Having been away from the whistle field for around 50 years, I note some changes. In particular, I’m interested in the difference between the kind of head used by say Killarney whistles, and the kind of head we see with say Setanta. You can see the two types illustrated at:
The main apparent difference is that the “cover” on the Setanta type whistle continues quite some way past the window opening, whereas in the earlier design it stops at the start of the window. My question is what benefit does the later design bring to the player, and to the maker?
The Setanta has a style that’s been around for some time, used by several makers.
Here, note that MK and Reyburn both use that style. The MK’s is squared off but the Reyburn’s is angled.
Also note that Burke’s is in between, not abruptly ending at the end of the windway but sort of tapering down.
What having the outer tube continue down and curve around a bit below the blade might do is simulate the blister that Generations have below the blade.
Here is an Overton on the left and an Alba on the right. The Overton has a ramp machined below the blade.
Here you can see the “blister” below the blade on Generation heads.
Do any Low Whistles, or any whistles besides Generation, have that feature?
I’ve heard, and generally believe, that having a taller wall around the windway can help have a stronger low end. I believe this is why Copeland had the thing that sticks up around the windway. But that also could have been to reduce effects of wind. I believe Nathaniel Dowel has some videos testing this and it seems to be true.
Thing 2, and this one may be completely wrong, is looks like the Killarney uses a thicker piece of brass that is almost as tall as the black delrin end. Meaning they machine the end down to fit the delrin over it. So in the end its barely a shorter windway wall.
So to me in the end its two ways to achieve a similar result with a different look. when I was trying to get into whistle making, a big thing I had issues with was trying to make something unique. I didn’t want to make another clone or lookalike. and with the seemingly limited ways of easily creating a whistle, that becomes hard. There ends up beign a few easy ways that are really efficient to make a mouthpiece, and those are what most makers use.
Yes, and I guess my question is why. What does it have to offer over the earlier approach? Which I understand dates back to John Sindt?
Here, note that MK and Reyburn both use that style. The MK’s is squared off but the Reyburn’s is angled.
Also note that Burke’s is in between, not abruptly ending at the end of the windway but sort of tapering down.
What having the outer tube continue down and curve around a bit below the blade might do is simulate the blister that Generations have below the blade.
Thanks pancelticpiper, plenty of food for thought there.
Now, we can see that the Overton has been made by squashing the round tubing of the body into a square in the area of the window and above. So some kind of transition between round and square is inevitable, and a slope is much safer and easier to make, and less aerodynamically disruptive than any sharper transition. We can see signs of the slope on the sides as well as on the top. So I’d be inclined to think that is not so much an active part of the system as an artefact of construction. And that it is sited far enough back from the ramp as to not take an active role. (It could be argued that this is the approach Clarke should have taken instead of their dimpled approach, possibly not as far back as 1846, but at least sometime since!)
And if that’s correct, when we look at the Alba, the Mk and the Reyburn, we can probably safely conclude that the back end of the slots are far enough back from the ramp that they again don’t matter. Hence it wouldn’t matter if that back end was rounded, ramped or left vertical - it’s safely out of the game.
Here you can see the “blister” below the blade on Generation heads.
Do any Low Whistles, or any whistles besides Generation, have that feature?
Yeah, I’ve always found that to be a puzzling feature, and no, I’m not aware of anyone else using it. But again, based on the argument above, can we conclude that it’s far enough away from the ramp to not be significant? That perhaps its a visual or constructional feature, rather than an acoustic or aerodynamic one. In an interesting way, it’s kind of the inverse of the Alba. Where The Generation has a bump, the Alba has a cavity. You’d think they both can’t be right, unless it doesn’t matter.
Tempting to find a pair of old Generations that play the same, and pare the lump off one of them. The difficulty would be finding two old Generations that play the same! Or perhaps easier, take a whistle without a bump, and stick one on it. Dissect a frozen pea and work quickly?
Around the windway, or the window, Narzog? It’s an interesting hypothesis. If so, the Copeland in pancelticpiper’s post should suffer by comparison to his Alba.
Thing 2, and this one may be completely wrong, is looks like the Killarney uses a thicker piece of brass that is almost as tall as the black delrin end. Meaning they machine the end down to fit the delrin over it. So in the end its barely a shorter windway wall.
