Earschplittinloudenboomerpipes

[AlanB]

[quote="Lorenzo


I think AlanB says he does sand the inner surface a little but seals the wood afterwards. I'll have to dig up the old thread and reread it.[/quote]


Eeeee! I didn't. I mentioned the technique of using wax rubbed in to seal and polish a surface (I've even tried using super glue type glue that soaks in and then sand it down). But the only seal on my reeds is the binding. I like things " au natural" I'll try anything new, but if it doesn't make a vast difference, it's just another time consuming process, in a process that is already fraught with the unknown.........

For a quieter reed, try a thinner head, but a narrower dimension piece of cane, and gouge a little extra above the tails , but I always think a "quietened" concert reed just sounds muffled. Each bore has it's dynamics and I like to try and exploit that. My Cillian chanter has poke, but is very smooth too. But I like listening to Nirvana, so....*shrug*

Alan

[Ted]

I prefer "au natural" as well. After gouging, I sand the gouged side to smooth it out, then use a curved scraper, dragging it over the gouge to burnish it and get rid of the fuzz. I follow up with polishing the gouged side on a tube of cane. This slows down moisture absorbtion and gets rid of any loose fibers. I use no oils, waxes etc. as they might adversly affect the tone.
When I finish scraping the reed, for which I don't use sandpaper, just a reed knife with a plaque between the blades while scraping, I then polish the scrape as well on some polished blackwood. You get a clearer tone if the gouge and the scrape are polished. You should be able to hear the difference in tone of a rough reed after just polishing the scrape. This polishing of the scrape also helps the reed to more slowly take on moisture, hence giving you a more stable reed with a clearer and brighter tone. Sean Folsom showed me this 27 years ago. He had gotten the idea from several old reed makers on a trip to Ireland, Scotland and England before then. Leo Purcell, Al's father, used to do the same.

Ted

[Evertjan 't Hart]

After many years of reed making I have come to the conclusion there are only a handful of basic rules you have to follow to make a good reed. Sealing, dunking, special tools and all other ‘gizmos’ are a waste of time. All the tools you need are a gouge, a knife, a beer or wine bottle, and some sandpaper -and this is really hard to come by- some GOOD cane. (A good sharp knife is a reed makers joy and the ones that will hold their edge the longest are made of carbon steel. The cheapest and at the same time the best are the pocketknives made by ‘Opinel’ in France.)
The funny or better yet frustrating thing about reed making is that there is no rule that can’t be contradicted by doing the exact opposite. For example the general ‘rule’ to make a ‘bright’ reed is that you will have to keep the edges thin. But if you do the exact opposite and keep the edges very think –like a GHP reed- and alter your scrape a little you get a reed that is just as bright.
I don’t think the grain of the inner surface of a reed plays an important role, after all this would imply that it is impossible for ‘wet woodwind players’ to get a clear bright tone. But then again I could be wrong:)

Evertjan

[Idwood]

Dear fellow pipers,

I find it very helpful to read your opinions concerning the reed surface smoothness. It is particularly interesting because of the range - from "no influence" to "very important". I was wondering about the end point of all our experiments and manipulations. In a perfect world, the inside of the sound-producing bore reaches from the tip of the reed through the staple into the chanter bore down to the bell. Ideally this entire path should have the same smooth surface throughout.
So in my opinion, the first point is that the inside of the slip should be as smooth as the inside of the chanter. Thus, polishing the slip with polished blackwood is an option for me, since I (try to) polish the inside of my reamered chanter bores with tapered blackwood "polishing reamers".
Second point is, that the sound wave produced by a vibrating reed meets a first "barrier" at the top end of the staple. The concept of gouging a sound chamber into the reed tails has, at least partly, been developed to smoothen this effect. For my reeds, I even cut a tiny step into the inside of the reed tails, so that they accommodate the staple better. Furthermore, I use a metalwork lathe to turn one end of the staple tube thinner before I form the taper, to enhance this effect. As a consequence, I can remove a bit more material from the base of the scrape, which results in a more sensitive reed - less pressure needed and not so loud.
I also think that the point where the staple end meets the chanter bore is probably worth of more discussion and experimentation. I look forward to your opinions

