry where the garibo has torn out the node membranes, and in fact the cross-section is anything but round, varying continuously down the bore. The urushui coat does nothing to change this, apart from filling in some micropores present in the cellular structure.

When I talk smooth, I am talking about mirror-finish smooth. In other wind instruments, there are significant differences between instruments made of metal and those made of wood: no matter how highly polished the wood. There is always some grain structure in the wood that is absent in metal, and that small difference can cause acoustic losses of around 2 dB. Now look at your "smooth" bamboo and you'll see that it isn't really so smooth at all, at least on the level I am speaking about--rifle-bore smooth--and that is significant acoustically.

This is not to discourage you in your work towards making jinashi reproductions, only to let you know that there is every chance that no matter how carefully you try to reproduce the bore, the flutes will sound and respond quite differently.

To illustrate the point, here is a little true story:

"Once upon a time, a flute professor and performer named Joan Lynn White decided to try to measure the differences between metal concert flutes in four different materials. She went to the Sankyo factory, known to be one of the top flutemakers, and got on loan two silver flutes, one in 9K gold, one in 14K gold and one in palladium. All were made completely by hand by the finest technicians, using the same mandrels and jigs.

Professor White was very wise, so she made sure to have two identical silver flutes, so that the researchers could establish a baseline control on the effect of manufacturing variability on the final sound. And lo and behold! The researchers, using sophisticated spectrum analysis, found that the sound differences between the two silver flutes was so great that it far exceeded the differences that could be attributable to the metal.

They concluded that even the minute differences in geometry found in these flutes made to extremely tight tolerances made the question of materials moot. They did note in passing that the 14K gold flute had a slightly stronger 7th partial, which could have been attributable to the metal,  but since this partial is extremely weak to begin with, and disappears completely in the second octave, it was of no practical consequence.

They published their results and lived happily ever after."

My fear of course, Jon, is that you will make a wonderful doppelganger flute that will play somewhat differently than the original, and everybody will be off again on how the material is so important...

Toby

Last edited by Toby (2010-06-08 00:18:44)

Your Photoshop skills are to be commended

wow this thread is gettng interesting! - even with out the more photoshop.

Jon - surely the test would be to make two flutes fromt he same mold and compare them - I think that the "Scientismist" position is that they might both be fine flutes, but that neither would play the same as the other, never mind as the original from which the mold is cast (either way I'd like one).

Toby - is a mirror finish necessarily the best? - I'm thinking sharks skin etc where the microstructure stabilises the boundary laminar flow. Anything similar possible and practicable in acoustics?

Cheers

Jon Kypros wrote:

In any case a copy of a historical masterpiece 1.8 would be far better than a Yuu or cast bore from a traditional standpoint. I find cast bores by Monty and Neptune great for playing music outside of tradition but lack the characteristics for certain traditional techniques.

I think Monty and the Yuu both were based on bore profiles of bamboo instruments.

Jon Kypros wrote:

I find cast bores by Monty and Neptune great for playing music outside of tradition but lack the characteristics for certain traditional techniques.

Hi Jon, What are the characteristics you believe are lacking and the traditional techniques you can't perform on the cast bore Monty and Neptune flutes?

Jon Kypros wrote:

Hey Toby!
Objects which are far more complex are copied with exact precision using molds all the time. Things such as vinyl records, intricate figurines and human faces to name a few. It's pretty easy and most flutes will work. Each flute has to be examined and thought out. I've copied two bores so far and copying the outside, so as to be able to cast a whole flutes, is not a problem at all. The initial mold can be pricey for someone like me with limited means however the casted flutes would be really inexpensive to make. The only thing is that I lack really fantastic historical worth while flutes to copy and more importantly the trust of anyone who owns such precious instruments. I'd "risk" any of my own instruments as I know there is no danger but now I wonder where this would go? I don't want to just prove or disprove anything, as I am certain that a copied flute would be identical accept for being plastic, lighter, stronger, nobe, etc. The sky is the limit really.

Casting the outside of an object with molds is easy, but how about the inside, especially if you have negative curvature? I guess you could saw the object in half and do two half molds, and then combine them...I'm not volunteering my flutes to be sawn in half...

The traditional shakuhachi is quite acoustically compromised, as it were. The small fingerholes--like those of the old simple-system flute or recorder--mean that the instrument has a quite low cutoff frequency, which means that the radiated sound tends to be somewhat weak and dull (lack of higher partials) compared to what you might be able to achieve with larger fingerholes, such as those on the modern flute.

But of course you would lose something in the bargain. There have been various efforts to rationalize and modernize the bassoon, all of which have failed, since the resulting instrument didn't sound like a bassoon anymore...

My Okuralo is interesting, in that it is basically a shakuhachi head married to a modern flute body. It is certainly not a flute, nor is it a shakuhachi, but contains characteristics of both.

Heya, Brian: I think we're firmly off The Great Bamboo Outrage of 2010 C.E. as of mid-page 3 and into a new topic on shakuhachi design which is getting interesting (so far).

Could we get it split off when you have the time?

Jon Kypros wrote:

Chris Moran wrote:

Jon Kypros wrote:

The narrow bore of the YUU, Levenson's and Neptune's cast bores do not respond ideally to certain styles of playing and techniques.

Okay, which playing styles and techniques? I'm curious. (see below)

Nezasaha komi buki, muraiki and stuff that isn't suited to a narrow bore. It feels stuffy~

Chikuzen does pretty good with muraiki on a Yuu: http://www.shakuhachiyuu.com/MP3s/Micha … mprove.mp3

Maybe it feels stuffy but sounds good?