I can confirm that in the Killarney, the front end of the brass body is turned down to a smaller diameter under the Delrin cover. That I assume is to set the desired height of the windway (set by the size of the bore and the plug below, and the size of the turned down brass end above.) But then the Delrin cover is actually a larger diameter than the adjacent brass head, so that would act to increase the height above the window.
So to me in the end its two ways to achieve a similar result with a different look. when I was trying to get into whistle making, a big thing I had issues with was trying to make something unique. I didn’t want to make another clone or lookalike. and with the seemingly limited ways of easily creating a whistle, that becomes hard. There ends up beign a few easy ways that are really efficient to make a mouthpiece, and those are what most makers use.
Is this a possible significant difference? In the Killarney, the ramp is relatively long, as the head body material is quite thick there. In the Setanta and the whistles pancelticpiper drew our attention to, the ramps are very short, as they level out after having reached the top of the windway level, only halfway to the surface. Interesting…
I’m having trouble understanding just what area you all are concerned with. Is there anywhere on either of these 2 diagrams that you’re referring to? I’m looking for some consistency in terminology, if possible.
But, unfortunately for our discussion, don’t come up to the current period. I’m guessing the top image relates to earlier whistles, though I’m not sure exactly what.
The lower image relates fairly well to the Killarney (Sindt?) style of whistle. The aqua bits are the brass body of the head. The purple bits at the left are the top and bottom of the Delrin cover. The arrows marked “Roof” should really have been taken through the top purple bit so they mark the roof of the windway - they got it right in the upper drawing.
What we don’t have here is a drawing of the Setenta-style head. I’m guessing it’s pretty similar to that lower drawing, excepting that the purple cover extends well to the right, well past the window and ramp, perhaps to about the letter U in Labium. But with a slot in the top of it to reveal the window, ramp and some of the body below.
Note also the upper drawing gives Duct and Windway as alternatives, whereas in the lower drawing, the Duct appears to be pointing at the rectangular hole I’d call the Window.
I’d definitely agree that our discussions would benefit from access to a set of drawings covering the ages, and a well-thrashed-out set of terms! I alas have not the graphical skills needed to undertake such a task. Happy to work with anyone who has!
It depends on what counts as significant. The whistles are definitely different. I just mean that the two processes can both end with a similar result of windway width heights and wall height around the window. Theres other differences that can be had with the different methods. But the two methods can get a pretty similar result.
A note about window wall height. I believe it does something to the sound, but that doesnt mean its a big factor. Goldies, which have a very short window wall height because they don’t have a top piece that goes around (see Richards Goldie Vs Alba pic in his first post) still have a excellent low end. So it doesnt seem to be a problem. But there may be a slight gain from extra tall walls, like burkes. But those could be getting their extra strong low end from other factors, like having a tall windway.
Ah, I see what you mean, Narzog. We’re talking The Great Wall of China here. But only in the lower-pitched pair. Interesting…
Ah, and I think you’ve answered a question I probably posed elsewhere - are there tapered whistles where the section above the the tuning slide is also tapered. That appears to be the case with these whistles. Though the degree of taper is relatively mild compared to some whistles (eg the Clarkes?). So much to wonder about…
I think there are at least a couple of independent things going on here. One I would term a “chimney height” kind of effect.
If you view the window as being analogous to the embouchure hole on a flute, then it is easy to see the walls either side of
it, as in the Copeland whistles, as potentially having the same effect as adding a lip plate to a flute. They increase the chimney
height of the embouchure hole. Obviously, in a whistle, you can’t do it all the way around without interfering with the air flow
over the blade, so you end up with something equivalent to a 3/4 lip plate. On a flute increasing chimney height (within bounds)
can positively impact tone. I don’t see why whistles should not behave similarly.
I think you even see this implemented on Syndt whistles. Ever wonder why he uses such a heavy chunk of brass at the head which
throws off the weight balance of the whistle? Well, take a close look at the increase in chimney height it allows around the window.
If you try making them by machining a smaller rod for the head they just don’t sound as good.
