We all have different preferences when it comes to how a whistle plays, not least of which is how much backpressure or resistance to blowing a whistle has. A whistle with high back pressure will have a strong bottom end but a harder to reach, more “tense,” higher upper octave and require less air. Conversely, a whistle with low backpressure will have a more sensitive bottom end but a more relaxed and easier to reach upper second octave but generally use more breath. It’s taken me a couple of years of reading reports etc to discover roughly which whistles fit in each category but have little experience of comparing whistles by actually playing them. For the benefit of fellow whistlers would it not be of benefit to list makes/models on a scale so that they can see in advance how a whistle might be expected to play? I’m thinking of a Low D since differences will be much more clear and well defined than on a high whistle, though the same scale would likely apply to a maker’s high whistles. To begin with, I’m assuming that the most free blowing whistle is a Burke Viper but there may be others. And perhaps the whistle with the highest back pressure would be a Goldie hard blower.
So, very roughly to begin with . . . soft blowers:
Burke Viper
Reviol
O’Briain
Lambe
Hamilton
Bracker
Medium blowers:
Goldie Soft Blower
MK Pro & Kelpie
Alba (standard)
Hard blowers:
Goldie Medium Blower
Goldie Hard Blower
Alba Vibe
I’ve no idea where to place the various Chieftain models or many other makes. Would anyone be interested in correcting, adding to and refining this list to give one long continuum that compares all the major Low Ds available . . . . or is this just a waste of time ?
Your list is an interesting and useful tool, Mike. And as with such a subjective concept, there will be some who take issue with some of your conclusions…
After thinking it over, I would agree that the Burke Viper probably belongs in your soft blower category, but I feel it is in no way the most soft blowing low D whistle out there. I have played a number of true air hogs, and their names have been mercifully forgotten. Mike Burke’s Viper does not follow your rule concerning a sensitive low end. To the contrary, it has one of the easiest to control and most solid low ends of any low D in my experience. Yes, it does take more air overall than some. However, the improvements Mike Burke has made in his Viper over the years have ameliorated much of this. If Mike is ever able to decrease the air requirements of his Viper further, I will be first in line to purchase same.
I personally would not place Colin Goldie’s medium blower in the hard blower category. I play both the MK Pro and a Goldie Overton medium blower, and they are very close in their resistance characteristic. Yes, the MK is slightly more ‘medium,’ but the difference to me is not enough to place the Goldie in the hard blower column.
You make what probably may be an important point, in the middle of your first paragraph: Determining resistance, and therefore air requirement characteristics of a low whistle - is a very subjective issue, determined by the experience, physical characteristics, preferences, prejudices, and sensitivity of the player doing the analysis. Your list is a good start, but personal experience with an instrument before purchase is the gold standard. And yes, that is sometimes very, very difficult to accomplish…
You ask if your list is a waste of time, Mike. No, most certainly not.
I’d agree with Byll (happens a lot) that your list is interesting and has value to whistlers. Yet I wouldn’t agree with your premise (or is that a conclusion?). So don’t take this reply as an argumentative response but just as my own thinking out loud. Anytime you bring up one of these subjects it results in valuable discussion and members share their thinking and preferences. And that is very valuable.
I just can’t agree with that as a broad stroke. There are free blowing whistles with solid bottoms (Byll talks about the Viper) as well free blowing whistles with hard to reach upper ends. I don’t think that back pressure, as I believe you define it, is s direct determining factor for those characteristics. But then again I am not you and we may have different experiences and definitions altogether. We’ve talked in a couple threads about the differences between backpressure, resistance and acoustic impedance as examples. And my experience in making whistles as well as my experience playing a lot of different whistles from different makers would not lead me to draw the same conclusions. That should not mean that your experience is not valuable and worth discussion because it certainly is. No matter what, you’ve put a line in the sand and challenge us to cross it (or not). So I’d look at this as a theorem to be tested
And I am not sure that looking at backpressure, as I believe you define it, is a good measure of much overall other than how hard you have to blow to make the whistle work. That should probably be coupled with things like control of dynamic range, pitch variation, initial response and transition across intervals, etc., etc..
