Double hole whistles?

[David Cooper]

No, I think if you're going to use a left hand pinky hole, the right way to do it is the way you've (I assume) already done it. It should be closed all the time and opened only for the accidental. Yes, that does have the downside of making you adjust a bit to playing with your pinky down all the time, which is kind of annoying (and also why I wonder if there should be a left-hand pinky hole at all). But it'd be nowhere near as annoying as learning to lift your pinky and put it down constantly, even when playing in the "basic key" of the whistle. That would require a ton of new coordination that you normally don't have to worry about when playing the diatonic whistle.

The difference between playing with holes #3 and #3.5 both open and having #3 open and #3.5 closed is so small that it barely registers on the tuner. #3.5 could be tuned to half way in between both options and I doubt anyone would be able to hear the tiny amount of surviving error. Same with holes #6 and #6.5, so that would give you much more scope to vary how you play.

Keeping a finger down that you don't normally keep down takes some coordination and practice, but nowhere near as much coordination and practice as constantly lifting it and placing it down during tunes when you normally aren't used to thinking about what that finger is doing at all.

It's something you can adapt to fast enough, just like adapting to a recorder, a keyed flute, an oboe, a piano even - we are very adaptable. I actually design my quenas in G to use the pinkies instead of the fourth fingers to reduce stretch, and I thought that might take a long time to adapt to, but no; it took a couple of practice sessions and then I was fully at home with it. That involved treating the fourth and fifth finger almost as a single unit, but when half-holing the bottom note I just instinctively used the right one each time for the instrument I was playing at the time. You have to adapt to each instrument anyway for its specific hole sizes and spacings.

[Cyberknight]

No, I think if you're going to use a left hand pinky hole, the right way to do it is the way you've (I assume) already done it. It should be closed all the time and opened only for the accidental. Yes, that does have the downside of making you adjust a bit to playing with your pinky down all the time, which is kind of annoying (and also why I wonder if there should be a left-hand pinky hole at all). But it'd be nowhere near as annoying as learning to lift your pinky and put it down constantly, even when playing in the "basic key" of the whistle. That would require a ton of new coordination that you normally don't have to worry about when playing the diatonic whistle.

The difference between playing with holes #3 and #3.5 both open and having #3 open and #3.5 closed is so small that it barely registers on the tuner. #3.5 could be tuned to half way in between both options and I doubt anyone would be able to hear the tiny amount of surviving error. Same with holes #6 and #6.5, so that would give you much more scope to vary how you play.

Keeping a finger down that you don't normally keep down takes some coordination and practice, but nowhere near as much coordination and practice as constantly lifting it and placing it down during tunes when you normally aren't used to thinking about what that finger is doing at all.

It's something you can adapt to fast enough, just like adapting to a recorder, a keyed flute, an oboe, a piano even - we are very adaptable. I actually design my quenas in G to use the pinkies instead of the fourth fingers to reduce stretch, and I thought that might take a long time to adapt to, but no; it took a couple of practice sessions and then I was fully at home with it. That involved treating the fourth and fifth finger almost as a single unit, but when half-holing the bottom note I just instinctively used the right one each time for the instrument I was playing at the time. You have to adapt to each instrument anyway for its specific hole sizes and spacings.

That’s fair. I guess I’d have to try it out and see how easy it is to adapt to.

[David Cooper]

That’s fair. I guess I’d have to try it out and see how easy it is to adapt to.

I've been building a resin tube for a low D kenny whistle for a while as a way of using up excess resin, and it's getting close to the point where I can start drilling holes in it. I now realise that the stretch issues with such long flutes and whistles could be reduced by making them chromatic too, so I'm going to use the same hole layout for it as for the high Ds (which I've just started making a couple of 13mm bore tubes for - one for me and one for you). Again the best place for the left thumb is directly under hole #2, and you'd never want to push it down under #3 on a low D, so it makes sense to have a single standard for chromatic whistles which means that you don't have to switch playing algorithms between them.

[Cyberknight]

That’s fair. I guess I’d have to try it out and see how easy it is to adapt to.

I've been building a resin tube for a low D kenny whistle for a while as a way of using up excess resin, and it's getting close to the point where I can start drilling holes in it. I now realise that the stretch issues with such long flutes and whistles could be reduced by making them chromatic too, so I'm going to use the same hole layout for it as for the high Ds (which I've just started making a couple of 13mm bore tubes for - one for me and one for you). Again the best place for the left thumb is directly under hole #2, and you'd never want to push it down under #3 on a low D, so it makes sense to have a single standard for chromatic whistles which means that you don't have to switch playing algorithms between them.

