automatic translation,
may not be accurate
may not be accurate
by Federico Xiccato
(edited by Francesco Belfiore)
(edited by Francesco Belfiore)
|
What this Practice Pill is about
This Practice Pill explores a question that continues to engage many musicians:
Can modern technology help us understand — and play — historical instruments more faithfully? Here we look at how 3D printing, tomography, acoustics, and craftsmanship interact in the making of historical flutes today, offering practical tools for musicians, students, and researchers. You’ll find explanations, concrete examples, listening tests, and reflections — including less successful attempts — drawn from years of direct experimentation. |
|
The paradox of innovation
In every historical period, instrument makers have explored the materials made available by the technology of their time. This ongoing experimentation has often sparked discussion and debate within the musical world.
In the nineteenth century, the introduction of metal or ebonite flutes generated reactions that echo many of today’s conversations around plastic and 3D printing.
Musicians commonly associate sound quality closely with material.
Acoustics suggests a broader perspective.
In wind instruments, the vibrating element is the air column, whose internal geometry — down to very fine details — determines resonance, tuning, balance, and timbre. Small elements such as the flare of an embouchure hole, the shape of a labium, or the bore profile between finger holes can have a decisive impact on an instrument’s behaviour.
The material surrounding the air column plays a more limited acoustic role when it is sufficiently rigid and smooth, while remaining important for weight, robustness, workability, long-term stability, response to environmental conditions, and aesthetic qualities.
Internal surface roughness and heat transfer also influence sound production and help explain the subtle differences players perceive between instruments made of different woods.
Within this broader historical context, 3D-printed traversos can be seen as part of a long tradition of technical exploration in instrument making.
In the nineteenth century, the introduction of metal or ebonite flutes generated reactions that echo many of today’s conversations around plastic and 3D printing.
Musicians commonly associate sound quality closely with material.
Acoustics suggests a broader perspective.
In wind instruments, the vibrating element is the air column, whose internal geometry — down to very fine details — determines resonance, tuning, balance, and timbre. Small elements such as the flare of an embouchure hole, the shape of a labium, or the bore profile between finger holes can have a decisive impact on an instrument’s behaviour.
The material surrounding the air column plays a more limited acoustic role when it is sufficiently rigid and smooth, while remaining important for weight, robustness, workability, long-term stability, response to environmental conditions, and aesthetic qualities.
Internal surface roughness and heat transfer also influence sound production and help explain the subtle differences players perceive between instruments made of different woods.
Within this broader historical context, 3D-printed traversos can be seen as part of a long tradition of technical exploration in instrument making.
|
A listening challenge
Ready to play a little game?
Here’s a blind sound test between two flutes of the same model: a G. A. Rottenburgh traverso — one in wood, the other 3D-printed. The incipit of Georg Philipp Telemann’s Fantasia in D major is played on both instruments by Enrico Coden, in identical musical and acoustic conditions. Listen closely — tone, articulation, response — and make your guess: * Which one do you think is the wooden flute? * Scroll down to reveal the answer… but only after you’ve made your guess. 😉 |
Sample A
Sample B Live results
A:
–%
B:
–%
Results update automatically.
|
Why print historical instruments?
|
Two technologies have significantly expanded the possibilities of organological research in recent years: tomography and 3D printing.
Used together, they allow the internal geometry of historical instruments to be documented and reproduced with remarkable fidelity, including intentional design choices, tool marks, wear, deformation, cracks, ovalisations, and shrinkage. |
|
|
Degradation is not erased, but analysed as part of the instrument’s history
The resulting digital model can closely reflect the original within the limits of measurement accuracy. This is particularly relevant since many museum instruments can be played only briefly, or require special conditions. Faithful replicas therefore provide valuable study instruments, supporting extended musical exploration, detailed investigation of tuning and temperament, and controlled acoustic experiments. Tomographic imaging can reveal information that traditional tools capture only approximately, such as precise bore profiles, chimney geometries, embouchures, windways, and internal anomalies. At the same time, carefully applied traditional measurement techniques can also yield sufficient data to produce effective 3D models and musically convincing replicas. |
|
From original to replica: how it actually works
The process of moving from an original instrument to a playable replica follows a clear sequence, while allowing room for informed choices at each stage.:
1. Data collection
Manual measurements, radiography, tomography, optical scans.
