This article was downloaded by: [96.227.217.143]On: 11 October 2014, At: 09:53Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of New Music ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nnmr20

The 3D Printed Flute: Digital Fabrication and Design ofMusical InstrumentsAmit Zoran aa Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) , USAPublished online: 14 Dec 2011.

To cite this article: Amit Zoran (2011) The 3D Printed Flute: Digital Fabrication and Design of Musical Instruments, Journal ofNew Music Research, 40:4, 379-387, DOI: 10.1080/09298215.2011.621541

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09298215.2011.621541

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The 3D Printed Flute: Digital Fabrication and Design of Musical

Instruments

Amit Zoran

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), USA

Abstract

This paper considers the controversy of modern acousticinstruments, which may have come to an evolutionaryimpasse, due to its high standardization that makes itdicult to explore design modications. A new approachfor the design and fabrication of an acoustic instrumentis presented, using digital fabrication technologies, andspecically 3D printing, which has the potential toinuence new designs, and to lead to new acoustics andergonomic innovations. This paper describes the keyconcepts of this approach, presenting the developmentprocess of such a 3D printed instrumenta prototypeof a 3D printed concert ute, some other 3D printedelements, and a conceptual example of an innovativetrumpetdiscussing the potential of the new technologyin fabricating and designing of musical instruments.

1. Introduction

In traditional musical instrument making, the impor-tance of merging traditional designs and methods withthe ability to use new technologies has always been amajor theme (Sachs, 2006). The craftsmanship developedaround instrument making required skills that were notalways directly related to acoustic values of instruments:musical instruments have been profoundly inuencedby cultural and aesthetic factors, such as form anddecoration. The complex relationship between design,sound, and playability stands at the heart of instru-ment development: in many cases, sound and play-ability were limited owing to the constraints of theinstrument design, which was limited by the fabricationtechnologies.

In many cases, modernity has simplied instrumentsmaking, optimized production and fabrication processes.Since the Industrial Revolution, new methods havechanged the manufacturing of instruments and newmaterials, such as plastic, are replacing traditional ones.Yet, despite industrialization, producing a high qualityacoustic instrument still requires great human craftsman-ship; a violin glued together from mass-produced partscannot equal (acoustically nor aesthetically) one thathas been constructed by an individual craftsman who isnot satised with the work until everything is workingtogether perfectly (Barker, 2001). Despite these dier-ences, both craftsmanship and mass-production pro-cesses have a directed inuence on instrument designsfor sound, playability, or economic requirements.

The popularity of a specic musical instrument led toa focused design process, improving the instrumentsperformance and playability step by step. These designiterations, evolving together with the musical style, endswith a well-dened musical tool. This process ofstandardization occurred in the making of almost anypopular instrument in the West, and sometimes led to anincrease in the instruments mechanical complexity andbetter expressive performance ability. For example, it ismore complex to build a grand piano than to build ahammered dulcimer (Williams, 2002); the mechanicalkeys, which have been added to many wind instruments,made them much more dicult to build than just pipeswith holes (Baines, 1991). Together with the increaseof standardizations of musical instruments, better skillswere required in order to build the instrument, andspecic tools and workshops were developed to supportthis process.

However, the standardization of a musical instrumentis a dangerous process. On one hand, it optimized the

Correspondence: Amit Zoran, MIT, Media Lab, 75 Amherst St., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA. E-mail: amitz@mit.edu

Journal of New Music Research2011, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 379387

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09298215.2011.621541 2011 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [9

6.227

.217.1

43] a

t 09:5

3 11 O

ctobe

r 201

4

instruments qualities for the trained player. But it alsopositioned the instrument on a certain evolutionary path,making it dicult for the maker and the player to adoptnew designs. For example, it is easier to change thedesign of the hammered dulcimer than to change thedesign of the piano. In the second case, we may need tochange the whole factory. But the hammered dulcimerlost its popularity in Europe, after evolving into theharpsichord and then the piano. Today it is not apopular instrument anymore, and a skilled pianist maynot know what to do with such a tool. While on onehand technology helped in dening instrument stan-dards, it also has the potential to suggest new directionsand possibilities. For example today, many sound designinnovations are being achieved using electronic instru-ments and tools.

