What is the purpose of the taper in rolled staples?

[bobkeenan]

I have been pondering the taper of the staple blank, mandle, and finished staple. A tubing staple has a taper but only in one dimension. The other dimension actually expands. The internal area from end to end would stay about the same unless you are stretch the material with a forming technique.

The rolled staple has the same one dimensional taper that the tubing has but the eye area is less than the circular entrance to the taper, due to the tapered staple blank.

If I put on my old rocket scientist hat ( which is more and more full of holes these days). The flow through the tubing would be constant with only a change in shape of the flow field. While the flow through the rolled stapled would be slowed down but pressure increased at the reduced area eye. I am not sure what happens to flow area once it enters the reed. I assume the area continues to decrease till the reed lips. But if a tone chamber is used the flow will expand for the rolled staple and less so for the tubing dependingo on the size of the chamber.

is that the purpose of the taper on the rolled staple?

if i understood what the taper purpose was for, then with some circle/ oval geometry forumlas you could size a desired area change, then staple id shape, and from that staple mandrel shape and staple blank size.

Or is the taper more about proper shaping of the reed?

Perhaps this is all hogwash and a staple shape can only be determined from experimentation for each chanter design..... Or the notes and/or a staple mandrel from the pipemaker.

[CHasR]

the bore of the chanter is a truncated cone. the internal volume of the reed and its staple must be equal to, (or as near as possible) to the "missing" portion of that chanter bore's cone. the purpose of the staples' taper is to approximate the continuation of that cone, to its peak.

[pancelticpiper]

My understanding (reedmakers correct me if I'm wrong) is that the staple is ideally a more or less miniature recreation of the bore of the chanter, the widest and narrowest parts of the staple being in a ratio with the widest and narrowest parts of the chanter bore.

[PJ]

The internal area from end to end would stay about the same unless you are stretch the material with a forming technique.

I don't think I agree with your logic here. If you taper the staple, you decrease the internal volume (internal area?) - so the internal area moving towards the eye doesn't remain constant but is decreasing. Taken to an extreme, if you completely flatten the staple, the internal volume/area will be zero.

Assuming the angle of the taper is the same, the difference between a conical staple and a tube staple is that in the conical staple, the internal volume decreases more rapidly, moving towards the eye.

[Ted]

The staple taper is not a miniature copy of the staple bore. I does not have the same degree of taper as the bore. Often a tapered staple will give the best tuning over a tubing staple, particularly in the upper hand of the upper octave. There have been some remarks from a few on this forum that tubing staples are the "modern" way to go with the implication that rolled, tapered staples are not needed and are old fashioned. The reed makers that rely heavily on tubing staples often have a hard time reeding chanters that work best with a tapered staple. It is a reed-making skill, like any other that can be learned and put to good use by those who wish to be competent in making reeds. Many who have not been shown how to roll staples, or were not paying attention when the art was demonstrated, are resistant to learning, to their disadvantage. The proof is in the reeded chanter.

[rorybbellows]

I suppose the obvious answer is one of practicality ,it would not be possible to fit the cane head over the staple unless it was tapered. Luckily for us a tapered staple of some form works in conically bored instruments. My question would be, why is the staple not tapered for its complete length ,which would seem the obvious shape for it to be. I’ve never tried it myself but I believe that such a staple would not give a true scale so does this indicate that the staple is not completely tapered to compensate for irregularities in the chanter bore ?
Thankfully pipemakers with foresight have tackled the whole problem of diagnosing what size staple to fit in a certain chanter by making chanters that can be fitted with a generic tubing staple. I recently witnessed a test of a O,Brien chanter that proved to be perfectly in tune right up to high D and one of the sweetest sounding chanters I've heard in a long time.
Pipers want to play the pipes not make reeds,I don’t know of a single person who took up the pipes because they wanted to learn how to make reeds.

RORY

[Ted]

There are very few chanters designed specifically to take a generic tubing staple. Most do best with a conical staple. Most makers do not keep the staple in mind when coming up with a chanter bore they want to use. They are after a particular tone rather than taking whatever tone they get so they can use off-the-shelf tubing staples. That is putting the cart before the horse. It is like a race car engine designer designing a high performance engine to work best with an existing carburetor rather than designing the carburetor to suit the engine's performance. The chanters I like the tone of best all use conical staples. The accomplished reed-maker learns how to roll staples rather than cursing the chanters that do best with a conical staple. I use tubing where it will work and roll staples that work best with those chanters that need them. I don't see chanter bores being modified so they will all take tubing staples. That would just "dumb down" uilleann pipes to a narrow range of chanters.