2. Digital reconstruction
CAD modelling or direct tomographic reconstruction.
3. Virtual restoration (when needed)
Cracks closed, missing parts reconstructed, warped sections corrected.
4. Historical and practical choices
Optional pitch scaling (392, 415, 430, 440 Hz) to allow practical use today — always a conscious and documented decision.
5. Printing
Different technologies, different outcomes:
1. Data collection
Manual measurements, radiography, tomography, optical scans.
2. Digital reconstruction
CAD modelling or direct tomographic reconstruction.
3. Virtual restoration (when needed)
Cracks closed, missing parts reconstructed, warped sections corrected.
4. Historical and practical choices
Optional pitch scaling (392, 415, 430, 440 Hz) to allow practical use today — always a conscious and documented decision.
5. Printing
Different technologies, different outcomes:
- filament printing (low cost, accessible)
- resin printing (highly accurate, heavy, expensive)
- laser-sintered materials (precise but porous)
|
6. Hand finishing
Internal smoothing, voicing, sealing, surface treatment, durability. One of the distinctive strengths of 3D printing is repeatability: multiple copies of the same model produced with the same method tend to be very similar. This consistency has contributed to the growing interest of organological research in these techniques, while hand finishing reintroduces a limited and meaningful degree of human variability. |
|
Organological goals and practical musical goals
At this point, it is helpful to distinguish between two closely related aims that guide the creation of 3D-printed historical instruments.
In organological research, the objective is to reproduce an instrument as it has come down to us. Every measurable feature — including wear, deformation, and traces of use — is preserved in order to create a digital twin suitable for studying aging processes, degradation, and acoustic behaviour under controlled conditions.
In practical musical use, attention shifts toward supporting everyday musical activity. Instruments are prepared for practice, teaching, rehearsal, and performance, which may involve adapting pitch standards, moderating extreme deformations that hinder response, improving ergonomics, or selecting lighter and more robust materials.
The key point is that these two approaches are not opposed, but complementary — provided that every modification is conscious, documented, and reversible at the digital level.
A single historical original can therefore generate several legitimate replicas:
In organological research, the objective is to reproduce an instrument as it has come down to us. Every measurable feature — including wear, deformation, and traces of use — is preserved in order to create a digital twin suitable for studying aging processes, degradation, and acoustic behaviour under controlled conditions.
In practical musical use, attention shifts toward supporting everyday musical activity. Instruments are prepared for practice, teaching, rehearsal, and performance, which may involve adapting pitch standards, moderating extreme deformations that hinder response, improving ergonomics, or selecting lighter and more robust materials.
The key point is that these two approaches are not opposed, but complementary — provided that every modification is conscious, documented, and reversible at the digital level.
A single historical original can therefore generate several legitimate replicas:
- one optimised for research,
- one for pedagogy,
- another for professional use.
This work develops through collaboration
Engineers and artisans regularly invite musicians to test prototypes and share their impressions. Feedback plays a central role in refining both design and finishing.
Reactions often oscillate between disbelief and enthusiasm.
Skepticism, when informed, has proven especially valuable.
For those who have worked with these instruments for years this is no longer surprising — but first encounters still provoke strong reactions.
Museum curators contribute essential historical and organological insight, particularly in selecting suitable originals, as not every visually striking instrument offers strong musical potential. Long-term collaboration with traditional makers has also been fundamental, especially in areas such as voicing, where experience and tacit knowledge remain indispensable.
