Comparison of High D Whistle Bores

[Terry McGee]

Amended, thanks. Anyone have figures for the Burke Narrow and Session High D whistles?

[pancelticpiper]

Anyone have figures for the Burke Narrow and Session High D whistles?

Sorry I owned both but never measured them. I suppose it's because my interest is Low Whistles, which I do usually measure.

As I recall the "narrow" Burke is around the same, or a tad wider, than the classic Generation bore (my Eb Generation and D Feadog both have .453 bores) while the "session" is really too wide to give a nimble 2nd octave.

[JackL]

Here is a dump of inside diameter measurements at the foot for whistles purchased new within 2022, so these should reflect the maker's current work. These measurements should be good to within 0.01" and 0.1mm.

- Brass
Burke Brass, Narrow Bore High D, tunable: 0.47", 12mm
Alex Dewilde, Brass head with plastic fipple High D, tunable: 0.50", 12.8 mm
Setanta, Brass head and fipple High D, tunable: 0.50", 12.8mm

- ABS
Susato Kildare Very Small Bore (ABS) High D, tunable: 0.40", 10mm
Susato Kildare Small Bore (ABS) High D, tunable: 0.46", 11.8mm

- Wood
McManus High D in Blackwood, tunable: 0.50", 12.7mm
P.G. Bleazey High D in Mopane, tunable: 0.37", 9.3mm at foot; 0.50", 12.8mm at middle joint
Jos. Morneault High D in Rosewood, tunable: 0.45", 11.5mm
O'Brien 3-pice High D in Granadillo, tunable: 0.5", 12.7mm

[Terry McGee]

Thanks, JackL. I've assimilated your data dump into the list so far. Let me know if I got anything wrong!

As you can see below, I'm having a play with formatting. Some parts of the list start with the whistle type. Others start with the whistle bore size, with a view to showing where there are clusters and gaps. Any strong views either way, or better suggestions?

Note that I've started a separate list (at bottom) for tapered whistles. It would be nice in many ways to be able to assimilate them into one list, but we'd need to agree on how to massage the data!

--------------------------

CYLINDRICAL WHISTLES

Susato Kildare Very Small Bore (ABS) High D, tunable (0.40", 10mm)








Reyburn D (10.9mm)

7/16" bore tubing (11.1mm)
Clare 2 piece (11.2mm)



Susato Kildare (11.5mm)
Jos. Morneault High D in Rosewood, tunable (0.45", 11.5mm)
Killarney (Brass), tunable (11.7mm)
Susato Kildare Small Bore (ABS) High D, tunable (0.46", 11.8mm)
15/32" bore tubing (11.9mm)
Generation (Poly head, brass or nickel body) (11.9mm)
Feadog (Poly head, brass body) (12.0mm)
Burke Brass, Narrow Bore High D, tunable (0.47", 12mm)

Milligan (12.2mm)
Goldie (12.3mm)
Kerry Songbird (12.3mm)
MacManus (12.3mm)
OZ Delrin Vizor (12.3mm)



12.7mm: 1/2" bore tubing
12.7mm: O'Brien 3-pice High D in Granadillo, tunable (0.5", 12.7mm)
12.7mm: McManus High D in Blackwood, tunable (0.50", 12.7mm)
12.8mm: Dixon Cupro-nickel (Delrin head)
12.8mm: Alex Dewilde, Brass head with plastic fipple High D, tunable (0.50", 12.8 mm)
12.8mm: Setanta, Brass head and fipple High D, tunable (0.50", 12.8mm)




13.3mm: Kerry Cobre

13.5mm: 17/32" bore tubing
13.5mm: Walton's Mellow D




14.0mm: Tilbury Aluminum D


14.3mm: 9/16" bore tubing
14.3mm: Burke Wide Bore






19/32" bore tubing (15mm)

Kerry Custom/MacManus (15.2mm)






5/8" bore tubing (15.9mm)
Kerry Busker Aluminum D (16.0 mm)


TAPERED WHISTLES
P.G. Bleazey High D in Mopane, tunable (0.37", 9.3mm at foot; 0.50", 12.8mm at middle joint)

[pancelticpiper]

For my own attempts to understand these things I want not only the bore ID but also the sounding length.

I know it's a complex issue but for simplicity of measuring and comparing I use bell-to-blade.

Because two whistles can have the same bore but different length-to-bore ratios.

[JackL]

I can see the utility of having the speaking length as well as the diameter. However, for the speaking length to be useful, the whistles all need to be tuned to a standard frequency at a common temperature and pressure. Those last two are the hard parts to achieve across a number of different owners in different climates. I found that even measuring the inside diameter with calipers is not as precise as it would appear at first. Measuring the length with a tape measure (vs. calipers) compounded by the tuning/temperature/pressure variables is going to be more error prone to achieve results that are truly comparable between whistles. Still interesting to see as a comparison, but not very precise in practice.

