Whistle design "feature"?

[Kypfer]

I notice the occaisional instrument made with a diagonally-cut end. I can appreciate this effectively gives a larger "end aperture" (approx. 33% more for a 45 degree cut), which may give a "stronger" bell note, but are there any other considerations, tuning in the upper octaves for instance, or is it simply a styling feature?

[AvienMael]

I'm not sure that cutting the end of a whistle at an angle is going to strengthen the bell note in any way - actually, the strength of the bell note is mostly dependent on the design and voicing of the head - regardless of bore size or design. Conical bore whistles, for example, have a much smaller aperture by design, and yet they often can have a stronger bell note than whistles with cylindrical bores.

Cutting the end of the whistle at an angle is a purely asthetic choice, I think.

[ecohawk]

I completely agree with AvienMael. It is aesthetic. I believe I have enough whistles from the high end on down to safely say that I can find no relationship between the mouthpiece angle and the sound of the whistle. Although, in my humble opinion, the steeper the angle, the more difficult it is to play the instrument since, (again IMHO) it can be more challenging to control, unless one places the mouthpiece further back in the mouth which is never a good idea.

ecohawk

[Feadoggie]

I notice the occaisional instrument made with a diagonally-cut end.

I'm not sure that cutting the end of a whistle at an angle is going to strengthen the bell note in any way

I can find no relationship between the mouthpiece angle and the sound of the whistle.

Kypfer, you might want to clarify which end and show an example of a whistle that is as you describe.

If you are talking about the distal end, then I can only say that they make for a better tent stake in a pinch.

Feadoggie

[AvienMael]

I believe Kypfer is referring to the bell end of the whistle being cut at an angle, not the mouthpiece. Nick Metcalf (Ethnic Winds) has made a few like this, along with some others. I do agree with you though, that having and mouthpiece angled back compromises the player. In addition to what you pointed out, it can also have a tendency to allow the lower lip to partially obstruct the opening to the windway.

[Kypfer]

Thanks guys ... I was referring to the "far end" ... the end without the mouthpiece
It had struck me, having seen mention of bigger finger holes making for a louder whistle (or was it a flute), that if the area of the end-hole of the whistle was effectively larger than the bore of the whistle, it might make for some acoustic differences on the lowest note.
Maybe I'll sacrifice a length or two of plastic tube "in the name of science" ...

[Flexismart]

You mean like this one:

http://www.ethnicwind.com/#!jade-pro

You may want to talk to Nick Metcalf about this.

[ecohawk]

Well, I am just a little embarrassed. Just goes to show what happens when one ASSumes....

Although, having played one of Nick Metcalf's instruments, it still doesn't seem to affect tone. The wooden one I have seems to have a solid and satisfying, but unspectacular, bell note.

ecohawk

[killthemessenger]

I completely agree with AvienMael. It is aesthetic. I believe I have enough whistles from the high end on down to safely say that I can find no relationship between the mouthpiece angle and the sound of the whistle. Although, in my humble opinion, the steeper the angle, the more difficult it is to play the instrument since, (again IMHO) it can be more challenging to control, unless one places the mouthpiece further back in the mouth which is never a good idea.
ecohawk

This is a feature of the Ormiston whistle - the windway entrance is cut at an angle. And it can be annoying at first, since your lower lip tends to close the entrance. But... it has an unexpected effect: playing the whistle angled very downwards gives a quieter (although much breathier) tone, which can be handy. You only get the full, quite pure tone by blowing the whistle at around 45° or higher. When I started out with this whistle, I was surprised by how variable the tone was, and it took a while to realise what was happening.

Phil Hardy gave the Ormiston quite a negative review on his website (one of the few whistles he hasn't been quite positive about), and the mouthpiece cut was his main gripe. He also said that there was "something missing" from the mid tones. I'd agree with him, but it's a whistle that takes a little getting used to. Angle is the key to a full tone.

This is only anecdotal, of course, and I don't know how far it applies to other whistles cut this way.

[Peter Duggan]

Although, in my humble opinion, the steeper the angle, the more difficult it is to play the instrument since, (again IMHO) it can be more challenging to control, unless one places the mouthpiece further back in the mouth which is never a good idea.

Think I'd be tempted to try the head joint upside down instead (fipple flute mouthpieces IMHO needing to stop short of the top teeth)!

[jemtheflute]

Point of information: cutting the bottom end of the tube at an angle does not, in practical, acoustical terms, make a 'bigger aperture'. The sounding length will be defined by the most up-tube point of the cut and the effective aperture will be the diameter of the bore at that point. If anything, the part-open tube beyond that point may flatten and damp the bell note, affecting the 'end correction' the maker will have made to get it on pitch. Some of our more scientific makers may correct me on this, but I think I've got it more-or-less right. If I have, the angled cut is just a cosmetic affectation, whatever the maker says. I suppose it is just possible that an angled cut open to the tone-hole side (front/top) might seem to the player to project the sound of the bell note more forward and so sound more similar to the other notes, but an audience would be unlikely to perceive any difference.

[Kypfer]

jemtheflute said :

Point of information: cutting the bottom end of the tube at an angle does not, in practical, acoustical terms, make a 'bigger aperture'. The sounding length will be defined by the most up-tube point of the cut and the effective aperture will be the diameter of the bore at that point.

... thankyou sir ... a definitive answer and exactly the point I wasn't sure of
Nevertheless, I think it "looks cool"

[Peter Duggan]

Nevertheless, I think it "looks cool"

Close enough to the 'spike' of a lightweight ice axe to leave it wanting a head with pick and adze at the other end...





(On which note I've actually got both of these amongst my eight current axes, but just don't get it on a whistle!)

[jemtheflute]

I already thought it sounded dangerous, especially on a metal tube..... now I definitely think it's a majorly daft idea!

Incidentally, if there is a purported purpose of getting a more forward projection (to the player's perception) for the lowest note this could be at least as well effected by simply extending the tube and boring a large tone-hole in it tuned for the sounding hole of the 6-finger note - like the "dummy holes" in a long foot keyless transverse flute - something which would also make the quality of said note more even with the rest of the range - not necessarily desirable if you want to be able to honk your low D. But whatever, I believe that in acoustic terms you cannot have a tone-hole whose effective area is greater than that of a perpendicular lateral section across the bore.

[Peter Duggan]

I already thought it sounded dangerous, especially on a metal tube..... now I definitely think it's a majorly daft idea!

'So you were carrying an offensive weapon, then?'
'No, he fell on my whistle... honest!'