At every stage of this work, flutists play a decisive role: beyond tools, models, or methods, it is through their hands, ears, and sustained engagement in real playing conditions that these instruments are tested and questioned.
Daily practice, repertoire testing, and long-term pedagogical use are what allow them to be refined and ultimately brought to completion — a process reflected in the testimonials presented below.
Reactions often oscillate between disbelief and enthusiasm.
Skepticism, when informed, has proven especially valuable.
For those who have worked with these instruments for years this is no longer surprising — but first encounters still provoke strong reactions.
Museum curators contribute essential historical and organological insight, particularly in selecting suitable originals, as not every visually striking instrument offers strong musical potential. Long-term collaboration with traditional makers has also been fundamental, especially in areas such as voicing, where experience and tacit knowledge remain indispensable.
At every stage of this work, flutists play a decisive role: beyond tools, models, or methods, it is through their hands, ears, and sustained engagement in real playing conditions that these instruments are tested and questioned.
Daily practice, repertoire testing, and long-term pedagogical use are what allow them to be refined and ultimately brought to completion — a process reflected in the testimonials presented below.
Why this matters - and an open ending
For students, these instruments offer access without fear of damage.
For professionals, reliable tools for travel and experimentation.
For researchers, repeatable models that can be modified and tested.
For museums, playable surrogates that protect fragile originals.
Technology here functions as a bridge between preservation and living practice.
At the same time, an important consideration remains:
a replica, however faithful, is still a hypothesis — a tool for asking questions, not closing them.
Every printed instrument reflects a series of choices: which measurements to prioritise, which deformations to preserve or correct, which pitch standard to adopt. Its value lies in making these choices explicit and open to musical, acoustic, and historical examination.
For professionals, reliable tools for travel and experimentation.
For researchers, repeatable models that can be modified and tested.
For museums, playable surrogates that protect fragile originals.
Technology here functions as a bridge between preservation and living practice.
At the same time, an important consideration remains:
a replica, however faithful, is still a hypothesis — a tool for asking questions, not closing them.
Every printed instrument reflects a series of choices: which measurements to prioritise, which deformations to preserve or correct, which pitch standard to adopt. Its value lies in making these choices explicit and open to musical, acoustic, and historical examination.
The blind test result + some practice takeaways
If you don’t want spoilers, stop here. If you’ve already voted (or you’re ready to check), click below.
Correct answer: the wooden flute is Sample B.
The useful part isn’t “getting it right” — it’s what you listened for.
Try one more pass and name one concrete cue:
- Attack: crisp consonant vs softer onset
- Core vs air: stable centre vs more “fuzz”
- Bloom: how quickly the tone opens after the start
- Stability: does pitch feel settled or sensitive to angle/air?
Share your comments in the pinned post on our Traverso Practice Net Facebook page and tell us: “I voted ___ because I heard ___.”
|
Federico Xiccato, engineer and flutist. Enthusiast of early music, architecture, and history of science and technology.
Caterina Scapin, graduated in accounting and modern flute. Multi‑instrumentalist, passionate about music, technology and craftmanship. |
|
Our history
After years of combining engineering, 3D design, and practical experience as an early-winds player, Federico reached a turning point in 2014, creating his first fully 3D-printed replica of a musical instrument: an ivory cornett. In 2016, scientific collaborations with Gabriele Ricchiardi (University of Turin) and Manuel Staropoli (Conservatorio of Trieste) introduced CT-scan–based analysis of original instruments, contributing to research on conservation issues and virtual restoration. A structured collaboration with Caterina Scapin began in 2021, strengthening the link between design, finishing, and musical usability. The work expanded further through 2023–2024 with research and reconstruction projects conducted in collaboration with the Royal College of Music Museum. This path culminated in the founding of Afflato in 2024 by Federico Xiccato and Caterina Scapin, bringing to market hand-finished, 3D-printed historical woodwinds conceived as stable, reliable tools for daily practice, teaching, and performance. |
|
|