Since electrical technology was applied to musicalinstruments, we see little acoustical and mechanicalmodication to traditional instruments, and moreinstruments are becoming electrically amplied, con-trolled and modied. Yet, there is still a place toexperiment with acoustic and mechanical technologies.The unique, authentic and expressive interface of theseinstruments is still a challenge for the digital ones.Moreover, the aesthetic and sonic coupling of theacoustic instrument may continue to be relevant in thefuture.

Many works have been done facing the challengesabove. The work of Hopkin (1996), for example, presentsan alternative classication of instruments, proposing aninteresting perspective on the acoustic possibilities forsound creation. His work includes the Membrane Reed(a membrane that is literally pulled to be a pipe), theMusical Siren and the Branching Corrugahorn (multipletubes with discreet notes). Hopkin merges traditionalacoustic principles, experimental combinations of alter-native interfaces, materials, and sound productionelements, through a collection of novel acoustic-electricinstruments he creates. A dierent approach is TheChameleon Guitar (Zoran & Paradiso, 2011a), a guitarwith a replaceable acoustic resonator. This approachis characterized by sampling the resonators acoustic

vibrations with multiple sensors. Then, the sound isprocessed in a digital processing unit, to achieve the sonicqualities of a big chamber.

This paper comes face to face with the challenge ofdesigning acoustic and mechanical elements using digitalfabrication. The motivation of this work is to demon-strate a new fabrication technique rather than improvingthe current design of the ute, and hoping to inspireinstrument makers and musicians. The lessons learnedfrom the process, and the limitations of this technologywill be discussed. The next section introduces the eld ofdigital fabrication, as well as discusses related work.Section 3 discusses a case study and the development ofprototypes of a printed concert uteusing two dierentprinting technologies (see Figure 1)and presents theprototypes designs and evaluations. In Section 4development of other printed wind instrument elementsis presented, and a future vision of using 3D printingtechnologies in the fabrication of wind instruments isdiscussed. The last section, Section 5, is a summary of thework and its contribution.

2. Background

2.1 Digital fabrication

In the last 50 years, digital tools have dramaticallyaltered our ability to design the physical world(Gershenfeld, 2005). While the advances that have takenplace in graphic software and hardware are no longer aprivilege of specialists, the use of 3D printers hasremained restricted to a few. However, in recent years,the price of three-dimensional printers has fallendramatically and several DIY technology groups havestarted to develop and share their open source 3D printerdesigns for anyone interested in modifying or buildingthese machines at home (RepRap, 2010). While most ofthe 3D printing technologies are still limited to rapidprototyping, there is an ongoing research to enable thesetechnologies as a means for rapid manufacturing as well,in order to enable the creation of stronger, functional,

Fig. 1. Pictures of the printed utesFDM technologymade from acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) (top), and PolyJet

technologytwo utes, each made from three dierent materials (bottom).

380 Amit Zoran

Dow

nloa

ded

by [9

6.227

.217.1

43] a

t 09:5

3 11 O

ctobe

r 201

4

and reliable artifacts (Hopkinson, Hague, & Dickens,2006).

Digital fabrication technologies could be grosslygrouped under two main areas or approaches: subtrac-tive and additive machines. Subtractive approaches usedrill bits, blades or lasers to remove material from anoriginal material source, shaping the desired three-dimensional object. Additive processes, on the otherhand, use an array of techniques for depositingprogressive layers of material until a desired shape isachieved. As these machines and fabrication techniquesbecome commonplace in our homes, they will drasticallyaect the types and quantities of objects we own,dramatically altering our relationships with them. Apertinent example is a digitally fabricated mechanicalclock (Schmitt & Swartz, 2009), which encompasses allthe mechanical complexity of a hand-assembled weightedclock, but is 3D printed as a single machine that requiresno human assembly. In the context of this paper, it isimportant to consider what kind of new aesthetics willemerge from the use of digital fabrication machinesand how they will inuence the process of design andfabricating musical instruments.

