with a conical bore, how do the tone holes place compared to a cylindrical bore? E.g. If you had tones holes the same size on both whistles, would they be higher on the conical bore or lower to keep them in tune?
what is the advantages gained in a conical whistle compared to a cylindrical? What are some disadvantages? Iâve heard many opinions on this, and want to get some more.
The last one is OT, does anyone know any tricks to help cut in a straight line with a hand saw? Recommend a saw for small work and any jigs you know of?.
Plenty disadvantages, which sum up to one general: itâs much harder to make.
The Flutomat doesnât work.
The conicity is extremely delicate. Some think the Clarkes, Shaws, and even the Copelands, to be excessively conical. This can sacrifice the volume of low tones. It should be less than on transverse flutes (or baroque recorders).
Machining requires expensive tooling with wood: a special reamer required for every new tone of whistle.
With metal, itâs even tougher.
Casting plastic is even more expensive.
Well made, IMHO, the conical bores wins on range, and registers being in tune and balance to ecah other.
Any hardware store will sell you plenty of cheap solutions for this. Now, since you ask the question it may well be youâd better gain experience with the simplest design of whistle you can. Like a straight tube for a start.
Better yet, try and find workshops, courses or tutorials on machining, smithing, woodworkingâŚ
Donât take me wrong, please: the pennywhistle just seems so simple at first look. Just a tube, a plug and a few holes. Now, if you look into it (peek-a-boo!) the tube is already a challenge.
Scary Old Lady tried to sell me a comical bore whistle, but Chucky Notorious pointed out that the rec***er is comical, so I wound up trading a banjo to Bruce Weee for one of Plas ticm anâs Susatos, which has a cyclindical bore. Scary old lady, meanwhile, sent her comical bore whistle in for a free review by the Independent Whistle Review Committee.
[quote=âWaldenâ]Scary Old Lady tried to sell me a comical bore whistle, but Chucky Notorious pointed out that the rec***er is comical, so I wound up trading a banjo to Bruce Weee for one of Plas ticm anâs Susatos, which has a cyclindical bore. Scary old lady, meanwhile, sent her comical bore whistle in for a free review by the [url=http://www27.brinkster.com/bumtown/iwrc.htm]
But I do not make comical boring whistles yet, even although Iâm old and scary [url=http://www27.brinkster.com/bumtown/iwrc.htm]
Is this for real or are yer just kiddin you wyile old waldie
well they most definitely sound different: conical bore whistles tend to be a bit more âflutyâ sounding. I prefer cylindrical bore whistles for the most part, but I suppose itâs a matter of tasteâŚ
Iâm cutting a peace about one foot long, quarter inch thick, through pine or maple.
What Iâm trying to do is avoid some of the walkabout that happens with the saw, and the time spent making that cut flat. I know that it canât be avoided altogether, but just looking for any tricks or jigs that people might know of that could help I know practice would help, but it might be a time before I get good at it
hummmâŚ.. Sounds like playing the whistle LOL! Thanks everyone for your answers.
It would also help to know how wide the piece you want to cut is.
So far, we have:
Pine or maple
About 1/4 inch thick
About 12 inches long
Do I assume correctly that you want to âripâ the piece? (That means cut it the long way, into two pieces that are narrower than the piece you started with.)
How wide is the piece that you want to cut up? (If itâs one inch wide and you want to rip it into two, half inch wide pieces, thatâs a different situation than if itâs one foot wide and you want to rip it into two, six inch wide pieces.)
I want to cut a section 1 inch wide and 12 inches long, a quarter inch thick. I am using a mitre box to trim the ends, but ârippingâ the board give me trouble. The stock Iâm cutting from is about 1 foot wide, and 13 - 15 inches long, and allready at the desiered thickness. Iâm planning on cutting several lengths from 1 piece, so the size of the stock will diminish accordingly. The way I do it now is to mark out the sections on the stock so there is a strip of waste between them so that each piece will have space for the cut, but mainly in case I really butcher a cut, I can start new on the next one
As for the âIndependent Whistle Reviewâ project, we actually are willing to do whistle reviews, if any maker wishes to submit a whistle for review. Until then, perhaps itâs just a joke.
You may be statistically right, but Iâm not sure one can derive an acoustic rule from it.
Right for say, Copelands, Sweetones. But what about Shaws, Clarke Originals?