So I would think it is valuable to have a scale of how hard or soft a whistle is to blow. I’d also think it is valuable to have a scale of how much air various whistle use or require. I’d also think it is valuable to have a scale of how solid the bottom notes are across whistles. And it would be equally valuable to know relatively how easy or hard it is to get to the top notes. Then perhaps a scale of dynamic range ( measure of how quiet and how loud you can blow a particular note). And it might be valuable to have a comparison of whistles showing the difference between volume of the bell note versus the notes at the top of the second octave. And on and on and on.
Of course one of the hard parts in doing this is that very few of us have all of those whistles at hand to do a direct comparison. And even if we have owned or played them all our memories aren’t exactly well calibrated for such comparisons. Over time I can tell you which whistles I liked or didn’t but I’d be reluctant to slot them onto a comparison scale.
Mike, I don’t agree with your generalisation what the effects of backpressure mean regards to lower and upper end playability, strength, air requirements etc. What you write does not agree with my experience.
I also don’t like the term “soft blower” applied to my own standard low D, and perhaps other makers as well, as it suggests that the whistle needs to be blown softly, in order to play. But this is not the case. You can blow it softly and get a tone, you can play it softly, but you can also blow harder for a stronger tone, and the bottom end is not delicate, but strong. If a term is needed I would call it “free blowing”, which can be associated with opening more possibilities in playing both softer and harder, extending expressiveness.
PS: I very much aggree with what Feadoggie wrote, putting it much better than myself, as usual!
First, many thanks Byll for your input and encouragement.
Feadoggie and Hans, I hear what you are saying but is it not possible to create such a scale that allows potential buyers in advance to see which whistles are more likely to be free blowing (I take you point, Hans regarding your preference for that term) but perhaps require more breath, and those that are less free blowing (what term would be best here if medium or hard are not accurate enough) but don’t use as much breath? In very general terms the former do seem to have more sensitive bottom notes (Reviol, Lambe O’Briain) but the Burke is a unique design and surely the "box ears "on your low whistles must add to the solidity of the bottom note. But you both know far more than I do, so to what extent can a scale be made simply to address the choices between resistance v air requirements. Everyone has a particular preference as to how they blow, freely or with resistance. I just wish I’d known more about these choices when first buying a low whistle.
I think it is an interesting subject, much talked about - at least in my many years here. But as the previous posters have said, it isn’t very cut-and-dried and is based on experience and particular instruments.
I think what needs to be considered are the differences in pressure and volume. A whistle that requires a lot of air at fairly low pressure would exhaust your lungs at a faster rate than a whistle that requires more pressure, but less volume. Does that make any sense? I don’t think either can conclusively be correlated with strong or weak bell notes or upper-ends.
You mean volume as in loudness? I think it would be interesting to see how volume/loudness depends on how much breath is required, and if there is some correlation to particular whistle’s air flow resistance/backpressure. You may find that a whistle needs more breath, but plays louder as well. Or not, in which case it is less air efficient, less air flow gets converted into acoustic energy/loudness. So we should not forget to include volume/loudness into the considerations.
PS: if we wish to look at the issues more objectively, we could start making a table noting down window sizes, width and length, as well as windway cross-section (width and height) at the exit, and we may well find some correlations to flow resistance and volume, even without including other factors like bore diameter and tone hole sizes.
I’m sorry, that gets confusing and I should have been clearer. I didn’t mean volume as in loudness, but volume as in amount of air. But there again, air, being elastic unlike say, water, makes this even more complicated. It is like letting air out of a balloon. if you leave the ‘inlet’ open, the air comes out at a low pressure and high volume, or if you squeeze the inlet nearly shut, you have to squeeze the balloon to get the air out, but it has been pressurized in the process and will last much longer.