Many 3D printing technologies are being used today(Chua, Leong, & Lim, 2003), such as stereolithography(STL), selective laser sintering (SLS), fused depositionmodelling (FDM), and Objets PolyJet. Some methodsalready employ a variety of materials, from clay andplaster to many types of plastics or even metals. 3Dprinting technologies vary in their printing time, con-struction and support techniques, the price of printingand the resolution and material properties. In thisresearch, two technologies were used and evaluated:Stratasys FDM and the Objets multilaterals PolyJet.

2.1.1 Fused deposition modelling (FDM) technology

In the FDM technology, a robotic head places thin layersof ABS plastic (or other thermoplastic polymers) on atray, and slowly implements a computer-aided design(CAD) model until the nal shape is achieved. The FDMprocess uses a secondary material to support the primary

one. After the process is nished, the supporting materialis removed using an ultrasonic chemical bath. In thework presented in this paper, two machines were usedthe Dimension Elite (for most of the elements), and theFortus Titan (for the largest printed element), both madeby Stratasys. The resolution of the Dimension machine(the distance between the layers) is limited to 0.17 mm.The Fortus technology is superior to the Dimension oneand can produce stronger results with a higher resolution(Stratasys, 2010).

2.1.2 Objets PolyJet technology

The PolyJet technology by Objet uses inkjet technologies,printing acrylate-based photopolymer that is cured(solidify) using UV light. The Objet Connex500, basedon this PolyJet technology, has a unique ability to jetmultiple model materials simultaneously, printing partsand assemblies made of multiple model materials,with dierent mechanical or physical properties, all in asingle build (from companys website, Objet, 2010). Thisproperty was very useful in the design of the ute(Section 3.3.), allowing the implementation of dierentmechanical properties to the printed material, in order tocreate soft areas and rigid ones. The Connex machineuses a supporting material that can be washed away withwater (see Figure 2), and its resolution can be higher than0.1 mm.

2.2 Digital fabrication and the design of the musicalinstrument

In the past several years, digital fabrication has slowlyinltrated the eld of musical instrument making.RedEye RPM, a 3D printing service company (belongingto Stratasys), created a solid body guitar using digitalmanufacturing technology (RedEye RPM, 2008). Black-bird Guitars made the Blackbird Rider Acoustic, acommercial guitar digitally designed and fabricated(using milling machines) made from composite materials(Blackbird Guitars, 2008). This kind of new material(such as carbon ber composites) enables a signicant

Fig. 2. Printed ute parts by Objet Connex500, covered with support material (left), and the cleaning process (right).

The 3D printed ute: digital fabrication and design of musical instruments 381

Dow

nloa

ded

by [9

6.227

.217.1

43] a

t 09:5

3 11 O

ctobe

r 201

4

decrease of the chambers size while preserving theinstrument loudness. The reAcoustic eGuitar is a conceptdesign, a computer graphic illustration of an idea thatplayers would be able to customize their own sound byassembling dierent 3D printed sound cells instead of asingle large sound box (Zoran & Maes, 2008). Eachstring has its own bridge; each bridge is connected to adierent cell. Changing the cell size, material or structureallows sound design innovations, re-designing acousticmusical instruments according to the abilities andcharacteristics of rapid prototype materials. The opensource and shared les environment can lead to a realityin which a player can download or design his/her ownsound cells and add them (as a patch) to her/hisinstrument.

The 3D printing technologies can be used to produceacoustic and mechanical elements in musical instruments.Today, digital instruments have versatile sound control;however the standardization of traditional acousticinstruments makes it dicult to change them or theirsound. 3D printers can introduce a fast, easy tomanipulate method to implement changes and toexperiment with the design.

2.3 Wind instruments as a case study

Although the ute may be the oldest of all musicalinstruments, and has roots in the Stone Age, the modernwind instrument evolved in Europe just after the middleAges (Baines, 1991). Modern wind instruments havebeen developed in Europe since the seventeenth century.Trumpets and horns were already used in Europe andAsia for military purposes and rituals. The clarinetemerged at the end of the seventeenth century and, likethe oboe, developed into a family of instruments. Due toits importance in the European music, the modern windinstrument arrived at a well-dened design standard,achieving a high degree of acoustic control andplayability. Today, instrument makers have started toadopt 3D printing as a rapid prototyping technology(Phelan, 2011), mostly to test the design of new partsinstead of taking advantages of this technology formanufacturing.