[Terry McGee]

Could be an optional data point. I'm imagining that the Sounding Length would ideally be taken as middle of window to end of foot, but bell-to-blade is easier to take. Is it fair to say that Sounding Length = bell-to-blade length + one half of window length?

To have any value at all, we'd need to make it one or the other and make it very clear which one! Feelings?

Life is complicated by the co-existence of Imperial and Metric systems. I guess we need both? Would this be a suitable convention:

Brand and Model Name (Materials) (Bore diameter x Bell-to-blade length)

eg: Generation (Poly head, brass or nickel body) (0.46", 11.9mm x 10.48", 266mm)

[Terry McGee]

Now, I separated out the only datapoint we have so far for tapered whistles. But I can foresee issues arising, as not all tapered whistles are made the same. How many "topologies" for tapered whistles are we aware of? So far, I can think of:

- tapered end to end, eg the untunable whistle I showed in viewtopic.php?f=1&t=113991&p=1257775#p1257775
- tapered from the start of the window down, eg the untunable Clarke's whistle, and
- tapered from the tuning slide down, eg: P.G. Bleazey High D in Mopane, tunable (0.37", 9.3mm at foot; 0.50", 12.8mm at middle joint)

Are there other forms we need to think about? Does anyone make whistles that are tapered above the tuning slide?

Would we be better off to split these into two different categories - Tunable and Untunable Tapered Whistles?

[JackL]

For whistle length, I think you would measure from the bell, or foot, to the window opening at the point closest to the bell. I believe that determines the speaking length. It also avoid error in estimating the centerpoint of the window.

I don't know whether there are enough conical whistle makes out there to be too worried about covering all eventualities.

[Terry McGee]

OK, so foot to blade. And maybe you're right about the numbers of conical flutes. We only have data for one so far! Compared to 26 cylindrical....

[paddler]

Regarding bore profiles of whistles, a lot of whistles employ some kind of head taper which I think of as being analogous to the
parabolic head profile of a Boehm flute. Sometimes this takes the form of plug extensions that protrude into the bore either
side of the window. In other designs the external profile of the head may be compressed into a squared-off profile that also
impacts the bore volume in the head area. I'm not sure if you want to add notes on this kind of thing, but it is probably just
as relevant as the specific bore profile of conical bore whistles.

For the conical bore whistles, you would need to specify where on the bore the diameter is measured, if you are going to use just
a single value. Some of the measurements above seem to be using a measurement at the foot. However, I think the more acoustically
relevant measurement would be at the head, close to the window. I think that contributes more to determining whether a particular
whistle performs like a narrow or wide bore cylindrical model.

Regardless of the level of detail, I think a resource like this would be valuable.

[RoberTunes]

This graph borrowed from the Bracker whistle website has interested me a long time. Obviously there are many
factors that affect tone and playability other than just bore size related to key. Mouthpiece and window/blade design, size of tone holes,
being two. Of course the PURPOSE of the instrument, or the range of applications, comes into consideration when you push the instrument
specs towards an extreme of bore size or other feature, for a chosen key. I think the increased bore sizes for any given key, were brought
in to explore more possibilities for whistles well beyond the limits induced by the early designs of whistles (brass and plastic mouthpieces
on very inexpensive instruments). Having played well designed whistles that tend to settle either towards an ideal middle value on this chart,
as well as some with a much larger bore for a given key, and liking the gains in expressiveness possible, I'd say the exploration of what
whistles can do is far from over, and all along, both small, medium and large bore size/key designs have found lots of fans, for good reasons.
If I want to sit under a tree and practice finger technique or scales or invent tunes, or just sound like a Trad band backup player,
maybe the smaller bore options are best, but if performance possibilities and my own performance and practice abilities are the issue,
then the best and most versatile bigger bore/key size whistles would become necessary, in general, and depending on what's best for
each tune. Lots to consider in the range of whistles out there now. There are many expressive musical possibilities the larger bore
whistles permit that just aren't possible on the thin bore whistles. This is why WHOAD is required; have a range of whistles, so you've
got the purposes and expressive possibilities all available.

[Terry McGee]

Thanks for that, RoberTunes. And making sure I am interpreting it correctly, we find our Treble D whistles over near the top left corner (the D label at centre being Low D)?
So Treble D whistles might be as thin as 11.5mm, or as fat as 14.5, but can be expected to demonstrate the highest Q at around 13mm. (For those not fluent in Technobabble, Q is the "Quality Factor" of a resonance. So the highest Q point will be the most responsive.)

Does Bracker indicate how those figures were arrived at? Ah, don't worry, found it at:
https://www.music.bracker.uk/Music/Sear ... -Bore.html

Interesting to look back at the latest version of the list. I've replicated below the section that is covered by Bracker's green zone, and included his ranges, bolded to make them stand out. Interestingly the bulk of whistles lie on the thin side. That would conform with my (admittedly narrow) experience.

