Is it true that conical bore whistles are more ‘naturally’ in tune, and that cylindrical bore whistles are inherently less ‘naturally’ in tune?
Assuming that the above is true, what are different tricks whistle smiths use to bring their cylindrical whistles into tune (assuming they’re not trade secrets, etc…)?
I know Mr. Burke uses a perturbed bore…do other makers just use different hole sizes and spacing to get as close as possible? Can this also be adjusted by the fipple shape (concave/convex) and position?
Is it really possible to get any kind of whistle in tune in both octaves, or will you always need to adjust to a whistle and learn to blow it into tune?
Feel free to chime in with incredibly technical scientific details (those of you who are prone to doing that sort of thing).
For the record, it seems as though most of the cylindrical whistles I’ve owned have been more in tune than the conical ones, which is contrary to what I’ve always been told about whistle bores…
I’m still pretty green, but I’ll tell you what I’ve found. Making a very small bevel on the top exit edge of the windway can help pull that upper register up a little. Probably some other ways of fixxing that problem.
I’ve had that problem on a couple of Gen style whistles. Just a hair off at a time. You can overdue it.
I agree this is very tricky, and I don’t experiment much with my whistles. However, the design of the head definitely seems to make a difference, as the substitution of a whitecap on a Gen certainly seems to me to bring it into better tune. IMO, the primary benefit of a conical bore is a very strong low end, the drawback being that you can lose some off the top end range.
I beg to dicker… The low end/high end strength seems more linked to blade windway and window size issues.
The Shaws and Copelands and Clarkes I tried (all strongly conica) all originally lacked the strong low end I like.
Baroque recorders (same very strong cone) also seem to lack a solid low end.
Now the Yvon Le Coant’s I tried (D, G, low D) are conical, have a strong low end, and get two full balanced ocaves. True their cone is very limited, less than a wood flute or fife.
At the opposite end, and this would concur with you, I’ve had several big bore cylindrical whistles with a “hollow” low end. This is the reason I like so much Albas’s big low C, with has a booming low end (AND second tone, i.e. xxx xxo), but with a restrainer sleeve at the end giving it a “virtual cone” at the tip.
The strength of a whistle, straight or conical, has nothing to do with the body, rather, it is the voicing of the head that matters.
Where the body shape comes into play is the tuning of individual notes at the top and bottom of the register. In a straight bore whistle, these are usually somewhat sharp, the whistle maker attempts to get the middle range in tune, ie g to g’, and accepts minor variations at the top and bottom ends. With a conical bore, it is possible to get more accurate tuning across the whole two octaves.
Not entirely…or even primarily - the aspect ratio (ratio of bore length to diameter) has a major effect on a whistle’s over all volume, as well as the strength of the bell note. The Abell Eb/D/C set is an excellent illustration of this: Three different length bodies, with the same size bore, which are played by a single head joint. The result? The Eb (shortest) tube produces the most volume and the strongest bell note with a trade off of high end notes that are a bit tougher to hit and more piercing, the D whistle produces less volume, a good but not rock solid bell note, and a high end just short of being on the shrill side. Finally, the C tube is fairly quiet (great for late night practice) with a somewhat weak bell note, but a beautiful pleasing high end.
Typically, if a maker wants more volume and strength of the low end, step one would be to adjust the aspect ratio.
I agree… and although I’ve been told I was wrong about it, I still say that larger tone holes make the 2nd octave easier to play in tune.
It’s hole size, more so than hole placement, that determines the intonation of the 2nd octave.
Whistles with smaller holes can still usually be blown into tune with varying degrees of extra force, but larger holes (correctly proportioned, of course) greatly reduce the need for any extra force.
It’s also true that the voicing plays a critical role in the whole volume/intonation balancing act, but it can’t completely compensate for an improper length/bore ratio.
Agreed: If one goes mucking around with the windway/blade/window arrangement as the main way to improve volume, one runs the risk of radically altering the whistles tonal character - meaning if one wanted to make a louder Acme brand soprano whistle, messing a bunch with the headjoint to achive that goal would likely give you a louder whistle, but it would no longer sound and play like an Acme whistle, it would now sound and play like something else, where as keeping the headjoint design more or less constant, a maker could vary the aspect ratio and to produce a louder or softer whistle that still sounded undeniably…Acme
Your 1st question is not very precise. A tapering conical whistle bore provides 2 major advantages.
The increased acoustic impedance (backpressure) provides better inter-register note matching, e.g. c-4 natural and c-5 nat.(octave) will not need embouchure bending to correct flattening in the upper registers. This “flattening” is caused by a slight phase shift compounded with each register. The “trade off” is a reduction in overall range.
The increased acoustic impedance flattens the first register low notes and demands more breath pressure. This increases the loudness of the low notes. At the other end of the scale, the high notes need less breath pressure and are reduced in loudness. The final result is a scale that is more even in loudness across its entire (if limited) range.
Adjusting the space/cavity of the fipple plug face works in the same manner as adjusting the plug on a Boehm silver flute, for better (but not perfect) inter-register tuning.
Undercutting toneholes and Bore Perturbation are used to correct discrepencies between individual notes in the upper registers. Undercutting a tonehole improves the tone of an individual note by providing a “bigger target”, if you will, for the air column, so half the acoustic energy doesn’t “blow past” a narrow opening under the higher velocities of the upper registers.