The other issue, I think, has more to do with ease of construction. I think this is the case with the Setanta. Here I think it is just
a simpler construction technique to use a single outer tube to hold the head to the upper part of the body. A lot of the simplest
methods for constructing whistles involve making all parts from as small a number of concentric tubes as possible. Here the outer
tube is quite thin walled, and the part of it that sits below the ramp is so far south of the ramp that I doubt it have any acoustic
influence. It probably does help hold everything together tightly with great alignment though.
I think the second “ramp” in the Overton/Goldie design is simply a matter of tidying up the exterior around the transition from
squared off head to cylindrical body. My guess is that the location of this transition has more to do with where the internal bore
constriction (caused by the lower cross sectional area of the squared off part) ends and the cylindrical body bore begins. This
point inside the bore is acoustically relevant, but I’d be surprised if the second ramp on the outside is.
Interesting and plausible-sounding hypothesis there, Paddler. Certainly, a flute with a too-thin head wall (eg one made from electrical conduit without the addition of a lip plate) is a dismal sounding thing.
And, perhaps from the image of the three whistles above, we can assume this is more important for the lower whistles than the treble D? It would be possible and interesting to take a low whistle without such a wall, and fabricate an enclosure for the window, to see what difference it makes and how significant the difference is. I’d expect some flattening at least, and so it might require retuning after adding the enclosure before we could hear/see the benefits. That gets harder!
Or of course we could just bung the question onto the end of Tunborough’s Christmas Holiday To-Do List? Would you expect your whistle model to be aware of the effect on tone of window depth, Tunborough? From memory, the Clarke has only the 0.3mm thickness of the tinplate to work with.
This kind of begs the question of what we mean by “tone”.
Is it a question of volume, say increasing the volume of the lower notes, or trying to make the volume more balanced between octaves ?
Or is it a question of “quality of tone” in the Helmholtz sense, where we are interested in the presence and relative strength of partial frequencies in each note,
and whether the mix makes the instrument sound the way we want it to sound? The latter, of course, is an aesthetic choice that is unlikely to be quantifiable.
Can Tunborough’s models really shed any light on this? I thought the main output was concerned with tuning of notes, which is something quite distinct from
either of the above.
Good questions, and hopefully Tunborough will address them.
I wondered if the Window depth (if that’s a good way to talk about it) might have a discernible effect on Q, the resonance quality factor? If so, is there an optimum, and does it depend on the pitch of the whistle, and maybe the bore diameter and other dimensions of the Window? Is there a maximum depth one shouldn’t exceed, for risk of getting stuffy? Or is that taken care of by the fact that there is a way out of the Window “enclosure” via the Ramp?
So many questions! Can’t you imagine them coming up back in the cave 30,000 years ago while they’re carving mammoth tusks into whistles…
Up at the start, I’d asked what benefit does the later design (eg Setanta-style) bring to the player, and to the maker?
Focusing on the maker for a moment, is it fair to say it brings added complication, in that there are now two parts that need slotting and aligning:
the front end of the body section, where the slot creates the width of the Windway, and
the slot in the extended cover needed to expose the Window?
If that’s the case, the maker would need to be rewarded for the extra work with an improvement in performance. So we’re not just chasing moonbeams here?
Well, perhaps not 30,000 years ago, but traditional Native American flute makers were definitely very sensitive to these kinds of issues when trying to ensure
that their flutes had a “warble”. The link below provides some really interesting information about what a “warble” is and why it was so valued.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time in the past trying to make true warbling native American style flutes. The relevance to the discussion here is that the presence
or absence of a warble seems to be very sensitive to fine adjustments of window length and chimney height. On a NAF you can move the block around
experimentally to try to get it to warble, but often a good, predictable, warble will depend on building in a kind of tall, three-sided chimney in the front of the
block. This is not that unlike the Great Wall of China feature of the Copeland whistles.
As to whether a warble is a desirable sound or not, that is purely an aesthetic choice. It doesn’t seem to appeal to a lot of people who enjoy the modern
aesthetic of NAF music, but apparently, to some traditional native American flute makers the warble was considered so important that they would throw
out a flute that did not warble, as being a dud. The warble was the heart and soul of the flute and an integral part of the music.