My viewpoint, and thus my interest in the whistle, comes from a lifetime as an organ voicer and having to deal with air and its peculiarities. Low pressure (say, 2" in a water column) and higher pressure > 4" are two entirely different beasts to deal with and that’s related to what we are talking about, but since the player regulates the volume and pressure, it is even more complex.
And there you have defined the challenge, Mike. You are attempting to create an objective scale from a phenomenon that is inherently subjective, when being addressed by the opinions of various individuals. I suppose if one were very mechanically inclined, and had the blessing of a hospital’s inhalation therapist - plus a good audiologist, one could rig machines to measure the various air pressures needed to create a certain acoustic Db level for each register of a whistle, but in my humble opinion, it would present in the end nothing more than an absolutely pristine example of ‘tail wagging dog.’ Too many variables. Too much like tearing the petals from a daisy, to try to understand said daisy. And to be honest, with hand made instruments, there are simply differences in supposedly identical products. It is as it is.
Yeah, I agree that it would be great to have the full knowledge of all necessary parameters before making the decision to purchase a particular instrument. However, in the end, that is not only next to impossible, but there are issues with each instrument that may not show up scientifically, that result in whether one should personally purchase, or not.
Bottom line: I have heard that old guys like me have a kind of wisdom. What a crock. I figure we have just been around long enough to have made many errors, and instead of being crushed by them , we have learned from the experiences, and slowly acquire a sense of humor, and a desire to try better next time. Is this wisdom? I have been told one must kiss a few frogs in order to find one’s princess - or prince.
Great post, Byll. To add another variable, it is fairly safe to say that air moving at higher pressure/lower volume can be noisier than air moving at lower pressure/higher volume - so factor that into the ‘noise’ the whistle makes in its tone. And then there is ‘chiff’. That’s YA can o’ worms!
Yeah, I can now see so many problems in creating any kind of scale objectively. Too many variables. And it’s all relative depending on the player’s perspective. Bad idea!!!
But just going back to Hans and his dislike of the term soft-blower, preferring free blower (by the way I’m using Colin Goldie’s term here but understand what Hans is getting at). So what would be a more accurate term for hard-blower or is that term reasonable and self-evident?
A whistle that requires a lot of air at fairly low pressure would exhaust your lungs at a faster rate than a whistle that requires more pressure, but less volume.
BTW I’m not sure I agree with this. I find my lungs get very tired when I have to push hard which is why I go for a soft, sorry free blower.
Reg: I taught two lessons on pipe organ building, care, and feeding, as part of a course in two local public school districts. The course was called The Sociology of Music. A local organ builder and voicer was my mentor, and I learned so much from her, over the years. She also was kind enough to supply pipes - up to 8 ft., a small wind chest, bellows, trackers, etc., so that the kids could have an eyes and hands on experience…
I figure your endeavors are truly the combination of science, art, and voodoo.
Measuring the pressure in the mouth using a simple self-made manometer (PVC U-tube) I get something like 10 to 40mmWG of water blowing a low D note softly to hard (before it goes into the second octave). The Burke Viper is similar. So well below 2 inches. It goes only above 100mmWG /4 inches on the high B. But I can’t compare it to a “hard blower”, since I don’t have one.
You might look at this this way - If your low d was an organ pipe it would be a given ‘scale’, and the next D (an octave) higher would be logarithmically smaller (to whatever whim of the voicer), but on average not quite half the diameter, thus allowing it to speak with same timbre on the same pressure (volume regulated where the air enters the pipe). That said, scaling and voicing 2 octaves of pipes is a far simpler task than building a whistle and expecting it to work on all notes with just one mouth. It is really quite an amazing little instrument.
As Hans noticed, because the diameter of a whistle remains the same over its 2+ octaves, its dramatic increase in diameter/note ratio and requires constant ‘natural’ adjustment of pressure. This is voodoo (thanks, Byll) to me and is exactly why I have always said that my hat is off to whistle makers!
added later: I don’t mean to hijack the thread, Mikethebook. This is just from my perspective and to say that an organ with 5,000 pipes is little more than 5,000 whistles!
