Agreed, on all counts.Terry McGee wrote:Woah, very interesting indeed. As I said, "we can't assume Boehm got it perfectly right". But equally, we can't assume WID got it right either, given it's pretty early days yet in its application to transverse flutes. But we owe it to everybody to find out, and, whatever we find, to progress it from there.
...
It's sobering to remember that if WID found that with the fiddling-the-head-bore approach, it might come up with some equally interesting suggestions for our older fiddling-the-body-bore approach.
Now, Boehm was dealing with two things that I didn't include: extra toneholes to give all the accidentals, and notes up through the third octave. Either of these could change the outcome.
Even if I was able to physically realize these flute designs, I wouldn't have the playing skills to judge the outcome. I am tempted to try something of the sort on a whistle.Terry McGee wrote:Tunborough, are you planning to do anything physical or should we detail somebody else to have a shot at it? Geoffrey? Anybody?
The kind of shapes Tunborough has mentioned are a bit out of our usual comfort zone, but I bet we could find ways to achieve or at least approach them, even if it requires inserting some separately turned and bored sections.
The complex, expanding and contracting, headjoint would be a huge challenge, but with the right flute, the contracting-only headjoint would be as simple as sliding in a cylinder of 0.2 mm mylar down the headjoint for 60 to 80 mm, ... WIDesigner predicts there would be no perceptible difference in the tuning of the two headjoints. (Tone colour is another matter, but I'd have more confidence in the sonic consistency of the simple headjoint over the complicated headjoint.)