[Bracker thinnest] Susato Kildare (11.5mm)
Jos. Morneault High D in Rosewood, tunable (0.45", 11.5mm)
Killarney (Brass), tunable (11.7mm)
Susato Kildare Small Bore (ABS) High D, tunable (0.46", 11.8mm)
15/32" bore tubing (11.9mm)
Generation (Poly head, brass or nickel body) (11.9mm)
Feadog (Poly head, brass body) (12.0mm)
Burke Brass, Narrow Bore High D, tunable (0.47", 12mm)

Milligan (12.2mm)
[Bracker central zone thin end] Goldie (12.3mm)
Kerry Songbird (12.3mm)
MacManus (12.3mm)
OZ Delrin Vizor (12.3mm)



12.7mm: 1/2" bore tubing
12.7mm: O'Brien 3-pice High D in Granadillo, tunable (0.5", 12.7mm)
12.7mm: McManus High D in Blackwood, tunable (0.50", 12.7mm)
12.8mm: Dixon Cupro-nickel (Delrin head)
12.8mm: Alex Dewilde, Brass head with plastic fipple High D, tunable (0.50", 12.8 mm)
12.8mm: Setanta, Brass head and fipple High D, tunable (0.50", 12.8mm)

[Bracker central]


13.3mm: Kerry Cobre
[Bracker central zone fat end]
13.5mm: 17/32" bore tubing
13.5mm: Walton's Mellow D




14.0mm: Tilbury Aluminum D


14.3mm: 9/16" bore tubing
14.3mm: Burke Wide Bore

[Bracker fattest]

So 8 entries in the thin side, 9 in the thin side of the central zone, 1 on the fat side of central, and 3 on the fat side.
A total of 21 out of 26 entries, most of which fall on the thin sides.
Leaving 2 on the too-thin side of Bracker's curves, and 3 on the too fat side.

And Bracker's central line [13mm] so far unoccupied. Although I'd concede that 12.7mm (1/2") isn't far off.

[Tunborough]

Does Bracker indicate how those figures were arrived at? Ah, don't worry, found it at:
https://www.music.bracker.uk/Music/Sear ... -Bore.html

Actually, the original source was this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=84789.

The Q factor is a measure of how strong a particular resonance is. For the lowest notes, widening the bore will increase the Q; for the highest notes, narrowing the bore will increase the Q. The objective is to balance the Q factor between the highest and lowest notes. (Q factor is generally higher for all the notes in between.) The centre line of Hans's graph is where we think the Q factor will be about the same for the lowest note (D5 on a high D) and the note two octaves up (D7). If you never go above high B, you may be happier with a wider bore; if you want to get into the third octave, you may be happier with a narrower bore.

WIDesigner can estimate the Q factor for each note of a whistle: https://github.com/edwardkort/WWIDesign ... tion-Table. An exercise I haven't done is estimate Q factors for a conical-bore whistle.

[Terry McGee]

Actually, the original source was this thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=84789.

Ah, thanks for that, Tunborough. Taking the discussions there on board (and I've only had time to flick-read them), would you:
1. Say that it remains useful for our growing table of bores to include the points from his graph as meaningful markers? EG [Bracker thinnest]
2. Agree that it's appropriate to use Bracker's name, or can you suggest something more appropriate?
3. Suggest a less clutzy collection of terms than the ones I've come up with? [Bracker central zone fat end] - Sheesh!

The Q factor is a measure of how strong a particular resonance is. For the lowest notes, widening the bore will increase the Q; for the highest notes, narrowing the bore will increase the Q. The objective is to balance the Q factor between the highest and lowest notes. (Q factor is generally higher for all the notes in between.) The centre line of Hans's graph is where we think the Q factor will be about the same for the lowest note (D5 on a high D) and the note two octaves up (D7). If you never go above high B, you may be happier with a wider bore; if you want to get into the third octave, you may be happier with a narrower bore.

Understood and agree. My favourite at the moment is what I think is a Soodlams or Walton's Mellow D, but only after I tweaked the tuning big time. See: http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/Tin-whistle-retuning.htm. But I do find the top of the second octave a little twitchy, so I'm considering my options. It has a 13.5mm bore, which the Bracker curves suggest is a little on the fat side. I definitely don't enjoy the thinner tube whistles, such as Feadog, Killarney, Generation, around the 11.7 to 12mm mark. I have been wondering about getting or making myself a 12.7 (1/2") bore whistle, which I note is close to Bracker Central.

WIDesigner can estimate the Q factor for each note of a whistle: https://github.com/edwardkort/WWIDesign ... tion-Table. An exercise I haven't done is estimate Q factors for a conical-bore whistle.

Oh dear, Tunborough. You certainly know how to read minds and press buttons all at the same time. The promise of solid bottom notes with sweet, agile top notes. And possibly tighter tuning? OK, let's cut to the chase. How much chocolate (whiskey, whatever) would we have to send to get you to do even a quick look at that?