[rorybbellows]

Most makers do not keep the staple in mind when coming up with a chanter bore they want to use.

Yes thats right, I agree with that 100%. I know you're not trying to imply that these makers are in any way second rate as different makers have different strength's and weaknesses . But thankfully there are the few makers who can work with chanter and staple as a whole as of course they are. Its these makers that are making the business of playing the pipes easier by making their pipes easier to reed and carrying the torch for future makers.

RORY

[kmag]

I am not a reed maker by any means but I have sat and watched other people that are very good at making reeds. From what I can see the rolling of the staple is the least or your worries. It can be taught and executed by any one with skill enough to make a good reed and doesn't take more than a few minutes.

[Brazenkane]

I was using a hand rolled staple that was almost as close to tubing as one could possible be, with the exception being the blank was tapered on both sides near if the very top. The maker had originally told me this was best for tuning his instrument. It was superb for tuning, too. However, When I switched to a tapered hand rolled staple on a lark, the tone improved (for my liking and his) significantly. There were some aspects of the tuning that "suffered," but only so much in that the scale became more "uilleann." It was a trade off I could deal. The noticeable tonal interest the new staple was helping produce was much welcomed!

So. I'm in total alignment with Ted, and I feel the tapered hand rolled staples can actually produce a better sounding reed.

[myrddinemrys]

the bore of the chanter is a truncated cone. the internal volume of the reed and its staple must be equal to, (or as near as possible) to the "missing" portion of that chanter bore's cone. the purpose of the staples' taper is to approximate the continuation of that cone, to its peak.

This is exactly correct.
I usually get rotten tomatoes thrown at me when I explain this because I say it's a truncated cone instead of "complex bore with preturbations".

[Pipewort]

There are very few chanters designed specifically to take a generic tubing staple. Most do best with a conical staple. Most makers do not keep the staple in mind when coming up with a chanter bore they want to use. They are after a particular tone rather than taking whatever tone they get so they can use off-the-shelf tubing staples. That is putting the cart before the horse. It is like a race car engine designer designing a high performance engine to work best with an existing carburetor rather than designing the carburetor to suit the engine's performance. The chanters I like the tone of best all use conical staples. The accomplished reed-maker learns how to roll staples rather than cursing the chanters that do best with a conical staple. I use tubing where it will work and roll staples that work best with those chanters that need them. I don't see chanter bores being modified so they will all take tubing staples. That would just "dumb down" uilleann pipes to a narrow range of chanters.

I would not take any issue with this; and there is a good 'film of Geoff Woof making a rolled staple on the NPU's video.

There are two constraints that might inhibit a lot of folk. A) what dimension of mandrel should be used and; B) Getting a mandrel made.

The tubing fraternity have numerous sources of retailers of 'standard' mandrels. A photo of a tapered staple would help too. I can't recall seeing one, and that would be useful to see the overall shape, vis a viz a tubing staple .

[CHasR]

That would just "dumb down" uilleann pipes to a narrow range of chanters.

The tubing fraternity

lol hilarious.


widen the scope. Im not sure I buy into the argument that standardization is a bad thing. Having a larger range of chanters each requiring custom fitted everything, each subject to a different bag of problems, requiring all reedmakers and pipemakers to be able to diagnose, act on and remedy hundreds of issues requiring an encyclopedic body of knowledge, much of it by necessity garnered from their own competitors, scribbled in notebooks using mixed or converted measurements, for customers with little or no money, offers scant security that such skills will go on to the next gen: all this will undoubtedly increase the number of players, further the musicality of the instrument, keep its awareness 'above the waterline', and keep the uilleann pipe its rightful place as the forefront of pipes?
Right?

God help us all when our pipemakers retire. It s no wonder all these vintage pipes have had surgery over the years.