How would the stretch be not as bad when you add extra holes for chromatics? That doesn’t seem to make sense.

And yeah, I hear what you’re saying. But bear in mind that one option for low D whistles might be having keys, like the MK Chameleon. A low D chromatic whistle with just holes might be too impractical, especially given how difficult it is to play the low D whistle already.

[David Cooper]

How would the stretch be not as bad when you add extra holes for chromatics? That doesn’t seem to make sense.

And yeah, I hear what you’re saying. But bear in mind that one option for low D whistles might be having keys, like the MK Chameleon. A low D chromatic whistle with just holes might be too impractical, especially given how difficult it is to play the low D whistle already.

It's marginal, but standard hole #6 could be made a bit smaller without killing the tone quality because extra hole #6.5 would be open with it, and that could allow it to be further up the tube than normal with reduced stretch. I'll likely get the holes slightly in the wrong places anyway on the first attempt, so I might as well aim to test this on it and then decide whether to do more the same way.

[Cyberknight]

How would the stretch be not as bad when you add extra holes for chromatics? That doesn’t seem to make sense.

And yeah, I hear what you’re saying. But bear in mind that one option for low D whistles might be having keys, like the MK Chameleon. A low D chromatic whistle with just holes might be too impractical, especially given how difficult it is to play the low D whistle already.

It's marginal, but standard hole #6 could be made a bit smaller without killing the tone quality because extra hole #6.5 would be open with it, and that could allow it to be further up the tube than normal with reduced stretch. I'll likely get the holes slightly in the wrong places anyway on the first attempt, so I might as well aim to test this on it and then decide whether to do more the same way.

But again, you’re making it under the assumption that someone is going to lift the pinky all the time. I’m pretty sure I’d learn it with pinky down at all times. I’ve experimented, and I find that way easier. And why not, anyway? It’s less finger motion, which is generally easier.

Of course, making a whistle that has the option of lifting the pinky in sync with the ring finger would be fine. But I'd hesitate to make a whistle that's *only in tune* when you play that way. If I were you, I'd go for a bit of a compromise. Make the note slightly flat when played with pinky down, and slight sharp when played with it up. That way, you can use your breath control to move it into pitch regardless of which style you choose.

This could have the added bonus of canceling some of the octave spread between low A and high A, which is pretty common on a lot of whistles. You could play with pinky up to sharpen a flat high A, or to get a softer in-tune low A, but play with pinky down to get a nice strong in-tune low A.

[David Cooper]

But again, you’re making it under the assumption that someone is going to lift the pinky all the time.

The difference in pitch is so small that the main effect of opening it or closing it is to affect the tone quality, so if you're playing fast you don't need to care if it's open or closed, but you can make a careful choice between the two if it's sustained.

I’m pretty sure I’d learn it with pinky down at all times. I’ve experimented, and I find that way easier. And why not, anyway? It’s less finger motion, which is generally easier.

You say it's easy with that hand, but clearly it isn't so easy for you with the other as you prefer to have a thumb hole under #3 instead of a hole # 3.5 on the top. This is clearly going to be troublesome for a lot of players who divide into four sets depending on which of the two they find easy or hard to do. Aiming for half way in between for pitch should cover all four options with sufficient accuracy.

This could have the added bonus of canceling some of the octave spread between low A and high A, which is pretty common on a lot of whistles. You could play with pinky up to sharpen a flat high A, or to get a softer in-tune low A, but play with pinky down to get a nice strong in-tune low A.

I don't think it makes enough difference to counter that, and I wouldn't sell an instrument where the first two octaves aren't properly in tune. I don't know what it is that makes some of them go out of tune in one octave, but perhaps variable conicity has a role - I had one instrument go badly wrong where I experimented with lining the bore with epoxy by putting the right volume of liquid resin inside the tube before rotating it for hours with a motor to see if it would create a smooth cylindrical bore, but it clumped towards the middle as if it was in zero gravity, although it also failed in another way that made the bore wider at the top than the far end. The result was a second octave that went horribly sharp on its higher notes. Ordinarily though, cylindrical bore or constant conicity should provide correct tuning, and when making the holes, you rely more on the second octave notes than the first when making adjustments as it's easier to make mistakes with the lower octave notes by blowing with inconsistent strength. (On a transverse flute though, the blowhole isn't right at the end of the tube, so those are harder to get right, and one way to fix that is to use variable conicity at that end.)