I had to chuckle just a little when I read this because I’ve started a few threads over the years to try and quantify several aspects of instrument performance only to be reminded that this is so entirely subjective that it’s nearly impossible. By now others have pointed out much better than I ever could how nice it would be to have and why it just can’t be.
I’m reminded of the movie The Red Violin, where they’ve found this ancient violin that has magical properties and makes everyone who plays it into a virtuoso. They test it, measure it and study it only to find that, other than the “varnish” it has no distinguishing qualities. I won’t spoil it for those who have not seen the movie (it is excellent btw) but this violin is indeed magical.
My own experience with whistles has been evolutionary and IMHO is the reason why this is so subjective. I have found that instruments I perceive one way in the beginning will change over time. I acquired a pre-owned boxwood Busman whistle early on in my whistle adventure and found it unplayable. But it was so beautiful and others felt so strongly about the brand that I kept it. I picked it up a year later when my playing had improved dramatically and still had trouble playing it. I even sent it back to Paul after describing my problems with it and he did some work to it which helped but it was still frustrating to play. After another year, which was marked by my beginning to play outdoors and with other musicians more regularly, I was showing whistles to a friend who wanted to see some high end instruments. So I showed him a Goldie, Sindt, Copeland, Schultz Blackwood and the Busman. He asked to play them so I handed him the Sindt and I picked up the Busman. Suddenly the Busman sounded wonderful to me. The difference was that after playing with others and mostly outdoors I was pushing this instrument hard, using a more forceful and bold attack which is exactly what the Busman wanted. Now, I play it as part of my regular practice as it is amazing for certain tunes and situations.
So my very long-winded point is… it’s the player more than the whistle. If your situation calls for you to play or practice a certain way you may perceive instruments very differently than at other times. And as your skill level improves, your autonomic senses kick into gear so that the variance between instruments becomes far less noticeable.
Well, I certainly can’t say anything better than everyone’s posted thus far. So I’ll just add a hit to the thread count. My initial thought was that so much of the desired traits in a whistle would best be discussed between the player and the whistle maker. That you would want to do this rather than seek info from some worksheet description. Not many whistles are pre-made and kept in stock as in a store situation beyond the usual introductory types. The whistles are usually custom made to one’s subjective playability and desired traits. And so many changes occur over time as experience improves (or age impacts) that the same whistle is not what it once was.
And, in fact, I am not now what I once was. Whistling. Just saying.
From the world of fluids, there’s a item called a “flow coefficient”. It’s a number relating three factors:
volume of flow (M^3/sec)
pressure (psi)
specific gravity (n/d)
In terms of playing whistle, these would translate into
how much air your exhaling
how hard you’re pushing
. . .
A fipple could be considered a fixed orifice. So, with measurements of volume-flow and pressure, any whistle’s “backpressure” could be characterized with a coefficient.
Of course, how that would relate to playability (and sound level (dB))
is an entirelyseparate discussion.
. . .Hans ! . . . I am totally impressed with the U-tube ! Do you have a photo of your setup ?
I’m presently scratching my head over an easy way to measure volume flow ! Hmmm . . .
My first thought was a balloon. . .but that would contribute some back pressure. However, a large collapsed polyvinyl bag of a light gauge. . .say the kind you get from a drycleaners, would probably do.
No photo, sorry! I just used a 3m length of clear PVC tube and a bit of wood, and fixed a U bend on the wood about 60cm tall, and filled with water to about half the height. Made a scale drawn on a piece of paper (5mm representing 10mmWG) and wedged it behind the tube on the timber, so zero corresponded to the water level. The end of the tube on the long end I took into the mouth, together with the whistle mouthpiece. A bit primitive, but seems to work.
I only measured volume flow rather subjectively, using my lung capacity and timing how long it took to play a note. I though a weight driven bellows might be a way to make this more objective.
?
!