It is complicated to build modern wind instruments.The pitch is usually controlled either by the length or thevolume of the air tube, or by changing the air pressureinside the tube (Fletcher & Rossing, 1990). In order tochange the pitch, dierent mechanical solutions havebeen usedfrom holes in a pipe (like in a ute), whichcan be covered by the players ngers or mechanical keys,to valves that can direct the air through dierent tubes atdierent lengths.

The air excitation inside the tube is critical to thetimbre, and sometimes also to the pitch. Dierentinstruments use dierent techniquesfrom a variety ofmechanical mouthpieces to dierent lip techniques. The

material of which the instrument is made of is important(mostly wood or dierent types of metals), but in general,it is less important than in other instruments such as theviolin family, which uses a wood soundboard to vibrateand project the sound.

This paper focuses on wind instruments because oftheir unique mechanical properties, comparatively smallsize, and their relatively low sensitivity to the tubesmaterials. The bigger challenge was to print themechanical elements of these instrumentsvalves,mouthpieces and keys. Here, I present a concert uteas a good case study, due to its scale and high mechanicalcomplexity. This is a proof of concept, which can help usunderstand the limitations as well as the capabilities ofthe technology. By analysing the printed ute, the resultscan help in suggesting of the best way to use the 3Dprinting technology in the fabrication of wind instru-ments.

3. The 3D printed ute

3.1 The design process

Each 3D printing technology has dierent abilitiesand limitations, and one design for a specic machinedoes not necessarily t another. Issues such as tolerance,surface smoothness, resolution, and other materialproperties have a huge inuence on the design. Here,two 3D printing technologies were tested: the FDMtechnology, and the Objet PolyJet technology, while theute CAD model was designed usnig Rhino 4.0 software(see Figure 3). The prototypes presented in the followingsections are based on a standard concert ute, with thesame pipe dimension, hole locations, and key design.However, the mechanical solutions to enable them variedand changed, from one design iteration to another, inlooking for an optimal solution. In the following section,I rst discuss the experiences and lessons learnedfrom the FDM technology, and then evaluate the ObjetConnex500 technology. Objet Connex500 has shownbetter results in printing the ute, and was the one toproduce a working ute with reliable keys.

3.2 The FDM ute

The rst design iteration was a fully modelled ute,including all its mechanical keys, pads, and springs,printed in ABS plastic using the FDM technology.Instead of the regular ute pads (that are used to stop theair, and are usually made from sh skin, rubber or felt),a plastic 3D printed pad was designed as an integratedpart of the key mechanism (see Figure 4). Due to FDMsurface resolution, the surface of the holes and theprinted pads was relatively rough, and the air was notblocked properly. Later, glued felt pads were added after

382 Amit Zoran

Dow

nloa

ded

by [9

6.227

.217.1

43] a

t 09:5

3 11 O

ctobe

r 201

4

the ute was printed to replace the plastic solution.Dierent types of printed springs were evaluated, butnone of them proved a reliable solution for the FDMprinting technique, so they were replaced with smallmetal springs (see Figure 5(b)). Also, ABS rings were

printed to reinforce the ute edges and prevent it fromcracking between layers, a common problem with theFDM technology (see Figure 6).

The nal version of the printed ute had nine dierentparts, and it took a total of four days to print. After

Fig. 3. The rst (left) and the last (right) design iterations for the FDM technology. This computer rendering was made using V-Raysoftware.

Fig. 4. The design of the printed plastic pads (left), and a picture of the glued felt solution (right) for the FDM ute. The computerrendering in the left was made using V-Ray software.

Fig. 5. A picture of the FDM utes mouthpiece (left) and a keys mechanism, using metal spring (right).