---
"Ooh, what a funny thing! Is it an instrument or a fettering device?"
---

[Lorenzo]

I think one thing that the penny chanter might have proved is that the step-down tubing sizes throughout the bore didn't seem to affect the overall performance of the reed, or sound of a chanter. That might mean the bore doesn't have to be a perfectly tapered wall at all, nor the step from the end of the staple to where it meets the bore. I haven't played a pc to know for sure, but in studying the diagrams, that's the way it would seem.

Several good reed makers use the term "not an exact science" which leads me to believe that there are many contributing factors to a good performance. I recall Pat Sky saying that he and Benedict Koehler watched Eugene Lamb make a reed that was contrary to almost everything they believed.

Well, here's what he wrote:

"I have been making reeds now since 1970. I have made thousands: straight tubing, tapered staple, rolled, long, narrow, you name it; and depending on the chanter most types will work."

"Ben Koehler and I once stood by and watched Eugene Lamb make a reed. His method was to take a tube, anneal it and make it flair. Then he shaved the reed so that the scrape covered only 1/3 of the tip of the reed, like this:

(missing image)

"I turned to Ben and said "If this reed plays then everything I thought I knew about reeds goes out the window" Ben said "I agree". Well the reed played great and Ben and I slinked out the door."

"After all of this time, I consider myself a very good reed maker, however I am humbled and still do not truely know what makes reeds tick; both Koehler and Quinn feel the same way." -Pat Sky

[Evertjan 't Hart]

Dear fellow pipers,

In a perfect world, the inside of the sound-producing bore reaches from the tip of the reed through the staple into the chanter bore down to the bell. Ideally this entire path should have the same smooth surface throughout.

In a perfect world indeed, but it isn’t, so it’s a waste of time in my opinion.
One of the problems is that most Concert D chanters are copies of some old Rowsome and the ‘A’ in his days was almost a quarter of a tone higher then the modern ‘A’. So if you try to reed such a chanter conform modern pitch your bound for trouble.
And don’t forget that the Concert D concept in it self is already a trade off, tone, playability, easy reeding, ect for more volume.
I’ve made a few copies of a Kenna C using a 4 reamer set -so I could ‘tune the bore’- and ALL reed problems disappeared. As a test I used a simple 3 mm hobby tubing staple an 10 mm width head, very roughly made and… it was perfect. I tried several times because I thought it was a fluke, all perfect. Tried again a few times and with slightly different dimensions with the same results. These ‘old’ chanters where/are extremely tolerant.

I know this is all nice but of no help at all. But I think it proofs again that the reed is driven by the bore and not the other way around. If the bore is good -musically speaking- then it is easy to reed and ‘barriers’ in the reed will not play an important role.

The concept of gouging a sound chamber into the reed tails has, at least partly, been developed to smoothen this effect. For my reeds, I even cut a tiny step into the inside of the reed tails, so that they accommodate the staple better.

The ‘tone chamber’ in a reed is not to smoothen out barriers but to enlarge the internal volume of the reed head. Because a larger diameter sanding cylinder is used –to get near to the final tip elevation and get the ‘stress’ out of the reed- the internal volume becomes smaller and you’ll have to compensate by gouging a chamber.
And there are some tonal and easier second octave advantages when using a chamber in a reed.

I also think that the point where the staple end meets the chanter bore is probably worth of more discussion and experimentation. I look forward to your opinions

In most woodwind designs it is common practise that the staple is made as an extension of the bore. So if the throat is 4 mm the large inner diameter of the staple is also 4 mm. Since the throat of most Concert D is well over 5 mm in theory your staple should be 5 mm inner diameter at the large end. Most staples however are around 4 mm inner diameter because we want them to play at Concert pitch (A=440). This staple is combined with a large reed head to compensate for the loss of total internal reed volume.

