Is it my imagination, or are the tenons on that boxwood number flared like Robert Plant’s jeans, ca. 1974? Cheers,
Rob
Jon –
I appreciate your response to my original statement to Jim, and you certainly know more about flute internal measurements than I do. Your close involvement in measurements and personal flute manufacture probably allows you see the median Rudall - if such a beast truly exist - better than most, who simply find that each Rudall plays/sounds differently from another.
But when Jim asks which modern copy comes closest to an original Rudall, the answer is still which Rudall? He didn’t even specify the small/large holed types, even if each of these models were for all intent and purpose identical to one another. There are certainly best examples out there, and then some mediocre ones, and so Loren is quite right that even small deviations will make each flute play differently, and modern modifications in pitch and tuning do even more in this regard.
When I asked Jim if he meant closest in spirit, I wasn’t being flippant; there is clearly a Rudall vibe that is sought after in modern copies. Makers that deliberately try to replicate an historic instrument will leave the quirky tuning and more difficult embouchure(s) found on the originals they copy will - if they’re good at their work - come closest to the real deal. But most - yourself included - will judiciously tweak and adjust their flutes for both better (or more modern) tuning, modern sensibilities, and general ease of play. This is a good thing, but it also offsets the “how close” question. Unless we are talking ‘in spirit’ – and the answer to which modern maker does that will be as varied as the numbers of makers involved in reproducing “Rudalls” - you won’t really get an answer to this question.
It is just optical delusion… This is how it looks when you take off the threads.
Weird, since the other two appear normal. Fisheye effect?
Rob
Hey Jon, 
VERY NICE! I like your new script Maker’s Mark.
I think you would be amazed what your flutes will be worth in 150 years! 
Keep Up the Good Work!
Hi,
You are quite right that there are several different models and tuning of R&R and R&C flutes, with over 7000 flutes made over the years. What I found from the ones I have come across, the small holed and the large holed flutes have the same contour, but the small holed flutes have a longer bore and the large holed R&C have a little larger bore, depending on the pitch. I think the contour of the bore has more to do with the unique tone, it is configured like this: they all start with a flared section 18.3 mm, then a flat plane of about 40mm, then a taper that transitions about L2, and another transition in the taper about R2. Robert Bigio actually has the original reamers that were used by R&R and later by R&C, they were a straight taper, made by a blacksmith, with marks for the different pitches. Today when we replicate a bore, I measure the bore every 10cm, and if it is transitioning, every 5cm, then I can draw it on Autocad, and get the bore contour. The reamer is turned in steps, at each of these measurements, then the high points are filed off. (unless you have a CNC lathe!) polished and a trough is cut into it to create a cutting edge.
What I am getting to, is that the characteristics of the rudall sound is more the product of the shape of the bore, the length and diameter of the bore will determine the pitch of the flute, if it is a F or a Bb.
I have made Rudalls that followed the exact measurements in the bore and tone holes, like me, some like the old tuning, as long as you aren’t playing with accordions, which I don’t normally do.
Very interesting, Jon.. Lot I didn’t know there. Still, it seems you’re talking the essence of a Rudall that is, or should be, shared by most Rudalls, rather than a specific playability, which would have to differ between body types or hole sizes. What about the biggest factor, the embouchure cut? Are these fairly uniform, regardless of hole size? Do you, and/or other makers, tweak these for better sound, or try to capture the original embouchure size, shape and cut to retain the old?
Jon C, I think your pictures make it quite clear what the answer is to the question that’s been asked recently: what are the extra two holes at the bottom of the flute for?
Jon, if this is the case, how come when I play my Rudall (#4009, which I think puts it around 1840) with the headjoint from my Olwell Pratten-model flute, it ends up sounding pretty much like the Olwell flute? (At least to my ears as the player, anyway.) It seems to me that the embouchure hole size and cut has just as much effect on the sound as the bore profile. But this is based only on this one sample, not nearly enough for a scientific conclusion. Do you have further evidence?