Then you may be right again for most conical wooden whistles, typically Swayne. This could well be due to the fact that many of those manufacturers who master the conical bore may also tend and try their best to get the sound âpureâ. But the flutey sound you have also with many wooden straight-bore whistlesâŚ
And I have here a wood conical Low D which sounds closer to an Overton than anything else. The âcosmic drainpipeâ overtones are even more pronounced. I know it may seem weird, because these goes against many ârulesâ I tended to believe in myselfâŚ
All things compared, I believe the flutey vs chiffy debate may be more connected to the head design than to the bore. The latter seems to affect more other aspects, like playability.
i agree that, all things being equal, the conical bore is in better tune and has better balance between the octavesâwhich is why michael burke, for example, makes sure that all things are not equal, by modifying the bore on his excellent whistles. the new sweetheart professional model is interesting in this context. its bore is only slightly conicalânot as conical as the clarkes or earlier sweetheartsâand the result seems to be a rather loud (but not obnoxious) whistle that is well balanced and well tuned. the tone isnât anywhere near as chiffy as a clarke, and is more whistle-like than flute-like to my ear. as i say, itâs a very interesting whistle, and one which really got me wondering about just what design factors make for a good or bad whistle.
To do what youâre asking with common hand tools, I would proceed as follows:
Take a piece of scrap wood that has a smooth surface and is at least as long as your 1/4 inch stock.
Take another piece of scrap stock that has a straight edge and clamp (with two C-clamps or similar) the workpiece between the two scrap pieces so that the straight edged piece is on top and positioned where you can use the straight edge to guide a handsaw to make a straight cut.
Use the straight edge of the top piece to guide the handsaw as you cut into the workpiece. Youâll be cutting with the sawblade edge touching the workpiece along the whole length of the sawblade, rather than cutting through at an angle. When youâve cut all the way through the workpiece, stop.
When setting up the guide piece, I would recommend that you set it up so that the piece you want to keep is covered by the guide and the waste piece is exposed. That way, if your saw drifts, it will scratch the waste piece, not the piece you want to keep.
When youâre through cutting, you can carefully sand the cut edge smooth by placing a whole piece (or two) of sandpaper on a planar surface (e.g. countertop) and rubbing the sawn edge across the sandpaper, rubbing parallel to the length of the piece, not across. Be careful to keep holding the piece perpendicular and sand the whole edge so you get a nice straight edge and square corners.
Youâll probably need to experiment with the position of the clamps and pieces of wood to accomodate the configuration of the saw.
Regarding metal conical-bore whistles, like Copelands, does anyone know if sheet metal has to be rolled into a cone-shaped tube - or is there some kind of extruder or press to taper straight tubing?
From what I understand, Clarkes and shaws are rolled from a sheet of tin or what ever they are made from, and soldered. While Copelands and some others are shaped like that way from brass tubing much the same way French horns are made (I got my info from that BBC special and the C&F interview with Mr Copeland) Now how French horns are made or how the tin is rolled, I donât know
Oh yes, when I started down the slippery road of no return towards the reversed tapered zoobtastic copper whistles, the taper was a nightmare, and my taper is only over 1/6 of the total working length.
Paul, the method I used to make the tapered tube was to cutânâshut, I cut a very narrow triangular section out of the length of the tube then heated the tube to make it more malleable and re-rolled it into a tapered tube and then silver soldered up the seam. Iâm sure this could be used to make a standard taper tube whistle and I bet youâd have fun trying to get the tube consentric
If thereâs an experimental whistle Iâd like to hear, it IS your reverse tapered Boehm-bard
BTW, Iâm just starting to play in a new Low D. Great sound and responsiveness so far, but you know how these wooden things are prone to evolve with playing in. The maker insists on tapering, but also on making the cone much shallower than on, say, a flute (he makes these also).
To him, after experimenting, the Overton/Shaw/Clarke conicity is too pronounced for a balanced volume, and specifically a strong low end.
On his design the head section of the Low D is a cylinder of Ă 20.5 mm, and 134.0 mm long, approximately (as Mr Spock would say). You may notice this proportion reminds your invert cone extension.
The middle and foot sections taper gradually to Ă 17.5 mm.
Of course, since he uses wood, manufacturing was mostly a question of getting the proper reamers machined. His are electro-eroded from carbon steel. He gets one set made per tone and section of whistle, or bombarde, or flute.
I have to check what taper adopted Boehm when he still used a standard (not reversed) taper.
it may well be youâd better gain experience with the simplest design of whistle you can. Like a straight tube for a start.
[url=
Thanks everyone for your answers.
:roll: