Comparing Paddy Keenan,s Chanters

Hornpiper · Post by **Hornpiper** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 3:10 pm

You've turned timber?

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:26 pm

Why yes, Ben-ya-meen, I have.

I've made many a baseball bat. Bowls too. And some other stuff, but that was years ago. No chanters or regs or drones. Maybe someday.

Stuart

Evertjan 't Hart · Post by **Evertjan 't Hart** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:04 am

Recently I've changed my bore design to bring the E's and the soft/hard bottom D in tune without using rushes in the bore.
I made one in Box and one in Ebony and there's a huge difference in how they sound. The sound of the Box version is rounder, warmer if you like.
I think boxwood emphasizes or mute other harmonics then Ebony. So I really don't care if sience has proven material doesn't matter, the proof is in the listening

In the testing, so same bore, same reed, same top piece, but different wood equals very different sound.

Evertjan

giggleswicksam · Post by **giggleswicksam** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 6:27 am

The idea that wood has no effect on different chanters of the same design is, to me, a bit like asserting that dogs do not pee on lamp posts!

I have 3 C# chanters of the same design knocking around at the moment, and only one reed, which I am swapping around. The chanters are in ebony, blackwood and palosanto. THey have the same throat, OD, hole sizes / placings and bore. They all sound different.

Yes, three different reeds would probably have a greater effect, but the wood has a significant effect on the tone. I also have box, ebony, palosanto and lignum vitae concert chanters of a very similar design, and there is a rack of difference between them.

I'd love to record them all and prove my point, but too busy to go into the studio. Sorry.

Perhaps some difference occurs due to the different ways that different woods take a reamer, but I don't believe this is entirely responsible. The difference between a rough and a highly polished bore on the same chanter is less than different woods, in my experience.

tommykleen · Post by **tommykleen** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:58 am

Paddy was in town in May. He confided in me that he could use a new kidney so I said "Sure Paddy! (that's MISTER Keenan to you, Rory)...righty or lefty?!"

None of that is true of course, but I believe (if my tionol-clouded memory does not desert me again) that he said that Dave Williams (RIP) was making (or going to make?) a boxwood copy of his Rowsome stick as well.

t

rorybbellows · Post by **rorybbellows** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 1:34 pm

Its all very everyone saying that there is a difference ,but can anyone offer some concrete evidence why there is a difference, because there is loads of evidence to say there is no difference!!!!

RORY

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:04 pm

How do you figure, Rory?

ALL of it is hearsay, you have just decided that the people in the "no difference" camp have "evidence" and those in the "there's a difference" camp don't.

Nothing that's been put forth has been concrete evidence . . . unless you've got some kind of actual evidence you're holding back.

Stuart

Patrick D'Arcy · Post by **Patrick D'Arcy** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:09 pm

I firmly believe there is a difference - so there

The box feels buzzier and rounds out the higher harmonics I think.

PD.

rorybbellows · Post by **rorybbellows** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:48 pm

According to the principals of acoustics ,there are two factors that control the tone of any instrument ,one ,is the method the vibration is set in motion(in this case the reed )and two is the composition of the harmonics.The composition of the harmonics are governed by the internal dimensions of the tube containing the column of vibrating air (the bore)and thats it !!!
The actual material the tube is made of has no influence!!

RORY

Patrick D'Arcy · Post by **Patrick D'Arcy** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:54 pm

So why does it feel and sound different then?

PD.

rorybbellows · Post by **rorybbellows** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:04 pm

Patrick D'Arcy wrote:So why does it feel and sound different then?

PD.

Because as much as people think the chanters they are comparing are indenticle they are not !

RORY

Patrick D'Arcy · Post by **Patrick D'Arcy** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:14 pm

I agree with you there but there is more to it than simply a slighlty different design. The whole thing feels different. I'm not about to trust any scientists either.... they only know what they know until they are convinced of something else.

... y'know, flat earth, sea monsters, global warming etc.

PD.

Evertjan 't Hart · Post by **Evertjan 't Hart** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 3:28 pm

rorybbellows wrote:According to the principals of acoustics ,there are two factors that control the tone of any instrument ,one ,is the method the vibration is set in motion(in this case the reed )and two is the composition of the harmonics.The composition of the harmonics are governed by the internal dimensions of the tube containing the column of vibrating air (the bore)and thats it !!!
The actual material the tube is made of has no influence!!

RORY

That's not it at all! According to Nederveen (acoustical aspects of woodwind instruments)
"Still a hot item is the possible influence of wall vibrations on the sound quality." and "... but the following observation about decant recorders indicates that vibrations of the recorder bodies can be a factor."
So not so simple is it.

Evertjan

PJ · Post by PJ » Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:20 pm

Evertjan 't Hart wrote:Recently I've changed my bore design to bring the E's and the soft/hard bottom D in tune without using rushes in the bore.
I made one in Box and one in Ebony and there's a huge difference in how they sound. The sound of the Box version is rounder, warmer if you like.
I think boxwood emphasizes or mute other harmonics then Ebony. So I really don't care if sience has proven material doesn't matter, the proof is in the listening
In the testing, so same bore, same reed, same top piece, but different wood equals very different sound.

Evertjan

Evertjan, the boxwood chanter appears slightly longer than the ebony chanter. Is that correct, or is it just the photo? (Nice looking chanters, BTW)

Evertjan 't Hart · Post by **Evertjan 't Hart** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:32 pm

PJ wrote: Evertjan, the boxwood chanter appears slightly longer than the ebony chanter. Is that correct, or is it just the photo? (Nice looking chanters, BTW)

It's the photo they are the same.

Evertjan