In some ways it is not unlike the kind of choices we make with Irish flutes and the importance of being able to play a honking hard D. A flute that won’t do that
can seem lifeless and unfit for purpose. But then in a different musical genre, that coarse hard D may sound very much out of place.
Anyhow, I think you might find it interesting to take a quick detour below and read a bit about warbling flutes and what a true warble actually is, in terms of
its spectogram and with sound samples. It may provide some clues as to what can happen as you build a wall around three sides of the window and adjust
the window size.
Bloody hell, Paddler (as they say in Harry Potter, so it must be OK!) That is extraordinary. I’m thinking ululation, as singers in the Balkans (and probably other places) do. Isn’t it remarkable a) what attracts us in our various cultures, and b) what a small variation in our instruments might bring. If I got that result from a whistle I’d made, it would be straight into the bin. I am aware that there are now NAF makers here in Australia. Gorgeous!
Exactly, Terry! That is just what I thought. Bloody hell indeed. I am one of the people who really like the warble, but it seems to be one of those
things that virtually nobody is neutral on. People either love it or hate it to the extent of finding it offensive. Kind of like bagpipes, or marmite/vegemite.
But the, I also like bagpipes and marmite.
One surprising thing about playing a warbling Native American Flute (NAF) like that is that you can really lean into the bottom note. It is pretty
apparent in those recordings, but it is even more obvious as a player. It can be so profound that you can feel the resonance in your chest cavity.
There is real power in it, which is somewhat surprising given that the lowest notes are often the weakest/quietest in many modern designs.
I think the feeling is quite analogous to the feeling you get as a player of a good Irish flute when you manage to really fill the flute and get it resonating
on a hard D.
I’m actually quite intrigued to see the role the second partial plays in both the warbling NAFs and the hard D on Irish flutes. It seems to be critical in
both cases, contributing a large amount of energy to the signal.
But this gets back to that “quality of tone” issue. We all know that many different instruments can play the same note, say A, and have it measure precisely 440 hz.
But we are also able to immediately distinguish the A played by a whistle, vs a violin, vs a guitar, or trumpet etc. That distinction largely comes
down to the differences in the mix of partials produced by each instrument. The differences can be shown clearly in a spectogram. So, I think when
you make an albeit tiny change such as this, there is a sense that you are also potentially creating a whole different instrument (from the perspective
of the sound it produces and the musical contexts it supports).
I think this is what you hear in the NAF examples on the page I linked. There is very little in common between the sound of that Belo Cozad Memory
Song played on a traditionally designed warbling NAF and the homogenized/neutered sounds you normally associate with the new-age, hippy, reinvention
of the NAF. It is a case of two different instruments used for two very different musical purposes. A similar thing happens when you take a wooden flute,
such as say a mid 1800s Rudall and Rose, and “improve” it to produce a modern Boehm flute. If you somehow overlook what characteristics of tone are
important for a particular musical context, your improvements can easily end up producing a new kind of instrument that is no longer appropriate for
some musical contexts.
This is something that has intrigued me about whistle design. How much scope for improvement is there? In the context of ITM, is a whistle simply
supposed to sound basically like a Generation, or similar, tin whistle? If we modify it so that it sounds different, will this, by definition, be a step
backwards? Personally, I like the traditional sound of a good, old, generation. I tend to prefer playing my Sindt whistles though … but only because
they still sound traditional to me.
One surprising thing about playing a warbling Native American Flute (NAF) like that is that you can really lean into the bottom note. It is pretty
apparent in those recordings, but it is even more obvious as a player. It can be so profound that you can feel the resonance in your chest cavity.
There is real power in it, which is somewhat surprising given that the lowest notes are often the weakest/quietest in many modern designs.
I think the feeling is quite analogous to the feeling you get as a player of a good Irish flute when you manage to really fill the flute and get it resonating
on a hard D.
Yes, I thought of that too, when I looked at the videos. If you could get the power of that bottom note without incurring the warble…
I’m actually quite intrigued to see the role the second partial plays in both the warbling NAFs and the hard D on Irish flutes. It seems to be critical in
both cases, contributing a large amount of energy to the signal.
