I am getting ready to make a set of reamers for a flat chanter in the key of "C". The question is, which one should I make?
I have a wealth of measurements thanks to the SRS journals and their contributors and to David Quinn's CD and his contributors .
I have measurements for a Kenna an O'Mealy and an Egan? from the Sean Reid Society Journal, and measurements for Benidict Koehler's DMQ and a Matt Kiernan from David Quinn's CD "Pipes and Pipemaking".
Has anyone used any of these measurements to make a chanter?
I am leaning towards the Kenna because of its historical significance and because of what Ken McLeod says in his article in the SRS journal ".......it has one of the finest tones I have heard. The chanter does everything a good chanter should, easily, and the tone of the drones is utterly superb. Pat Mitchell classifies this set as one of the finest he has ever played."
To me it would be a toss up between the Kenna and the Egan. My C chanter is based on a Coyne-based design, which I found sounded better over a Harringtin-based design (both from Joe Kennedy).
And maybe that should be a suggestion for you if you are intending to become a pipemaker - make several chanters of different designs and see what works best for you. Don't forget that each chanter must have a reed designed for it that takes advantage of that chanter's unique capabilities. Its not a matter of coming up with just one chanter and then you're done, but taking the time to make several, see what works best for you, and then making several more of that one chanter until you perfect it.
djm
I'd rather be atop the foothills than beneath them.
I have made a couple of chanters based on the Kenna data in the SRS journal and can say unequivocally that it can produce extremely fine results. Up until now I have only had concert pipes to play, but have listened to (and occasionally played) other folks flat chanters from Wooff, Gallagher, Fromment, Q&K, so I had some general Idea of how the flat set should sound. I particularly like how David Power has his Fromment chanter reeded (sheez who doesn't like the way it sounds?). However, nothing prepared me for the (pleasant) surprise I had when I hastly reeded up that first Kenna-based chanter and honked away on it, I almost fell over backwards in shock! It is extremely easy to reed (especially compared to my concert pitch set). It is hard to beat the rush you get from putting so much effort into something like that and getting such immeadiate gratification. I ceratinly have not had that experience in making concert pitch sets at this point! So in short I would recommend the Kenna-based info in the SRS journal based on personal experience. It is nice to know going into it that all that work will pay off in the end. Having that confidence in the final outcome I think makes you take the time to do it right the first time rather than rushing things just to see if you are close to the mark.
As far as reamers go, although the bore data has lot of data points, you still have have a lot of gray area to work around when connecting the dots, so to speak. I spent quite a bit of time analyzing those bore plots and eventually made the assumption that I could make the bore with three reamers. I think the end result proved this assumption correct enough. If you want I can send you additional information on my reamers by PM or email. Let me know.
One aspect of how the bores were measured makes it hard to determine exactly where the minimum throat diameter is relative to the long axis of the chanter. This is one reason I made the reamers in sections. It allowed me to gradually adjust the throat and uper bore independent of the rest of the bore. Miniscule adjustments in this region have a remarkable affect on the tuning and playablity of the chanter, and you can go to far in short order, so it is good idea to ream undersized and work gradually, giving things time to settle down between operations. I think I worked the bore over a three month period. Wood tends to be very stable here in the great basin region once seasoned, but given the much higher (and variable) humidity levels in your neck of the woods, you may have to give it a longer rest,. Needless to say it is important to have a working reed for this stage of the game. I drilled the initail finger holes under sized an worked up from there. I found that the final hole dimensions were a little different from the info in the SRS journal (not surprising I guess). I included all the keyed holes as well.
One problem with the SRS Kenna information is that there is no info about reeding the stick, although I bet Mr. McLeod would offer guidance if asked, I just never bothered since I eventually stumbled on something that worked quite well.
Needless to say, I very excited to get the rest of the set completed, I have all the wood bored out for a full set and am working feverishly on all the bits and pieces so I can finish turning the drones and regs to their final form.
make several chanters of different designs and see what works best for you
Sounds like good advice.
J-dub wrote.
you still have have a lot of gray area to work around when connecting the dots, so to speak
You really notice this when you plot the numbers out on a graph, it isn't as obvious when looking at a column of numbers. There is one point between 293mm and 320mm, a distance of 27mm where the bore increases by .57mm, which doesn't seem like much but presents a large grey area on a graph. There is also a possible typo where the bore size of 4.75 is given at both 367.5mm and 370.5mm distance from the bell.
hard to determine exactly where the minimum throat diameter is
I also found this to be the case.
Needless to say, I very excited to get the rest of the set completed, I have all the wood bored out for a full set and am working feverishly on all the bits and pieces so I can finish turning the drones and regs to their final form.
This is another plus for these chanter measurements, the fact that the measurements are there for the rest of the set.
OK I've made my decision, I'll go with djm's advice and make 'em all
hard to determine exactly where the minimum throat diameter is
I make it to be about 399 - 400 mm, but it could be even higher if it's similar to other Kennas; this is a guess based on other Kenna data that I have to hand. The SRS data does have some roughness - the other Kenna bores I've seen are relatively "smooth" in the areas where the SRS data presents problems, so you might be justified in 'connecting the dots' with a rather smooth convex curve. The point at 8.22/181.5 looks to me like an 'outlier'.
The other speculative aspect of the SRS Kenna is in the toneholes. as previously mentioned. The chimneys had been scalloped at some point and at least one tonehole moved, so there's a bit of uncertainty as to the original tonehole diameters and chimney heights. Kenna seems not to have done much scalloping, so the chimneys can probably be estimated reasonably well from the chanter diameters top and bottom, but it's still an area requiring some thought.
I haven't used the SRS/McLeod Kenna data myself so I am just commenting on what I see in the plots when compared to other Kenna data. I still reckon that it's well worth trying, especially given J-dub's testimonial above. Having measurements for the rest of the set is a big plus too.
.
