I see the flutomat site is down, and the only site hosting them currently has the data wrong.
(I know this because it's saying a D4 flute, with 1/8" walls and a 3/4" diameter needs to be 30" long)

I have the originals, which I downloaded for offline reference. They're just html and css files, so for all 4 it's only 78k. ( I saved the files for 4, 5, 6, and 7 holed flutes)
I don't have a website, so if anyone wants to host them, let me know, I can email them, or upload them to dropbox or something.

I guess the central question is, BlueSalmon, have people found the model helpful?

We can't expect perfection in a simple model (a close look at this stuff shows it to be truly horrendous!), but if it gets you within coo-ee (as we say in Australia*), that's good, and is therefore worth keeping available. Satisfied customers, speak up now....

(*A coo-ee is a call used in the Australian bush to locate someone. It essentially means "come here". We got it from the Dharug people who were the indigenous people around Sydney. Their language is now sadly extinct.

The coo-ee relies on a change of pitch between coo and ee of about a fourth to make it really stand out. The coo is round and elongated; the ee shorter and more urgent. It's quite dramatic. You can hear a good coo-ee for miles. We use it regularly to locate our kids in the bush behind us. And there's an expectation - if you hear a coo-ee, you're obliged to return it. Someone's life might depend on it.)

Well Terry, the flutomat calculator allowed me to create a couple of decent sounding bansuri... In tune, but not very good sounding. The PVC material, the available diameters and my skills as an embouchure cutter limited the quality.

With reduced tone holes to create something closer to an Irish flute, the result is even less good... I made an Eb that is not really usable: playable in tune, again, but the tone is really uneven and airy.

On another hand I don't really believe in cylindrical Irish flutes. Some makers make good bamboo flutes though...

Also are the files free to redistribute like that? (I don't know, so just asking.)


They can't be just .css, because that's just the styling for the content.

_________________
And we in dreams behold the Hebrides.

Why I teach... and where
Master of nine?

Well Terry that Coo - ee call was certainly in use in Liverpool when I was growing up in the 50s. Invariably it was used by ladies wishing to attract someone's attention.

It would be Javascript (.js), not .css.

There are a number of adaptations of Flutomat still available, on http://twjcalc.sourceforge.net, http://www.flutopedia.com/naflutomat.htm, https://www.music.bracker.uk/Music/Whistle-Calculator.html, and others. I'm not sure another hosting is needed.

Terry, made a beautfiful-sounding F bamboo flute from the flutomat. I realize the flutomat is of little or no use to most makers on these boards. However, it works for basic cylindrical flutes very well IMO. Amateurs may wish to practice on a homemade pvc or bamboo flute. One octave is enough to learn the tunes and practice finger work. And it's useful for music traditions other than ITM.

Interesting about the coo-ee call, I'd love to hear a recording. I might check youtube.

Matt, while I agree cylindricals are usually limited for Irish music due to the second octave tuning, you may not have heard the tapered-head wooden ones, which are a whole different thing, IMO. Before I heard them, I thought the same thing you do, and I felt very strongly.

Here's a keyless one by Geoffrey Ellis in D: (played by Blayne Chastain)
https://soundcloud.com/earth-tone-flute ... na-leabhar
And in Eb:
https://soundcloud.com/earth-tone-flute ... na-leabhar
And here's a clip of an 8-keyed one by Peter Worrell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5oRZrJvK_Q

I bought one of Ellis' new tapered-head folk flutes, and I'll be reviewing it later, when I've had it a big longer, so I can evaluate it better, and post clips of me playing it. It might be different from a conical, but to me it's no less capable of Irish music.

Peter, as far as I understand the creator, Pete Kosel wouldn't mind, he refused me offering donations, and provided it for everyone to use. His site is gone, and there's no way to contact him that I can find.
Whoops, thanks for pointing out there are html files involved! I have those also. My tech skills are atrophied.
I'll see if I can edit my post. Some of my posts don't have an edit button showing, which I find frustrating as I need to correct something on another one of them also.

Tunborough, it's just html and css files. I can open it on my computer with only those in the folder.
Thanks for those links. I didn't find those two googling (though the NAF one is different, I'm talking about the transverse flute one). In my defense, they don't appear in the first results.
I tried the twj one, and it doesn't open on Opera. I updated Java, but no luck. On Firefox it says my security settings are blocking it, so I'd need to create an exception. It might work fine, but all in all it's not very convenient compared to flutomat which always worked on any browser instantly.
Another concern is people might google flutomat and go to the fake one which appears near the top of results (at a site called iotic) and get the wrong numbers, and waste their time and materials. So I think it would be good if people googling flutomat can find a working version of the original, without hassle.

You can only edit your posts for a limited time (think it's three days), so it'll be the older ones that don't.