The old flat pitches all have a throat of around 3.8 mm and a staple of around 3.4 mm.
So, again this is much closer to ‘normal’ instrument design because the reed is seldom pushed up to the beginning of the throat it’s almost a ‘perfect’ match with the bore.

Anyway, Concert D is an instrument pushed over the top of proper design compared to its flat ancestor and that where all troubles begin.

Don’t run out now to get yourself a flat chanter, because most flat sets nowadays are in fact wide bore flat sets, but that’s another story….


Evertjan

[Ted]

I agree with Evertjan. I have seen old reedmakers make wonderful sounding reeds with a minimum of tools. A couple did not even use sandpaper at all. One had a homemade sharpened curved sickle shape to get the gouge. The outsides looked rough but they played beautifully. The one most difficult variable is the cane. If you have a reed making style that works for you, and if you have GOOD cane, you are likely to get a good reed. With poorer cane quality you might get a working reed, if you are a good maker. Good cane just wants to play. Spanish cane can be quite variable in hardness from one shipment to another. You can get good reeds if it is soft enough. Cane which is good for wet reeds is often too hard for dry reeds. Medir now advertizes that they will try to supply customers with what they ask for in hardness as well. California cane can also vary greatly in quality. Most of my previous sources of quality cane have been eradicated by environmental zealots. I could send out thousands of tubes of hard, lousy quality cane, it grows all over the area. I have some good stuff at 7/8"or so, but almost nothing at present at 1" or 3/4" and less. I continue to search for good cane but it is very scarce. I encourage any one to try their domestic cane, if it grows near you. The So. Cal. pipers club has gotten some but I haven't heard if they have a new good source, as their last one fell to the bulldozers. If cane grows where you live, and what you have tried is too hard, keep on looking at different areas, you may find a soil that produces soft enough cane. I have seen very hard cane from So. Calif. but some great cane has also come from there. The same may be true in other areas as well. Once you find a source of good cane, it should continue to produce year after year. If it is on private property, try to make arraingements to preserve the patch with the owner.

Ted

[Kevin L. Rietmann]

Regarding cane hardness: I recently received some S.L. Medir cane, 2 Kilos, and it does seem softer than what I'd previously got from Nick Whitmer, who supplies their cane in the USA. I asked for the softest possible stuff.

[brendan ring]

I agree with Ted that you need very little to make a good reed. I just use a stanley knife and rough sandpaper, in fact I often don't go any finer than 180 even on the outside. I also often leave the outside pretty rough looking. I've sat in reedmaking workshops and observed people with micrometers, calipers, supersharp gauges and exact measurements. They all made crap reeds. Regarding volume, I don't see why people play concert pitch if they don't like volume. None of the great concert players have quiet pipes but they do have great tone. I agree with Alan that quietened concert pitch, just sound awful. Gay Mckeon was mentioned earlier has having loud pipes. I have played with him and didn't find this, his pipes were certainly nowhere near as loud as mine! I think it depends on your concept of loud. Flat pipers think everything is too loud. Top class non piping traditional musicians are often very loud. Sit down with flute players like Niall Keegan or Sylvain Barou and they blow you away. They maximise the potential of their instruments, you don't hear them whimpering, oh no my flute is too loud. I also played extensively with concertina player Niall Vallely, he too is very loud. In fact all the great musicians I've played with have, in terms of volume, had great presence. I've said this before, but I never tire of repeating myself! You can have loud pipes as long as they are sweet. Quite does not mean sweet, in fact very quite concert chanters usually just sound annoying.

[Brian Lee]

*puts neck out on the block to be chopped...*

**winces**

OK, so if there is SUCH a huge and seemingly un-conquerable difference between a flat set (let's say a set in C) and a concert set.....shouldn't there be equally different characteristics between say a B set and a C set as well? They are the same "distance" from each other as C to D etc. See my reasoning here?

