World Shakuhachi Discussion / Go to Live Shakuhachi Chat
You are not logged in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/scien … p;emc=eta1
Sorry that this link is so long that I can't get it to be active...
This is the URL to a very interesting article about how scientists are using advanced material engineering to make violins that go beyond what was traditionally thought to be the best instruments possible.
I am sure that one day such a scientific gaze will also fall on shakuhachi and someone will push the instrument to new levels of performance.
Any guesses what material could make a shakuhachi that performs beyond today's instruments?
Offline
One of the experts said the new violin's E string was so good that it was "no longer like playing violin". That's a mixed complement.
I could envision a carbon fiber and unobtainium shakuhachi that's "so good" or "so easy" or "so loud" or "so something" it wouldn't be like playing shakuhachi at all. Because of that, I think there would always be a significant place for bamboo.
But I do hope research is directed at the shakuhachi for the sake of exploring and creativity and durability.
Cool article, Seth.
-Darren.
Offline
I have made shakuhachi from clay, see my Cerute article under 'flutemaking', and I am still continuing that exploration, glass or porcelain are possibilities, but I still like bamboo, each variety is different, I have used at least four, and the age and density, shape and other idiosyncracies always keep me intrigued. I like the anticipation as I get close to the first blow, how is this one going to sound.
An ultra thin carbon fibre or glass would be interesting, like the way a champagne flute rings when you simply touch it.
Kel.
p.s. A friend of mine worked for an anodysing on aluminium company in SF. They were approached by Leo Fender, founder of Fender guitars and then of the 'Guitar Man" label, He commissioned them to make fifty aluminium electric guitars, one of which my friend got, though ne never played, apparently a studio told him it has a very clean sound.
Last edited by Karmajampa (2006-11-28 03:12:39)
Offline
Karmajampa wrote:
An ultra thin carbon fibre or glass would be interesting, like the way a champagne flute rings when you simply touch it.
Anyone inspired to forsake shakuhachi and devote your daily practice to the champagne flute?
Offline
Thanks - interesting link. Of course materials technology doesn't have much impact on Shakuhachi (or does it? - I know its an old chestnut) All that infinately rigid and thin stuff just doesn's apply to a resonating tube; although I suspect that the energy 'lost' to making the tube walls vibrate could be better thought of as filtering.
My plan for taking over the world (tonight Pinky) involves computational modeling of the Shakuhachi bore resonances, rn through a genetic algorythm system to develope "The perfect Bore" - size and placement of holes and node walls, bore profile variable along the length etc. One day soon Moore's Law will catch up and make this possible, your own selection of "perfect bore" computer modelled and then either machined out or even 3D printed.
Till then 'Boo is stilll a "super material" with properies hard to beat.
Cheers
Offline
Ambi wrote:
My plan for taking over the world (tonight Pinky) involves computational modeling of the Shakuhachi bore resonances, ...
Me too. Though the couple of stabs I've taken at it only showed me how little I knew.
Would there be interest (three or more people) in a thread here to discuss the nitty gritty of such a computational model? (In the "Miscellaneous" forum I'd expect.)
Thanks,
James
Offline
I think the thread on the creation of the perfect shakuhachi just got started.
Question: What do people use to map the dimensions of bores? I know Monty uses some contraption for his flute making process. Does anyone know the specific technology involed?
Offline
An "ideal" shakuhachi bore formed of silver would be easy to tweak around and most likely as loud or louder than a modern keyed flute, perhaps with the boo tone and utaguchi nuances. Think in terms of a bamboo shakulute headpiece on a coin silver body formed by traditional reposee or lath turned over a mandrel...either easy enough once the desired shape is known. I have been reading Boehm on flute making (quite interesting, and inexpensive Dover editions are in print), and he both made and advocated wood headpieces on his silver flutes. Should be a very pretty form as well. Another way to explain it is as a tapered bore pennywhistle with a shakuhachi head. If not a new kind of flute, it might at least be useful for to test different ideas.
Rob
Offline
Monty Levenson makes a shakuhachi mouthpiece for silver fllutes, which converts them into a vertical flute.