The 3D printed ute: digital fabrication and design of musical instruments 383

Dow

nloa

ded

by [9

6.227

.217.1

43] a

t 09:5

3 11 O

ctobe

r 201

4

gluing the rings around the edges, it contained four parts:the body joint, the head joint, the foot joint, and thecrown, as in a regular concert ute. All the mechanicalkeys were printed directly on the joints, without needingto be assembled. In order to guarantee that the movingparts of the keys will not stick to each other during theprinting process, it is important to keep a tolerance thatis more than twice the machines resolution (0.36 mm).The felt pads and the metal springs were inserted at theend of the process.

Because of the relatively loose hinges and the lowrigidity of the printed ABS plastic, the main problem inthe printed ute was the loss of mechanical energy. Thehigh tolerance in the printing process caused the hingesto be too loose. Using thicker hinges minimized thetolerance and elasticity problems. The last printedversion of the FDM ute had much thicker hingemechanisms, but, due to acoustic and ergonomic con-straints, its size is technically limited and could not bethickened further. In this version, some of the keys werestill dicult to control. As the length of the lever islonger, more energy is lost in its twisting and torquing,causing less energy to be directed to the movement ofthe key.

The ute lip plate functioned well and enabled an easyproduction of sound (see Figure 5(a)). The assembly ofthe dierent parts was also easy and the instrumentproved itself strong and lightweight. However, because ofthe problems mentioned earlier, it was dicult to controlthe instruments pitch and to use it for musical purposes.More than that, the FDM technology has been shown asunable to produce watertight walls, meaning the utespipe allowed for some air ow through the walls. Whilethis is not a serious problem with thick walls, whichcreate sucient mechanical resistance to the air pressure,the utes long and thin walls proved problematic.

3.3 The Objet ute

The Object Connex500 technology has a better resolu-tion than the Dimension 3D printer, which helped inminimizing twisting and torquing problems (the toler-ance here was 0.2 mm), and the material proved to be

watertight even with the utes thin walls. A uniqueproperty of this technology is its ability to jet multiplemodel materials simultaneously, and the ute was re-designed to be composed of a rigid material for the body,a dierent, safer one for the mouthpiece, and a softmaterial for blocking the air properly in the keys,replacing the glued pads (see Figure 7). Only metalsprings were added manually later. The overall printingprocess took around 15 h (15% of the time it took theFDM technology), creating ve separate parts that werethen assembled into a working instrument.

Similar to the FDM ute, several design iterationswere needed to achieve best performance. Here, the utewas able to produce several notes, making it a playableinstrument, as can be seen in the projects website(Youtube, 2010). While this is not yet a perfectinstrument, the sound it produced has shown highsimilarity with a regular metal ute. For example, inFigure 8 we see the spectrums comparison of the B1 note(based on recordings of length 0.3 s which do not includethe transient) of a metal ute, a printed ute and aclarinet.

The PolyJet technology has a major disadvantagethe UV cured material slightly decomposes with time.It is a great technology for prototyping but not so muchfor manufacturing. Three weeks after it was printed, theute bent 7 mm in its longitude dimension, preventing itsmechanisms functioning properly.

4. Pushing the boundaries

The technical properties of the ute keys made it a greatplatform for experimentations, but it is dicult to playover time due to the limitations of the printingtechnology. The FDM technology proved not matureenough to produce sucient ute keys and proper airpipes, and the Objets PolyJet is not stable for longperiods. Several other ideas for 3D printing were tested,including implementing some other mechanical elementsof wind instruments that may t the FDM technologybetter, such as valves and mouthpieces. Here, themotivation was not to print a complete working

Fig. 6. The design of the nine FDM ute parts. This computer rendering on the left was made using V-Ray software.

384 Amit Zoran

Dow

nloa

ded

by [9

6.227

.217.1

43] a

t 09:5

3 11 O

ctobe

r 201

4

instrument, but to evaluate it in the production of otherchallenging parts.