[Cyberknight]

But again, you’re making it under the assumption that someone is going to lift the pinky all the time.

The difference in pitch is so small that the main effect of opening it or closing it is to affect the tone quality, so if you're playing fast you don't need to care if it's open or closed, but you can make a careful choice between the two if it's sustained.

I’m pretty sure I’d learn it with pinky down at all times. I’ve experimented, and I find that way easier. And why not, anyway? It’s less finger motion, which is generally easier.

You say it's easy with that hand, but clearly it isn't so easy for you with the other as you prefer to have a thumb hole under #3 instead of a hole # 3.5 on the top. This is clearly going to be troublesome for a lot of players who divide into four sets depending on which of the two they find easy or hard to do. Aiming for half way in between for pitch should cover all four options with sufficient accuracy.

This could have the added bonus of canceling some of the octave spread between low A and high A, which is pretty common on a lot of whistles. You could play with pinky up to sharpen a flat high A, or to get a softer in-tune low A, but play with pinky down to get a nice strong in-tune low A.

I don't think it makes enough difference to counter that, and I wouldn't sell an instrument where the first two octaves aren't properly in tune. I don't know what it is that makes some of them go out of tune in one octave, but perhaps variable conicity has a role - I had one instrument go badly wrong where I experimented with lining the bore with epoxy by putting the right volume of liquid resin inside the tube before rotating it for hours with a motor to see if it would create a smooth cylindrical bore, but it clumped towards the middle as if it was in zero gravity, although it also failed in another way that made the bore wider at the top than the far end. The result was a second octave that went horribly sharp on its higher notes. Ordinarily though, cylindrical bore or constant conicity should provide correct tuning, and when making the holes, you rely more on the second octave notes than the first when making adjustments as it's easier to make mistakes with the lower octave notes by blowing with inconsistent strength. (On a transverse flute though, the blowhole isn't right at the end of the tube, so those are harder to get right, and one way to fix that is to use variable conicity at that end.)

Points all taken!

In terms of what affects octave imbalance, I've read (mostly on this forum) that this is mostly a function of bore size/wall thickness, presence/absence of undercutting on holes, and the extent to which the body (OR the head) is tapered.

Speaking for myself, the only whistles I play that have truly satisfactory tuning between the two octaves, with basically no octave imbalance, are my tapered-bore Morneaux and my Goldie, which has a very slight reverse-taper in the head.

I'm also told that very thin-walled whistles can eliminate the octave spread problem much easier. I don't really play thin-walled whistles (they all seem too quiet for some reason), so I can't really say if this is accurate or not.

For whatever reason, every single LOW whistle I've ever tried seems to have the opposite problem of having an overly sharp second octave compared to the first. I have no idea why this is.

[David Cooper]

In terms of what affects octave imbalance, I've read (mostly on this forum) that this is mostly a function of bore size/wall thickness, presence/absence of undercutting on holes, and the extent to which the body (OR the head) is tapered.

I'd be surprised if bore thickness is key to it. My Generation whistles are spot on for consistent pitch across two octaves, and they have thin walls, but the instruments I make are almost all spot on too and have thick walls - there are only really two that went wrong, with one having an unwanted irregularity in conicity, while the other was the first one I ever made - a quena in A (due to too much shortening as it started out in G) - it's a very rough whittled stick which has good tone, but the top three holes came out oval due to inadequate tools, and that may be why the top notes in the second octave are flat, in one case by a full semitone. If that's the case, that could be a useful way of tuning out unwanted sharpness in second octave notes. The oval holes have their longer dimension aligned down the instrument and the shorter dimension across it. ... Actually, having just modified it a bit, I can get it into tune by getting in closer to the wedge, so it may be that window geometry is the main problem with that one (which has a perfectly cylindrical bore and thick walls).

For whatever reason, every single LOW whistle I've ever tried seems to have the opposite problem of having an overly sharp second octave compared to the first. I have no idea why this is.