This is not, and will never will be, a shakuhachi.
eB
Offline
In order to measure flute bores, Monty uses an internal caliper micrometer with a long reach. He measures both the height and width of the bore exhaustively, and then transfers the measurements to a mechanism which reads them out into a lathe he has developed to turn a positive mandril for casting the flute bore. After casting the bore, he still must put considerable effort into tuning/balancing the flute to get the most out of it. The bore casting is just a short cut to get him into the ballpark.
Bear in mind that measuring a flute bore, no matter how carefully, is just a very small segment of the ensemble of variables that go together to make a shakuhachi sound 'just so'. Hole depth and shape within the bore, and subtle perturbations within the bore (which are nearly impossible to measure, and which then may not even apply to another shakuhachi 'ensemble') are just as determinative in the character of the sound you'll get out of a given shakuhachi.
Personally, I love bamboo as the primary material for shakuhachi, but I also believe that it's the bore shape and all the other above-mentioned variables that provide the lion's share of what makes a shakuhachi sound like a shakuhachi. Indeed, the nature of the bamboo--it's density, thickness, species, etc--provide subtle influences on the sound, but these are infinitesmal compared to these other variables AND the quality and nature of the player.
I would suggest that all who are interested in creating the 'ultimate' shakuhachi (ie, inventing a better wheel) go here and read all of Nelson Zink's very well put efforts to come up with such an item. Nelson is no scientific lightweight, and he's put a lot of effort into realizing his ideas. Still hasn't pulled it off. But you know the main reason? He ain't a player.
eB
Last edited by edosan (2006-11-30 16:17:37)
Offline
I should say that I was talking SciFi really - I'm no where near technically competent to set up computational acoustic models, but I've talked to people who are (or at least supervise them), and been told that just modelling the acoustics of a simple circular profile, holeless flute would be pushing what is currently possible- and that then using CAM techniques etc to producce one and compare it to the model would make an interesting Phd! Adding the holes (in all their complexity) is sometime off.
Apologies to those who are already aware of the use of the "genetic algorythm" but it basically involves running models with many variations, then combining the properties of the most succesful models, adding more variation, then repeating many many times.
It will be years before computing technology has advanced that far (although I wouldn't like to say how many - 2012 anyone?).
For now the best scheme involves generating many variations on a basic bore type, then using trained engineers to modify them until they produce the best possible sound dynamics for that particular bore.
Also known as making shakuhachi - something else I Am no where near qualified for!
Cheers
Ambi (sometimes known as the perfect bore)
Offline
Don't get me wrong, its all about breath and bamboo, and always will be. Some people just also enjoy fooling around with gee whizz, what if, science fair type things, if only in their heads.
rob
Offline
The science already exists to map out and completly de-mystify not just the bore of a shaku but every little other aspect as well. But the science is not being utilized to do so simply because there is literally little to zero financial incentive involved. I am sure making a plasma screen HD TV is far more complicated than making a master shakuhachi.
And I am a big admirer of Nelson's science, but, in my humble opinion, the actual results of his research fell short of his vision.
On a seperate note: I know all the science heads say all of the sound is from the shakuhachi's empty space and not from the actual material of the bore, but on this point I have to disagree. I think this is true in regards to pitch, but there always seems to be a sound quality beyond the pitch that is very much determined by the material with which the instrument is constructed.
And I think this is where Nelson fell short. I don't care what the math formula says, plastic sounds like plastic. And here I come back to the original question: I suspect that some man made material should be able to beat bamboo at its own game. What this is, I don't know, but sooner or later there is going to be a next generation yuu that is going to be the equivalent of the piano's eclipse of the harpsichord.
Offline
There is a significant difference in the timbre produced from different materials, just as a jiari is different to a jinashi.
Right now I have a ceramic flute that is at the somewhat porous bisque stage, it produces a quiet muted sound, But if I glase the inside with a few microns of glass the sound will become very bright with a lot of volume.
I think this is to do with how different densities and hardness's affect the volume of particular harmonics. Ceramic is harder than steel.
Kel.
Offline
Seth wrote:
And I think this is where Nelson fell short. I don't care what the math formula says, plastic sounds like plastic.
You’ve missed the point. I’ve read Zink’s stuff from the beginning because he’s the first person I’ve found who wanted to go beyond the recipe and look at the fundamentals. His site is really about experiments and results. I suspect his primary quarry is knowledge over accumulating more flutes.