In my quest for a quieter reed, it's not because I want silent pipes, but I would like something that is balanced for session playing or sitting at home with some friends - no concert halls please! Just curious once again!

B~

P.S. This thread is AWESOME! Keep it all coming!

[Evertjan 't Hart]

*puts neck out on the block to be chopped...*
OK, so if there is SUCH a huge and seemingly un-conquerable difference between a flat set (let's say a set in C) and a concert set.....shouldn't there be equally different characteristics between say a B set and a C set as well? They are the same "distance" from each other as C to D etc. See my reasoning here?

No, the different characteristics are not caused by pitch but by the bore differences. D is 'widebore' and C#, C, B, Bb are 'narrow bore'.
All the old flat set makers chanters had throats around 3.8 mm and bells at around 10.4 mm no matter the pitch. B was just longer than C but throat and bell dia. where approx. the same. With exeption of Egan who probably wanted to make his chanters a bit louder at one point and opened the throat up to 4.2 mm.

Evertjan

[Tony]

Evertjan, I've heard from more than one pipemaker their reamers have the same taper and only the length of the bore changes, this would mean the B chanter would have a slightly wider bell than the C when measured at the end.
If the older sets are keeping the throat and bell diameters constant then you would require a seperate reamer for each pitch. Yes?

[Evertjan 't Hart]

Evertjan, I've heard from more than one pipemaker their reamers have the same taper and only the length of the bore changes, this would mean the B chanter would have a slightly wider bell than the C when measured at the end.
If the older sets are keeping the throat and bell diameters constant then you would require a seperate reamer for each pitch. Yes?

Tony, I think it is impossible to make different pitches with the same reamer just by changing the bore length. I think this is probably the origin of ‘wide bore flat sets’.
If you examine bore plots of old chanters you will also see that the bores are ‘tuned’ and this implicates that sets of reamers where used instead of one reamer to make the bore. So a good bore is never a straight taper and it is extremely hard if not impossible to make a reamer out of one piece especially with the ‘tuning’ spots build in.
For example there are a couple of ‘hot spots’ in the bore that are related to the hard bottom D and the tuning of the bottom D. One is just above the back D hole and if you ream there a little too much you’ll loose the hard bottom D or get an ‘auto cran’.
And I’m speaking of really little too much; a tenth of an mm can spoil it. There are ways to compensate but that’s another story. My point is that it’s very hard to do this all properly with one reamer.

Back to your question, if you compare the bores of a Kenna B with a Kenna C you will see that they both have throat of around 3.8 mm and a bell of around 10.4 mm.
If you compare a Coyne B with a Kenna C the same throat of 3.8 mm but the Coyne a slightly larger bell of 10.8 mm. But a closer inspection you will see that the taper from 10.4 mm up to 10.8 mm take place over the last 20 mm of the chanters length.

With a set of four or five reamers you can make C, B and maybe Bb because there are portions in the bore that are similar in all pitches. The use of sets of reamers gives you also the opportunity to tune the bore’s harmonics; it’s a sort of an equalizerJ

Evertjan

[Pat Cannady]

Fascinating stuff. Have any of you had your hands on Harrington or Wooff sets? How do chanters built to that pattern compare to the Kennas and Coynes?

[Evertjan 't Hart]

Fascinating stuff. Have you had your hands on Harrington or Wooff sets? How do chanters built to that pattern compare to the Kennas and Coynes?

Harrington, alas no, but I think Harrington was making sets along the same basic guidelines, maybe an even smaller throat. Regarding Wooff, he's the only living pipemaker I know of that comes close to the 'old stuff'. There may be others but I don't know the work of every pipemaker.
But there is a simple test if the throat is around 3.8 mm and the bell around 10.4 mm and the toneholes around the 4mm (around 3.7 smallest - around 5 mm biggest) you probably have a chanter that is based on an old design. That is not all that there is to it but it's a rough indication.

Evertjan