Bore Perturbation is used to regulate the velocity of the aircolumn near a tonehole. Example 1: by placing a constriction between the f’# and g’ toneholes (a narrow half interval) a designer can gain greater physical separation between the toneholes. It slows down the air column above the restriction, flattens the g’ note and allows the designer to move it higher up the bore. At the same time, the restriction speeds up the air column just below the restriction, sharpening the f’# tonehole and allows it to be moved lower down the bore. The end result of 1 bore restriction is greater finger comfort/spacing on small instruments between the f’# and g’ notes.
Example 2: the e’ tonehole can be moved closer to the f’#, reducing the finger distance by increasing the bore diameter just above its new placement. The pertubation flattens an otherwise sharp placement.
As for voicings and labium angles, I will only say that the angle of the blade regulates the stability of the oscillations (low angle-fast octave switch/high angle-slow octave switch). The manipulation of the voicing is infinite and would require a book to scratch the surface of the possibilities. It is, after all, the sound generator.
Sorry for this long post, but the questions were vague. Is there something more specific you need to know Brett?
My answer is yes:
it will bring part of the advantages. Practical demonstrations I know are:
Alba’s low C (with a very moderate “sleeve” type restriction). However the head part has a pertubation too…
Quenas, which usually have a “stopper” end pierced with a smaller hole.
Note both quoted have big bores.
Now A bore constriction only at the start of an otherwise cylindrical whistle has also proved its worth more than once. Again, I shall only bring practical demonstraions, not theoretical proofs:
• Boehm flutes–Sankt Theo the Bald did hit some success here. Get his book.
• Overton whistles (and many others, when you look into it…)
The bore reduction on a conical whistle cause the ‘local cutoff frequency’ of the low end toneholes to rise. This allows comprise of shrinking the hole size to fit hands better with by compensating with bore diameter reduction. If you look at the tonehole cutoff frequency formual, you’ll see that the tonehole diameter increase raises cutoff and bore diameter decrease raise cutoff.
High cutoff frequencies are good, however in whistle design they need to be consistent as well.
Bore Perturbation (Reduction/Enlargement) can be used at the area of each tonehole to vary tonehole diameter(cross-sectional manipulation). This is useful to regulate the loudness of each tonehole. If all the toneholes are the same size (or slightly larger as you progress downward on a tapering conical), you will not have discrepencies in loudness between large and small toneholes.
{Simple Tapering Bore, Cross-Sectional Tonehole and Tapering Tonehole calculations can be found in Lew Paxton Price’s book Secrets of the Flute.}
An option for you budding makers would be a stepped bore made in wood with the new long stepped dowel bits http://www.woodextra.com/images/premierfree/OMillerDowel.jpg or, as I love to promote, “spinning” silver, copper or aluminum tubing on a lathe, into a tapered “stepped” bore over a maderel/mold. Spinning soft tubing will not require the expensive, powerful metal lathe needed for thick brass and stainless steel.
The " Renaissance Hotteterre Group" made thousands of flutes,recorders and bagpipes with internal stepped bores. The reduction in acoustic performance is minimal, realy.
Zubivka has pointed out the advantage of a “throat” restriction near the voicing. This technique improves acoustic coupling, reducing the energy/breath needed to start/maintain oscillations. This would be an advantage for tired large-bore cylindrical whistle players, yes?
Steppered bores used as “almost conical”, or the plain cone universally adopted instead of Theoböhm the Bald claimed “parabolic head section”, make me think of the square cross-sections used both by Paetzold and for their megabass recorders. I.e. why fuss with the angles, when you’re in limit layer regime anyway, which will even it all?
Hence the following question: why do woodwind makers stick to drilled then reamed bores, when plenty traditional instruments have the timber cut lengthwise then reassembled (serpents, alpine/carpathian long horns, NA flutes, etc.). They apparently end with extremely stable constructions (proof being some vintages), which don’t crack, don’t warp, have relatively thinner walls, and all this with local, medium hard to soft woods and not exotic superdense “sinking” woods…
The core being, what’s more brutal to the wood: splitting-then-reassembling (the old stuff) or drilling+lathing+reaming, our machining area high-tech trend ?
Does this have to do with the average folk believing “solid” wood is stronger?
Here, I’m not talking of metal of course: drawing or annealing tubing is so elegant…
I think the “trend” of a solid bore being superior comes from past examples of poor glueing/joining. Modern epoxy bonding is invisible and the join is stronger than the wood itself. People still believe that this bond will break down over time and the instrument will break in half with age. Poppycock!
The pretence of making a woodwind bore “all in one piece” is a matter of pride among instrument makers and not necessity. A bit “Elitist” in my opinion. I can route and epoxy a woodwind bore in a tenth of the time it takes to make a finicky long bore with an expensive gun-drill bit without loss of quality.
I have a Clarke Celtic conical whistle (D) and a Hoover brass (cylindrical) also in D. I have noticed that my Clarke is noticably flat. Is there something wrong with it? I have even bought a tuner to check it out..and it is true. Are there various diffierences in the tone of different whistles? Are they supposed to be accurate? Example… and “A” xx0000 played on a “D” whistle should be an “A” on a guitar or piano??? I guess I am confused.