I've made a dozen quenas in G, which is fairly low, all with cylindrical bores, and all have perfect tuning across two octaves. The low D that I'm making still needs another three layers of resin on it (reflective silver paint layer, then resin with alcohol ink layer, then another layer of resin to lock the alcohol ink in, and because some will leach into that layer and reach the surface, it needs another layer on top of that for the final surface to be pure enough to cure properly and become scratch resistant. Once that's done I'll be able to see how that behaves as a narrow-bore quenacho, and then see what happens when I try to make a whistle head for it. I suspect the problems are generated by the head, and unless you make the main part as a quena first, you'll never know that it can play in tune across two octaves, so you won't know that the blame rests with the head.

I've still got a problem with my kenny whistle head design as it introduces hiss. This is the result of trying to make something that you don't need to stick in your mouth. I found that you need to keep your mouth as wide open as the 15mm hole in the end, but that includes keeping your teeth out of the way of the flow as they generate turbulence which causes hissy notes, but I now realise that tonguing the notes also produces moments of hiss for the same reason. Maybe I need a longer chamber like on a native-American whistle. Maybe I should just switch to a standard fipple design and trust the food-safe status of the epoxy.

[Cyberknight]

In terms of what affects octave imbalance, I've read (mostly on this forum) that this is mostly a function of bore size/wall thickness, presence/absence of undercutting on holes, and the extent to which the body (OR the head) is tapered.

I'd be surprised if bore thickness is key to it. My Generation whistles are spot on for consistent pitch across two octaves, and they have thin walls, but the instruments I make are almost all spot on too and have thick walls - there are only really two that went wrong, with one having an unwanted irregularity in conicity, while the other was the first one I ever made - a quena in A (due to too much shortening as it started out in G) - it's a very rough whittled stick which has good tone, but the top three holes came out oval due to inadequate tools, and that may be why the top notes in the second octave are flat, in one case by a full semitone. If that's the case, that could be a useful way of tuning out unwanted sharpness in second octave notes. The oval holes have their longer dimension aligned down the instrument and the shorter dimension across it. ... Actually, having just modified it a bit, I can get it into tune by getting in closer to the wedge, so it may be that window geometry is the main problem with that one (which has a perfectly cylindrical bore and thick walls).

I can't remember where I read this, but I was pretty sure wall thickness was a factor. Maybe I'm forgetting. At any rate, the idea that thicker walls make the second octave flatter comports perfectly with my experience. My Generation and Feadog whistles aren't particularly great when it comes to tuning, but their octave imbalance is minor compared to my thick-walled whistles. My various Susato and my McManus - all of which have thicker walls and a cylindrical bore - have very significant octave imbalance, with a flat second octave that is very difficult to compensate for (it's especially bad on high E and high F#).

Perhaps there's a difference in opinion regarding what counts as "consistent" pitch? To me, if there's a 10-20 cent difference in tuning between octaves, that's a very large inaccuracy. And if eliminating that 10-20 cent difference requires blowing so hard in the second octave that it ends up being 3x or 4x as loud as the first octave, that's also not going to cut it for me. I expect whistles to have consistent tuning and to have second octaves that aren't garishly loud (obviously, they'll always be louder than the first octave - but they shouldn't be THAT much louder). The only thick-walled cylindrical whistle I have that accomplishes this is my Goldie, which seems to have a slight reverse taper in the head.

Another possibility is that this is just a problem with the particular whistles I'm playing. There are apparently other factors that affect octave spread besides taper, such as the size of the window, and (I think?) its ratio to the bore size. So maybe I've just gotten unlucky, and all of my thick bored, completely cylindrical whistles might just happen to have flat second octaves.

At any rate, if you manage to make large bore, thick-walled soprano whistles that have truly consistent pitch across both octaves without horribly inconsistent volume, I'll buy your whistles any day of the week. Seriously, tell me how to order one. I need a new tunable C whistle anyway.

I've made a dozen quenas in G, which is fairly low, all with cylindrical bores, and all have perfect tuning across two octaves. The low D that I'm making still needs another three layers of resin on it (reflective silver paint layer, then resin with alcohol ink layer, then another layer of resin to lock the alcohol ink in, and because some will leach into that layer and reach the surface, it needs another layer on top of that for the final surface to be pure enough to cure properly and become scratch resistant. Once that's done I'll be able to see how that behaves as a narrow-bore quenacho, and then see what happens when I try to make a whistle head for it. I suspect the problems are generated by the head, and unless you make the main part as a quena first, you'll never know that it can play in tune across two octaves, so you won't know that the blame rests with the head.