_________________
And we in dreams behold the Hebrides.

Why I teach... and where
Master of nine?

Totally agree... I was talking about full-cylindrical flutes.

I tried some tapered head ones (not a lot to be honest) and they are indeed much better. But my preference goes definitely to conical bores

This one sounds really good!

I personally don't like the placement of the last finger hole on most cylindrical flutes though. Too far apart from the others

Tunborough

You've posted elsewhere details of a flute modelling system which I imagine can do everything the Flutomatic can do and more.

(Republish the link if you think appropriate...)

But maybe I'm wrong? (Perish the thought - it would have to be a first this century! Or indeed, the last two....)

(I apologise that circumstances are preventing me from evaluating this first hand. Soon hopefully....)

Can you advise? Does (in your view) the Flutomatic (at my guess a first-approximation, simple system cylindrical flute model) still have a role, or have we moved on to something more nuanced and accurate? Does your system bring unacceptable overheads for the simple-system cylindrical flute designer, or will any extra work involved save time and effort in the prototyping phase?

Yes, WIDesigner can deal with a lot more situations, and tell you more about the instrument, than the Flutomat-style calculators. For starters, WIDesigner can deal with:

• Complex bore profiles, not just cylinders.
• All the notes, two octaves or more, not just the first octave.
• Optimizing tonehole size, not just position.
• Flute headspace.
• Calibrating the model from a real instrument.
• Predicting how close the tuning will be to your target.

However, Flutomat is definitely easier to use. You can use it directly from a web page--there's nothing to download. You enter the tube measurements and the hole sizes, and it tells you where to put the holes. WIDesigner asks you for more details about the bore and toneholes, and asks you to make more decisions about what you want to try next.

Are Flutomat results close enough to coo-ee? I can't say; I haven't tried them. I do suspect I'd be disappointed with at least two aspects of the results: tuning in the second octave, and not being able to calibrate the model to a real whistle.

Peter, thanks for explaining that to me, I tried PM'ing a mod, but didn't get an answer. Good to know, and I'll be more careful to doublecheck details.

Wow, I had no idea something this detailed existed, that's great, thanks Terry for mentioning it, and Tunborough for creating it!

It's true, the flutomat is a very basic tool, but for people just starting out, it can as you say Terry, get them "within coo-ee". Which is much better than the evenly-spaced holes present on a lot of cheap tourist instruments, and with hole size adjustments, can facilitate making a decent first octave flute.

Matt, thanks for clarifying. What I'm finding with this flute is that as I get to know it, I think there's more to it than simply comparing it to a Conical. For one thing, from what I can tell, there are things each of them can do that the other doesn't do as well, so neither is "better" in my opinion, it depends what quality you focus on. Also, the differences are much smaller than the similarities, and since most people don't notice any difference in material (type of wood, or delrin, etc), the bore system wouldn't make enough difference for them to tell in a blindfolded listening test, in my opinion. I think they do respond differently to the player, but this is still a subtle thing, and again, there are advantages to both designs, which I'll go into a bit in my review. [Edit: Re the hole spacing, comment removed, see followup post below for updated response ]

CCCP 16: Editing and Deleting Posts

NB You can still edit after a reply within the three days, but get the 'Last edited by' when you do.

_________________
And we in dreams behold the Hebrides.

Why I teach... and where
Master of nine?

Thanks Peter. I didn't think of checking the stickies. I'm not used to time limits for edits, but it will help me be more mindful, so for that I appreciate it.

Here we go again, having to correct a post. Luckily within the time limit, so I editted the mistake out.

Matt, Above, I said there was no noticeable difference in playability of the last hole, but I was playing the last hole with my pinky, which someone has since told me isn't correct. (I wonder why? I've accepted it, thinking maybe it has to do with finger strength and speed, though it feels fine playing with my pinky now, I might need more speed later?)

Playing it with my ring finger, there's a significant difference. It's worth it to me, for reasons I'll go into in my review/comparison*. I wear a size small in gloves (despite being tall), and I found playing guitar was a stretch, but I persevered, and it didn't take too long, so I expect the same with the flute. But some people have short fingers, so it could be too far for them.
(*: To put it very briefly, to me, this tapered-head cylindrical flute seems louder, clearer, and richer in harmonics than the conicals I've tried. It also seems more flexible as an instrument to me. - There are advantages to a conical too of course, and I would like to be able to have both eventually. (I've got one now to compare it with, but I plan to part with the conical when I've had it long enough to write a useful review, because I can't justify two flutes until I'm more skilled). In my review I hope to shed some light on why I chose this over a conical, given that I had to choose one or the other. I think there are misconceptions, which I hope I can speak to and clear up a bit.)