What can be learned from measuring chanters ?

[billh]

I am not comfortable using measurement of recently-made sets as a starting point, unless the recent maker is explicitly encouraging this process. Also, I think there is still an advantage to the old sets, not sure anyone is regularly matching their playing quality at least WRT flat sets.

More access to this information is probably a good thing. We also need to ensure that the measurements that are published are of a very high caliber, preferably with independent verification.

regards

Bill

[David Lim]

I'd caution you against thinking there are some simple principles that will emerge that would be of practical use in bore tuning.

Maybe I am being naïve and optimistic but I cannot believe there are not some general rules that can be followed even if they only work in 8/10 cases.

Holes seem simpler and it is accepted that a larger hole give a sharper note and a higher position gives a sharper note. Craig Fischer seems to infer (on the square chanter webpage) that hole size and position have different effects in different octaves.

He also talks about opening the area of the bore above a hole to affect tuning. With the bore just above the hole seeming to have a different effect to widening all the way up to the next hole.

His article seems to contain clues to recognised bore effects.

The good designs out there cannot be the result of random attempts. Experienced makers must have some ideas on how to use the bore to tune their chanters.

Am I just clutching at straws??

The pipes at the National Museum are being measured but being published is another thing

One of the aims of NPU is to perpetuate production of pipes. One of the most effective things they could do would be to publish accurate reliable measurements.

Does anyone know if they are already doing or considering this or could they be asked to consider financing such a project?

David

[billh]

I'd caution you against thinking there are some simple principles that will emerge that would be of practical use in bore tuning.

Maybe I am being naïve and optimistic but I cannot believe there are not some general rules that can be followed even if they only work in 8/10 cases.

The one iron rule seems to be this:
1) Everything affects everything else.

This is what gets in the way of designing practical techniques involving generic bore modifications.

Holes seem simpler and it is accepted that a larger hole give a sharper note and a higher position gives a sharper note. Craig Fischer seems to infer (on the square chanter webpage) that hole size and position have different effects in different octaves.

He also talks about opening the area of the bore above a hole to affect tuning. With the bore just above the hole seeming to have a different effect to widening all the way up to the next hole.

His article seems to contain clues to recognised bore effects.

If you keep Rule #1 in mind, some of these may turn out to be useful. However Craig is speaking of a particular chanter design here, and he's not IMO suggesting that those suggestions will work in every situation, sometimes things will seem to go the opposite direction from what you expect. By saying "X affects Y" he's stopping short of giving a methodology.

That said, the tuning of individual notes/octaves by changing the bore in the vicinity of a single tonehole is a tried-and-true technique, you can extrapolate from regulator tuning techniques too - but of course a bore increase, even local to a tonehole, like undercutting, will change the rest of the scale to some degree. It seems hard to predict (without lots of calculation) what those changes will be, or how large their magnitude with be.

The good designs out there cannot be the result of random attempts. Experienced makers must have some ideas on how to use the bore to tune their chanters.

Yes, I certaunly agree. But I don't believe they discovered them all by themselves, or in a single generation. There is ample reason to believe that they were building on an established woodwind making tradition which, unfortunately, has moved away from those bore tuning methods to the extent that they are now lost.

Am I just clutching at straws??

IMO, only if you are looking for quick and easy answers

Bill

[Jim McGuire]

Wilbert Garvin's book (many diagrams and details for building a set of pipes) is out on eBAY:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 7349451448

[billh]

Wilbert Garvin's book (many diagrams and details for building a set of pipes) is out on eBAY:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 7349451448

FYI, although beautifully illustrated and full of helpful information, Wilbert's book doesn't include the sorts of detailed bore profiles we've been talking about here. Rather than being a one-stop reference for building a set of pipes, I'd strongly suggest supplementing it with at least one other set of dimensions for comparison and reference.

Bill