Two dierent valves, which function as air junctionsdirecting the air in three dierent directions were printed;as well as several mouthpieces; springs for the valves; anda bell (see Figure 9). The valves (after two designiterations) worked properly with metal springs and feltbetween the moving parts (to make the motion smoothand easy). With the linear movement of the valves,twisting and torquing problems were not an issue. Theprinted springs failed to carry a load and were notexible, and as before, were replaced by metal ones. Themouthpieces and bell functioned properly, as staticelements with no moving parts.

This process showed that while it is still challenging tofabricate a complete, stable traditional instrument, newmechanisms and ideas, which were designed especiallyfor the new technologies, have a higher chance of success.Thicker walls can help in resisting the air better, linearmotion doesnt suer from twisting and torquing and isless sensitive to tolerance, and static elements (such as themouthpiece) cannot fail. More than that, each technol-ogy has its own qualitiesthere are several othertechnologies, such as SLS and STL, which may t somedesign and fabrication challenges better.

We believe that the potential of 3D printing liesbeyond the fabrication of a standard, or a slightlymodied traditional instrument. It has potential forthings that are not easily or even cannot be achieved intraditional fabrication techniques. For example, bendinga metal tube (like in a horn or a trumpet) is not an easytask, but bending several tubes together, when thesetubes are placed inside each other, is a far more diculttask. However, to print such a design is no more dicult

Fig. 8. Logarithmic spectrum comparison of the B1 note, basedon recordings of a length of 0.3 s which do not include the

transient, of a printed Objets ute (top), a regular metal ute(middle), and a clarinet (bottom). In each plot the grey graphsare the two other recordings, for reference. The clarinet soundsample was taken from www.compositiontoday.com, and was

not recorded under the exact same conditions.

Fig. 9. An illustration of wind instrument partsvalves,

springs, mouthpieces, and bell. All these parts have beenprinted and tested. This computer rendering was made using V-Ray software.

Fig. 7. A picture of the Objet utes printed pads (soft materialin black), printed simultaneously with the ute body and key

mechanisms (rigid material in white).

The 3D printed ute: digital fabrication and design of musical instruments 385

Dow

nloa

ded

by [9

6.227

.217.1

43] a

t 09:5

3 11 O

ctobe

r 201

4

than printing a single pipe. In Figure 10 a concept designfor a trumpet is presenteda trumpet with multipletubes of dierent radii. The valves mechanisms cancontrol which of the tubes contributes to the airow.This is only one example of the potential that 3D printingtechnologies can add to the fabrication of digitallydesigned instruments, opening up new possibilities tovisualize and simulate designs and rapidly fabricatethem. Instruments that are made by 3D printing can bemodied rapidly and easily, using the CAD tools. Assuch, costume designs are much more accessible thanwith traditional manufacturing, usually requiring specictools, moulds, and machines for each design.

5. Conclusions and vision

In this paper the potential of digital fabricationandespecially 3D printingas a fabrication technique formusical instruments was presented. The discussion wasfocused on wind instruments in general and the concertute specically, while evaluating two printing technol-ogies. The motivation of this work is to inspiremusicians and instrument makers, and to demonstratethe potential of 3D printing for the design andmanufacturing of new instruments, which can lead to

new acoustics, ergonomics and aesthetic solutions forfuture instruments.

While 3D printing technologies still have signicantdrawbackssuch as resolution, material quality, andstabilitylimiting their use for manufacturing (instead ofprototyping)we can easily envision how future digitalfabrication technologies can play a major role in pavingthe way for new acoustic instrument designs. When thetechnology becomes more mature, digital design andfabrication tools could enable shapes and modicationthat cannot be achieved otherwise. Whether modifyingan existing standard (for example, adding one more valveto a trumpet), or creating totally a new instrument,musical instrument designers can benet greatly fromdigital fabrication technologies.

As in many other elds, the use of a CAD model priorto fabrication enables functional simulations and aes-thetic ones, predicting the qualities of the nal results.The use of a nite-element method (FEM) to simulatethe acoustic behaviour of a vibrating object is not new toinstrument design (Zoran, Welch, & Hunt, 2011b),determining the eigenmodes of resonators as part oftheir design process. In renderingthe process ofvisually simulating the look of the CAD model (see therendered images presented in the paper)we can test theaesthetic of a design, enjoying photorealistic quality.Using FEM and rendering prior to 3D printing,musicians and makers can enjoy a shortened designprocess, minimizing errors and determining the exactbehaviour of a new instrument yet to be made.