My experience with low whistles could be 100% because I am inexperienced with them. Unlike high whistle, which I've played for quite a long time, I'm a total noob when it comes to low whistles. I'm probably just blowing them wrong. But I've tried a Susato, a Dixon, and a Chieftain, and I find the second octave extremely sharp; depending on the note I'm playing, my Susato low D might be 20-25 cents sharper in the second octave than in the first.

At any rate, no low D I've ever tried has a FLAT second octave, which is a pervasive problem with the majority of thick-walled high D whistles I've tried. So there must be something different about the bore-to-window ratio and/or the hole spacing on lower whistles that eliminates some of the "flat second octave" problem so common in thick-walled high D whistles.

[David Cooper]

I can't remember where I read this, but I was pretty sure wall thickness was a factor.

If that is a significant factor, it could enable corrections to be made by adjusting the thickness around the holes. I once had a go on a phenomenal quena belonging to a member of the group Yuraj Marka which had huge holes, all heavily chamfered, and I've followed that style in my own instruments to try to recreate that sound and feel. That cutting away of material around the holes leads to them behaving as if the instrument has thinner walls, but you could vary how deep you dig to resolve specific tuning issues as you evolve your design to keep improving on the previous instruments. I've started making thinner walled ones too though with more conventional small holes, and I'm not running into tuning issues with those either. One problem though is that I hardly own any instruments made by other people to compare with mine: just a full set of Generation whistles, a Dolmetsch recorder, and inadequate quenas bought from afar, which is what pushed me into making my own ones. I don't know how good or bad my own instruments actually are, other than that with the prototype whistle heads added to them I'm getting significantly better sound from them than the Generation whistles, so at least I know they're adequate.

Perhaps there's a difference in opinion regarding what counts as "consistent" pitch? To me, if there's a 10-20 cent difference in tuning between octaves, that's a very large inaccuracy. And if eliminating that 10-20 cent difference requires blowing so hard in the second octave that it ends up being 3x or 4x as loud as the first octave, that's also not going to cut it for me. I expect whistles to have consistent tuning and to have second octaves that aren't garishly loud (obviously, they'll always be louder than the first octave - but they shouldn't be THAT much louder). The only thick-walled cylindrical whistle I have that accomplishes this is my Goldie, which seems to have a slight reverse taper in the head.

I suppose it comes down to price as to how far out the tuning should be allowed to go, but when some inexpensive brands can keep it close to 10 cents, it would be disappointing to do worse. It is tricky getting the whistle head right though, and to make them consistently the same. Incidentally, the way I shape the wedge results in my instruments effectively having a slight reverse taper in that part of the tube too because the inner surface of the wedge slopes instead of being parallel to the longitudinal centre line of the tube. Whistles and recorders normally do the opposite as they have it parallel, and because it's flat while the tube is rounded, it actually narrows the effective bore local to it. Perhaps the Goldie is shaped to cancel out that change.

At any rate, if you manage to make large bore, thick-walled soprano whistles that have truly consistent pitch across both octaves without horribly inconsistent volume, I'll buy your whistles any day of the week. Seriously, tell me how to order one. I need a new tunable C whistle anyway.

I'll have to see what standard I can get them up to, but at the moment I'm not making them tunable, though I do have ideas about making them out of multiple sections held together with magnets (to make them pocketable) and there will then be an option to put spacers in between sections to tune them. Significant changes in tuning lead to the higher notes going horribly out of tune (e.g. making the recorder play C a semitone flat makes high C play one and a half tones flat), but if you have more than one place along the tube where you can change the spacing, you can keep all the notes closer to being in tune while changing the pitch of the instrument over a wider range. I'm hoping I might be able to give them a usable range of a tone such that an instrument could be optimised for Eb and play with acceptable tuning in the keys of D and E. With a low D whistle there's actually enough room for joins like that between all the holes to allow perfect tuning right across that range, which is something you could never do with tuning slides. With small whistles though, it's easy enough just to have a range of them for each key with slightly different tunings and you select the one to suit the conditions and the tuning of the people you're playing with.

My experience with low whistles could be 100% because I am inexperienced with them. Unlike high whistle, which I've played for quite a long time, I'm a total noob when it comes to low whistles. I'm probably just blowing them wrong. But I've tried a Susato, a Dixon, and a Chieftain, and I find the second octave extremely sharp; depending on the note I'm playing, my Susato low D might be 20-25 cents sharper in the second octave than in the first.