Well there is the rub, the embouchure hole! They very on different Rudalls, that I have played. I like Wylde’s R&R embouchure the best, that would be the rounded oval, it is 11.8mmX10.4mm I believe, if memory serves me. There is one Rudall that I personally liked the best, with this emb. cut. I have done impressions of my favorite R&R emb. hole and I think I may have replicated it once on a replacement head joint. But it is so subjective! So I imagine there was a different emb. cut for each maker that worked for R&R. Some are better then others, some have been modified, or damaged over the years.
But every maker has his own cut, mine are done by hand and usually comes out pretty close to the same every time. The way it goes with me, I keep adjusting it, until the flutes has the optimal tone in both octaves. This has to go slow, as I have to get used to the flute. So I sand a little play a little, etc. Each wall is treated differently when getting the right angle, and roundness. Most of the modern makers will adjust the embouchure to make it easier to play, but sometimes the tonal quality suffers, with a to open embouchure hole.
Hope this answers your question, and doesn’t get the pundits to upset! 
that’s the bigun, innit…if bore and hole size doesn’t get 'em started embouchure will 
Oh boy, now you are opening up a big can of woms! I had it all nicely sewed up there, with my platitudes… 
You are right, the embouchure hole is a important part of the flute, but also John Kerr is important in the mix also! We get back to whatever John Kerr plays, he sounds like John Kerr, especially to John Kerr! etc. etc.
My thoughts are, as I said in the last post, that when a embouchure hole is made to be played easily, it sometimes sacrifices the tonal quality. This is not to attack another maker, as I have hight regards for Patrick’s work. But possibly a Pratten embouchure cut , is designed for a open, loud and easily played tone and not exactly the best for a R&R. I don’t know if Olwell uses a different emb. hole on his R&R copies, I haven’t played one, maybe someone who has both can answer that question.
As I dig myself deeper and deeper in trouble with the pundits… 
he was playing nice. jon of course has very specific views on embouchures and thinks any of us are sissies for wanting anything but original embouchure cuts. he was talking only about bores because it’s heresy to even ADMIT that there’s another type of embouchure out there… on another note, i heard some bavarian guy invented a metal flute? any idea how that’s going to pan out?
When I put my Olwell headjoint, made for a free-blowing Nicholson, onto my Wylde 8-key, it sounds…nothing like the Olwell flute. It sounds, to my ear (important distinction), like the nicest, sweetest Rudall I’ve ever heard. To be sure, it all sounds like me. However, that big ol’ embouchure hole isn’t doing Mr. Wylde’s flute any blatant injustices, far as I can hear. Big or small, it’s got to be right (read: efficient), and Patrick has built his well-deserved rep on getting it right time after time. Cheers,
Rob
Oh, yeah, some Bavarian guy indeed did invent a metal flute, but that’s a story which has little to do with Rudalls.
You got that right! Olwell must be doing something right…
I think you nailed it, big or small it has to be right, but I think more, your embouchure has to be right also. You can cover half the hole with your lip and then the embouchure is much smaller, or blow across the hole and give the flute a breathy tone… So, it is also the way it is played. I thin of the ideal way of playing a R&R, as playing with a tighter embouchure and blowing more into the flute. This works well with the originals, to flatten the upper notes.
So Rob, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it…
Well, what flute could possibly have a bigger bore, bigger holes and a bigger embouchure, and could there be anything better?
Boehm and
better is a bit subjective 
Speaking as a latter convert to the six-holed wood flute, I have learned something about such subjectivity, and it’s a good thing, really.
However, and to borrow a saying, you could get my Boehm flute when you pry it out of my cold, dead fingers.
I was playin’ mine a few nights back and the wife came out to say how much she liked what I was playing.
(It was some odd thing in one of those keys that are not any fun on an 8 key.)
I told her I had no idea, it was just something I’d made up back in the 70s that came out when I wasn’t paying any attention.