We should not forget that 3D printing technologies,or any other novel fabrication technologies, cannotcompete with the traditional ones in the process offabricating traditional instruments. However, the newtechnologies have the potential to change instrumentdesign, and to open a door for new acoustic experimentsand musical possibilities. As such, digital instruments,acoustic traditional instruments, and acoustic experi-mental instruments can coexist, and can perhaps mergeinto hybrid instruments, integrating dierent qualitiesand dierent fabrication technologies.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank William J. Mitchell, ObjetGeometries Ltd., Seth Hunter, Marenglen Skendo, JimPhelan from Burkart-Phelan, Robert Swartz, TamarRucham, Marilyn Levine, Nan-Wei Gong, MarceloCoelho, and Joe Paradiso for helping me in this research.

References

Baines, B. (1991). Woodwind Instruments and Their History.New York: Dover Publications.

Barker, J. (2001). Violin Making: A Practical Guide.Ramsbury, UK: Crowood Press.

Fig. 10. An illustration of a conceptual, visionary trumpet. This

computer rendering was made using V-Ray software.

386 Amit Zoran

Dow

nloa

ded

by [9

6.227

.217.1

43] a

t 09:5

3 11 O

ctobe

r 201

4

Blackbird, Guitars. (2008). Blackbird rider acoustic. Re-trieved January 27, 2008, from www.blackbirdguitar.com

Chua, C.K., Leong, K.F., & Lim, C.S. (2003). RapidPrototyping: Principles and Applications. Singapore:World Scientic.

Fletcher, N.H., & Rossing, T.D. (1990). The Physics ofMusical Instruments (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer.

Gershenfeld, N. (2005). FAB: The Coming Revolution onyour Desktop From Personal Computers to PersonalFabrication. New York: Basic Books.

Hopkin, B. (1996). Musical Instrument Design. Tucson, AZ:See Sharp Press.

Hopkinson, N., Hague, R.J.M., & Dickens, P.M. (2006).Rapid Manufacturing: An Industrial Revolution for theDigital Age. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Objet Geometries. (2010). 3D printing & rapid prototyping byObjet Geometries Ltd. Retrieved December 22, 2010,from www.objet.com

Phelan, J. (2011, February 20). Interview with Jim Phelan atBurkart-Phelan, Inc.

RedEye RPM. (2008). Guitar with digital manufacturingtechnology. Retrieved January 27, 2008, from www.redeyerpm.com

RepRap Website Main Page. (2010). RepRapWiki.Retrieved December 22, 2010, from reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page

Sachs, C. (2006). The History of Musical Instruments. NewYork: Dover Publications.

Schmitt, P., & Swartz, R. (2009). Make: Online: 3-D PrintedClock. Posted by Matt Mets, September 8, 2009.

Stratasys (2010). FDM rapid prototyping Stratasys.Retrieved December 22, 2010, from www.stratasys.com

Williams, J.P. (2002). The Piano: An Inspirational Guide tothe Piano and its Place in History. New York: BillboardBooks.

Youtube. (2010). Project video: 3D printed ute. RetrievedDecember 27, 2010, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?vzwHgszH0aqI

Zoran, A., & Maes, P. (2008, June 57). Considering virtual& physical aspects in acoustic guitar design. In NIME 08,Genova, Italy.

Zoran, A., & Paradiso, J.A. (2011a). The chameleon guitarguitar with a replaceable resonator. Journal of NewMusic Research, 40, 5974.

Zoran, A., Welch, S., & Hunt, W.D. (2011b). A platformfor manipulation and examination of the acousticguitar: The chameleon guitar. Applied Acoustics Journal,submitted.

The 3D printed ute: digital fabrication and design of musical instruments 387

Dow

nloa

ded

by [9

6.227

.217.1

43] a

t 09:5

3 11 O

ctobe

r 201

4