I agree too.

Speaking solely for myself, the above is a bit presumptuous.

I don't want to, nor could I possibly copy Brian's method. Though, I'm sure he makes great reeds, I don't have any intention (at this stage) of buying one.

My request/query was posed only from a point of interest.... a relaxed "I don't need to know all the secrets, but would like to see..."

Brian has spent years tinkering with staple design, applying acoustical principles. He is walking where none have tread before. Although using some sort of CNC machine to do the work, the staple bore he makes is a little like a whistle in that it includes tiny perturbations etc. to tune things. It is the details of the design which make it work. Seeing pictures of the machining would not reveal the design. However, the machining involved is not anything out of the ordinary. It would be interesting to see, but must of us would never go so far to make a staple. However, credit goes to Brian for persevering in this endeavor. The wide range of chanters his reeds work in speak to the success of his years of work.

Would it not have made more sense to put all the effort into creating a chanter bore that would take a generic staple/reed made with tubing, say 52mm staple 1.5 eye 82mm oal . As Brian has said his orignal reasons for working on the staple was for his own chanters,this would suggest there was a probelm with the chanter ,so why not correct the chanter.

RORY

Hear Hear, Ted!!

A number of attempts have been made over 40 or more years to design a chanter that will play well with a generic, tubing-stapled reed. None have been very successful. Brian has been working on reed design because he is aware of the acoustic principles involved and feels more can be done to make a better performing reed. An uilleann chanter is the result of a number of compromises. None are perfect, antique or modern. Leo Rowsome's pipes are generally considered the pinnacle of sound in concert pipes. A tubing-stapled reed will not play one of his chanters in tune.

To suggest that Brian is making a faulty chanter, because it cannot be reeded with a reed a monkey could put together from readily available materials of certain dimensions, is ludicrous. His work is to constantly look for improvements in how pipes work. We are beginning to arrive at a time when pipes are being made which match the best ever made. I appreciate the work that Brian and a number of other makers have put into understanding how pipes can play the way they do. If it was simple, pipes from Pakistan would play great and one could buy a set off the shelf from a music store for a tenth of their present cost. Brian has contributed a number of unique elements in his pipes, like his ergonomic chanter keys, the tuning iris and regulator tuning pistons, to name a few. That his staple and reed design work in so many different designs of chanters is a testament to his diligence.

Reply to more questions.



Q Would it not have made more sense to put all the effort into creating a chanter bore that would take a generic staple/reed made with tubing, say 52mm staple 1.5 eye 82mm oal . As Brian has said his orignal reasons for working on the staple was for his own chanters,this would suggest there was a probelm with the chanter ,so why not correct the chanter.

RORY

A. First thanks to Ted for his answer but I think I can add a little more detail.

Instead of thinking of a chanter bore, a staple and the cane bit, try thinking of a complete air column that is “held in place” by these three components. It is desirable to have each of these performing at an optimum level. This has been done in the chanter by evolving the shape of the bore, sound holes, the iris etc. All these are connected and have been evolved together.

I used parallel tubular staples for years with good results but started metal spinning tapered staples and found them much better. In parallel with this I was evolving bore perturbations in the chanter and it seemed a good idea to try the same in staples. This proved successful and I have not used a parallel tube staple for about 15 years. The “all-over”
machining of a stainless steel staple is just a progression that gave more accuracy and repeatability.

Having a standard staple has enabled me to improve the “cane bit”. For instance the variations in cane seem less important.
One thing though, when you move away from a parallel tube the length of the staple changes with the geometry. My staple has had to change in length and is coincidentally more in line with an oboe staple.

Brian Howard

www.howardmusic.co.uk
shop@howardmusic.co.uk

I recently received one of these reeds from Howard Music and it's now my main reed in my large bore, large finger hole Tim & Stephanie Benson Rowsome copy. Great sound, easy to play and in tune. I have had, however, to insert a rush into the staple to bring the second octave down, and I'm also using a rush in the chanter bore. The original Rowsome chanter was obviously meant to play a little above modern concert pitch, so a rush really seems to be necessary in the chanter bore with any kind of reed I've tried in it. I repeat: this is not just with the Howard reed, but all reeds I've tried in it. The same rush has worked well with all the reeds I've had in the chanter, so I now pretty much consider it a permanent add-on to the bore design for concert pitch playing. I also have a piece of tape on the back D and the E holes. Again something this chanter seems to require with almost every reed.

We tried the reed in uilleannfinlander's Bill Haneman Rowsome copy last night, and while the second octave was slightly flat past the "a" note, It seemed that it could easily be made to work in the chanter by removing the rush from inside the staple and perhaps adjusting the bridle a bit.

It also works well in Richard Patkós D chanters with some tape over the back D hole (with the current bridle adjustment, anyway).

Great reed, worth the money.