Can someone show scholarly evidence that the great makers of the past strove for uniformity; OR was there a conscious effort to make pipes with as much variation from 'the other guys' as possible? Seeing as there (may have been) a chance to this century to take the best parts of the past and create a versatile (lack of better term) "Uber-pipe", do we now throw that aside in an effort to preserve the idiosyncracies of what (may have been) mediocre products of the past?
My point to be made goes BEYOND wether tube or rolled staples are superior.

Issue for me is based on the HISTORY OF MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS IN WESTERN ART CULTURE ,which is littered with the dried corpses of formerly fashionable woodwinds, whose voices we know today only through some persnickety frankenstinian ressurrection...

Case in point:Anyone ever play a C melody sax? ew.

[geoff wooff]

That would just "dumb down" uilleann pipes to a narrow range of chanters.

The tubing fraternity

lol hilarious.


widen the scope. Im not sure I buy into the argument that standardization is a bad thing. Having a larger range of chanters each requiring custom fitted everything, each subject to a different bag of problems, requiring all reedmakers and pipemakers to be able to diagnose, act on and remedy hundreds of issues requiring an encyclopedic body of knowledge, much of it by necessity garnered from their own competitors, scribbled in notebooks using mixed or converted measurements, for customers with little or no money, offers scant security that such skills will go on to the next gen: all this will undoubtedly increase the number of players, further the musicality of the instrument, keep its awareness 'above the waterline', and keep the uilleann pipe its rightful place as the forefront of pipes?
Right?

God help us all when our pipemakers retire. It s no wonder all these vintage pipes have had surgery over the years.

Can someone show scholarly evidence that the great makers of the past strove for uniformity; OR was there a conscious effort to make pipes with as much variation from 'the other guys' as possible? Seeing as there (may have been) a chance to this century to take the best parts of the past and create a versatile (lack of better term) "Uber-pipe", do we now throw that aside in an effort to preserve the idiosyncracies of what (may have been) mediocre products of the past?
My point to be made goes BEYOND wether tube or rolled staples are superior.

Issue for me is based on the HISTORY OF MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS IN WESTERN ART CULTURE ,which is littered with the dried corpses of formerly fashionable woodwinds, whose voices we know today only through some persnickety frankenstinian ressurrection...

Case in point:Anyone ever play a C melody sax? ew.

Yes I've played a C Melody Sax and often wished it had continued past the change of (and unification of) Pitch standard in 1939. This modern international pitch 'did for' many instruments and has caused untold problems with the Uilleann Pipes revival ( in the field of the D instrument) , where pipers and makers were working with instruments and models that were designed to the slightly higher prevailing pitch that went before. The results of trying to Reed these older CP chanter designs (I put it that way because some people are still trying to make copies of these 'halfway to Eb' chanters) down to modern D have been to change the percieved Voice (power and tone) in the ears of this current revival generation.
The fault lays squarly at the feet of those who continued to believe that all the D chanters made during the first half of the 20th Century were capable of playing in modern D, people who think that Uilleann Pipes are not related to any other instrument.

As to standardisation in the past... my studies into the Pipes of Pre-Famine times shows that Pipes of a particular period have very common features and dimensions... thus standardisation, perhaps not but being in the same family, being copied from a single source. There are ,of course, not a great many sets of pipes from that period and not a lot of makers, to study... unlike today where there are perhaps ten times as many people making the things.

To come back to this topic; I am reading peoples comments with interest

Geoff.

PS;many old sets were altered (ruined if you like) because the knowledge of reedmaking was all but lost... that is hardly the case today I would suggest.
PPS; If anyone is interested in a "how to make Reeds" course I am willing to give one... with emphasis on How to finish the Head... how to do your scraping for maximum success... how to roll a staple too if people would like.

[Lorenzo]

I like things just the way they are - a wide variety of pipes available, a wide variety of reed makers available, a wide variety of cane available, and a wide variety of opinions on staples available. I dread the day (if it should ever happen) when there is uniformity, consensus, and agreement on the way things should be. I love the option of choosing what I consider a unique sounding set...one with its own personality, tone, looks, playability, and yes...even the dark secrets of staple making that are hidden from common understanding. I like thinking back on the history of the instrument...a time when discoveries were made, when seekers had to dig really deep to understand the hows and whys of it all, spending a lifetime experimenting with cane, staples, bores, wood, shape, etc., and trying to understand what made it work so well...or not. I'm not sure we want a fraternity of pipers all dressed alike, all playing pipes that have finally been standardized.