His use of PVC seems to be more about cost, abundance and availability than anything else. He set it up so that basically anybody worldwide can easily and cheaply replicate what he’s done and experiment further. Quit looking at the finger and see the moon.
Until it’s understood what part material plays (if any), material discussions are largely irrelevant. I doubt he’d advocate ‘plastic’, as you call it, as the ultimate flute material anyway. The website seems to be less about him producing a flute for you, but making available information which might aid you in producing a great flute for yourself. Beyond that, it’s all free. What’s the beef?
Nick
Offline
Go back through our history and we see that people used what materials were available to them. Bamboo, reeds, grasses, seaweed, shells, hollow bones, termite eaten gum branches,.....a rose is a rose is a rose.
In many cultures the instrument was originally made to lure prey with a similar sound.
Kel. §
Offline
nSkky wrote:
Seth wrote:
And I think this is where Nelson fell short. I don't care what the math formula says, plastic sounds like plastic.
You’ve missed the point. I’ve read Zink’s stuff from the beginning because he’s the first person I’ve found who wanted to go beyond the recipe and look at the fundamentals. His site is really about experiments and results. I suspect his primary quarry is knowledge over accumulating more flutes.
His use of PVC seems to be more about cost, abundance and availability than anything else. He set it up so that basically anybody worldwide can easily and cheaply replicate what he’s done and experiment further. Quit looking at the finger and see the moon.
Until it’s understood what part material plays (if any), material discussions are largely irrelevant. I doubt he’d advocate ‘plastic’, as you call it, as the ultimate flute material anyway. The website seems to be less about him producing a flute for you, but making available information which might aid you in producing a great flute for yourself. Beyond that, it’s all free. What’s the beef?
Nick
Nick-
I love Nelson's web site and find the science fascinating. I greatly admire his intellectual vigor. My feelings towards his 'utility flute' which he sells as a shakuhachi, are a bit more complex.
Seth
Offline
Hi.
Regarding the effect of material on flute tone, there is an old experiment involving an organ pipe with a water-tight sleve. As the sleeve is filled with water while the pipe is sounding, both the timbre and the pitch change. Material has an effect on flute tone.
In the world of Boehm flute, there is active discussion on this topic with a consensus in the negative. However, flute players seem to spend inordinate amounts of money on various flute & headjoint materials. Don't look for consistency.
jb
Offline
Seth wrote:
My feelings towards his 'utility flute' which he sells as a shakuhachi, are a bit more complex.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I went to the page and can’t find the representation you’re talking about.
Zink describes it as a “utility flute”, “a new type of end-blown flute”, “Arising from Shinto/Taoist sensibilities, the Utility Flute is intended for use out-of-doors and close to nature”. We even get “It's crack proof, waterproof, scratch resistant, dent proof …”. He seems to be stressing the durability and function of what he characterizes as a new type of end blown flute.
I even used my browser’s ‘find function’ and couldn’t find ‘shakuhachi’ or any Japanese association in his description. On the contrary, he seems to have gone out of his way not to confuse his flute with a shakuhachi. You sure we’re reading the same page?
Maybe I should ask again, what's the beef?
Nick
Offline
nSkky wrote:
I even used my browser’s ‘find function’ and couldn’t find ‘shakuhachi’ or any Japanese association in his description. On the contrary, he seems to have gone out of his way not to confuse his flute with a shakuhachi. You sure we’re reading the same page?
Maybe I should ask again, what's the beef?
Nick
You got me! You're right. In the text describing the flute, found in the midst of many links describing how to make shakuhachi, he does not refer to the flute itself as a shakuhachi, but rather as a utility flute or a 'zen' flute.
You are right, and I am wrong.
Offline
While we're on the topic of Nelson Zink... Putting aside the traps of calling something a "shakuhachi" or not and the subtle merits of bamboo...
Thank goodness for passionate, detail-oriented people who labour on complex topics and then share their results so freely. Biased or otherwise.
I once asked Nelson for his opinion on the bore and tuning of flute I was building. His response was thoughtful and selfless. Good soul.
-Darren.
Offline