Chiff and Fipple Forums

If that alteration is so common, I'm wondering why the makers of the inexpensive plastic mouthpiece whistles don't do it themselves with a slight alteration to the mold.

Do a search. This has been discussed time and again: the cavity is there for reasons of even setting, injection moulding doesn't allow a solid chunk under the windway.

I was happy to see that the Clarke Sweetone fipple does not need to be tweaked to fill the space below the windway.

Alaskamike wrote:I was happy to see that the Clarke Sweetone fipple does not need to be tweaked to fill the space below the windway.

There have been, sometimes heated, discussions here in the past about the 'need' for 'tweaking'.

I am on the side of the argument that holds it that whistles don't 'need' to be altered to function well. It's a choice you can make to alter a functional whistle, to change its playing characteristics or voicing. But the opinion some people hold that mass produced whistles are only functional after alterations have been carried out, holds no water in my opinion.

I have played around with backfilling the cavity of some whistles, Oak, Feadog, but to be honest I failed to notice any significant change, let alone improvement, of their playing characteristics. In the case of the Oak filling with Bluetack dulled the whistle considerably, which was not something I liked much. Some people seem to experience a miraculous improvement so YMMV but I think its really a matter of really wanting to find a difference, whether it's there or not.