Chiff and Fipple Forums

the sordellina of manfredo settala (1630)

For anyone wanting it hear it, the sound is pretty amazing really.

https://www.facebook.com/eric.montbel/v ... cation=ufi

Here's an article that proposes the sordellina as ancestor to the regs:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/do ... 1&type=pdf

This instrument appears to have parallel bores ( appears to me since I have not read the articles about its construction but just from listening to the video) and thus it raises the question :

Why did the early makers of Uilleann Pipes use conical bores for the regulators when straight bores can give a greater note range over a far shorter length of pipe ?

Am I correct in understanding they used the same reamers for the regulators and the chanter?

JR wrote:Am I correct in understanding they used the same reamers for the regulators and the chanter?

To some extent this is correct . Certainly with the old narrow bore pipes it is possible to use the same , or similar, reamers for the two 'in board' regulators. Possibly not the case with the modern wide bore Pipes where the chanter and drones have been made to be louder whilst the regulators retain their narrower bores.

So, we might assume then that the conical pipemakers just stuck with the technology they knew best or perhaps the tonal / pressure differences caused some incompatibility ? Or perhaps it was never tried ?

I think if the early makers wanted to add a cylindrical (parallel) bore pipe they'd have done it - various kinds of smallpipe were being produced in the same milieu so I reckon the tools and knowledge were available. The timbre of a conical bore blends seamlessly with the sound of the chanter so that must have been a consideration.

It's a pity we don't really know how these early single reg sets were played - was the regulator used for occasional chords, rhythmic accompaniment, or as a kind of instant extra tunable drone?

Having had a set with parallel bore regs I can chip in here.

As Geoff said, you get a wider range of notes over the same length. Or conversely, the notes that you actually want to use, as on a normal set, take up a much smaller sounding length. Necessitating a different approach to keys and mounting them. My set were mounted much like a Boehm flute, on one long pivot on each regulator, enabling the keys to be spaced relatively evenly. If you tried to do that with block mounts for keys then I don’t think you could do it. there’s a reason why Northumbrian chanters have their keys mounted on opposite sides for the notes that are very close to each other on the scale, most of that is to do with space to operate them.

Ultimately, they were very steady, quite well balanced, and sounded like 3 Northumbrian chanters when you were playing them.

But, they did work with single reeds too. They just sounded like a concertina then instead.

Ultimately, there a reason why the design evolved into what we play today. They are just ‘right’.

And frustrating!

Did Pat McNulty not make parallel bores regs?

What about the "reaching-convenience" of reg-keys on regs with cylindrical bores?

There is a video of this being played on facebook

https://www.facebook.com/eric.montbel/v ... 00296/?t=0