At any rate, no low D I've ever tried has a FLAT second octave, which is a pervasive problem with the majority of thick-walled high D whistles I've tried. So there must be something different about the bore-to-window ratio and/or the hole spacing on lower whistles that eliminates some of the "flat second octave" problem so common in thick-walled high D whistles.

Low whistles are bound to have thinner walls relative to the rest of the geometry to keep weight and material cost down, so maybe localised thickening of the walls where the holes are would help fix that. With any luck it will turn out that wall thickness at the holes is a significant factor, because varying that should enable perfect tuning without needing to fiddle around undercutting holes.

Oh, and one little question for you about the prototype chromatic high D: is there a specific colour that you'd like yours to be? It'll be metallic due to the silver layer, while the colour will be in the layer of resin on top of that. I'll be using dye for this rather than using alcoholic ink, so I'll just do the whole thing in a single colour.

[Cyberknight]

I'll have to see what standard I can get them up to, but at the moment I'm not making them tunable, though I do have ideas about making them out of multiple sections held together with magnets (to make them pocketable) and there will then be an option to put spacers in between sections to tune them. Significant changes in tuning lead to the higher notes going horribly out of tune (e.g. making the recorder play C a semitone flat makes high C play one and a half tones flat), but if you have more than one place along the tube where you can change the spacing, you can keep all the notes closer to being in tune while changing the pitch of the instrument over a wider range. I'm hoping I might be able to give them a usable range of a tone such that an instrument could be optimised for Eb and play with acceptable tuning in the keys of D and E. With a low D whistle there's actually enough room for joins like that between all the holes to allow perfect tuning right across that range, which is something you could never do with tuning slides. With small whistles though, it's easy enough just to have a range of them for each key with slightly different tunings and you select the one to suit the conditions and the tuning of the people you're playing with.

An excellent idea. I've often wondered why makers don't do things like this. Another option would be to make a whistle with tuning slides between some of the holes, so you could change hole spacing and effectively tune your instrument up or down a semitone or even a whole step. Obviously, this would be a pain to make and would be expensive. But people make telescoping whistles, so I don't see any reason why this wouldn't be possible. I suppose the main reason it hasn't been done is that it's cheaper just to buy a whole new whistle body.

Your idea might be better, because it sounds like it could be done cheaply and thus make the result worth buying in lieu of multiple whistle bodies.

Oh, and one little question for you about the prototype chromatic high D: is there a specific colour that you'd like yours to be? It'll be metallic due to the silver layer, while the colour will be in the layer of resin on top of that. I'll be using dye for this rather than using alcoholic ink, so I'll just do the whole thing in a single colour.

Oh, interesting, hadn't thought about that. Most of my whistles are wooden, black (plastic) or silver colored, but I always liked the look of MK Midgies with their bright colors. I guess if I get to choose a particular color I'd go with purple (my favorite color). If that's too difficult, pink or blue or red is fine.

[David Cooper]

Oh, interesting, hadn't thought about that. Most of my whistles are wooden, black (plastic) or silver colored, but I always liked the look of MK Midgies with their bright colors. I guess if I get to choose a particular color I'd go with purple (my favorite color). If that's too difficult, pink or blue or red is fine.

I can probably mix any shade, but I'll just go for violet for yours and maybe green for mine. The resin will then need to cure for a month before I can touch it and start drilling holes - if you try to work it too soon the surface goes cloudy and it fails to become as robust as it should.

[DanteM]

Hello! I have read yours posts... and just wanted to show my solution solved the problem. I often use eliptic holes and eliptic bore on my whistles and recorders. This is my fave whisltes.
Advantages:
- chromatic (forks, half-covers) - up to 10-20 cents
- cool slides (1-2-3 holes at the same time!)
- fits comfortably in the hands
- increased volume on lower notes
- hard and loud D# (on High/Low D)


(I tried to insert photo from twitter... right?)

[David Cooper]

Hello! I have read yours posts... and just wanted to show my solution solved the problem. I often use eliptic holes and eliptic bore on my whistles and recorders. This is my fave whisltes.
Advantages:
- chromatic (forks, half-covers) - up to 10-20 cents
- cool slides (1-2-3 holes at the same time!)
- fits comfortably in the hands
- increased volume on lower notes
- hard and loud D# (on High/Low D)

(I tried to insert photo from twitter... right?)

The photo's there, so that works. I'd love to hear more detail about how it covers the 12 chromatic notes, and about the cool slides. It sounds interesting, and especially the elliptic aspects.