You’ll remember that in the flute, we get that apparent power by moving some or even all the energy up into the partials using jet offset. IE, instead of aiming our air-jet in the general vicinity of the far edge of the embouchure hole, we aim it towards the bottom of the hole. It still sounds the lower octave - we’re not overblowing, just favouring the 2nd and to a lesser extent the 3rd partials. The same seems to be happening with these NAFs up to the point of the warble. But then something else seems to kick in. An instability perhaps?
But this gets back to that “quality of tone” issue. We all know that many different instruments can play the same note, say A, and have it measure precisely 440 hz.
But we are also able to immediately distinguish the A played by a whistle, vs a violin, vs a guitar, or trumpet etc. That distinction largely comes
down to the differences in the mix of partials produced by each instrument. The differences can be shown clearly in a spectogram. So, I think when
you make an albeit tiny change such as this, there is a sense that you are also potentially creating a whole different instrument (from the perspective
of the sound it produces and the musical contexts it supports).
Indeed. I seem to remember that musical observers back in Nicholson’s day likened his reedy flute sound to “the clarionette, or even the hautbois” (clarinet or even the oboe).
I think this is what you hear in the NAF examples on the page I linked. There is very little in common between the sound of that Belo Cozad Memory
Song played on a traditionally designed warbling NAF and the homogenized/neutered sounds you normally associate with the new-age, hippy, reinvention
of the NAF. It is a case of two different instruments used for two very different musical purposes. A similar thing happens when you take a wooden flute,
such as say a mid 1800s Rudall and Rose, and “improve” it to produce a modern Boehm flute. If you somehow overlook what characteristics of tone are
important for a particular musical context, your improvements can easily end up producing a new kind of instrument that is no longer appropriate for
some musical contexts.
Indeed, we are not free agents here! And remember the flack that Boehm took when he came out with his newly fangled flute. Particularly in his native Germany, where it spawned a whole Reform movement!
This is something that has intrigued me about whistle design. How much scope for improvement is there? In the context of ITM, is a whistle simply
supposed to sound basically like a Generation, or similar, tin whistle? If we modify it so that it sounds different, will this, by definition, be a step
backwards? Personally, I like the traditional sound of a good, old, generation. I tend to prefer playing my Sindt whistles though … but only because
they still sound traditional to me.
I think looking around at the bewildering number of makers there are out there, and the range of their approaches, there is definitely scope for innovation, providing the end product still meets the needs of the music. And of course, especially if it meets the needs better.
I must say I’ve never been encouraged to take up low D flute however. And that might be because I haven’t experienced a cutting edge (forgive the blade analogy!) version. The low whistles I’ve experienced could be said to be haunting, but not edgy or powerful. If we could harness the power of the Warbling NAF (having first located and disabled the Warble), I’d look again.
A very, very long time ago, I pressed the now late (Professor) Neville Fletcher as to why whistles, or perhaps it was recorders, were so much weaker than flutes. In his inimitably patient style, he explained that flutes had the advantage that we could control every aspect of jet formation and control, whereas this was all locked in in the fipple family. In the flute, if you blow harder, the note gets louder. In the whistle, it jumps to the next partial. “Ah, but consider this” he went on. “Supposing you built a whistle where the windway and the blade were joined by a resilient body section. When you want to play louder, you blow harder, but also “bend” the whistle to offset where the jet lands to keep it in the current octave. When you have finished with the loud passage, you relax, and the whistle returns to normal settings.”
Could bendable whistles enable us to play louder when we know the tune, softer when we don’t and really hammer that low D crann at the start of Blarney Pilgrim.
I completely agree with you Terry, on all the points above!
Have you ever looked closely at how Kwela whistle players use their whistles? They insert the whole head into their mouths to the
point where their lips surround the window. Then they use their lips to micro-adjust the direction of the air stream to achieve
precisely the effect that you (and Prof Neville) describe. And this is another example where I have a kind of “wow!” reaction to
the sounds that come out. The music is really exciting and powerful, but all from a very inexpensive, mass-produced, whistle.
There is definitely something to be said about having direct control over the air jet!
Here are a few examples. Look closely at their mouths.
I wonder if you could redesign a whistle head to make this use of the lips around the window easier? That may be a better solution
than trying to build a fixed structure around the window.
