And no, I refuse to run a search! LOL!
I think I know what you all are referring to when you say one whistle is “sweeter” than another, but what does that really mean? Fuller sounding? More chiffy? Less chiffy? I was just wondering!
Robin
I’m willing to bet this is another thing that will be highly subjective 
That said, when I use the term “sweet,” I mean a clear, rich tone…one that makes you want to hang onto those long notes. Little or no chiff, no “breathiness,” no buzz or strongly distracting overtones.
Redwolf
I’m with you on ‘subjectiveness’ Wolf. . .
I describe a whistle as ‘sweet’ if the tone is pure (lack of overtones), not terribly loud especially in the upper register. I don’t usually use the word ‘rich’ with it…to me that impiles a more complex sound than a simple, ‘sweet’ sound.
I might add that I think sweetness is also a factor of how an instrument plays…lack of backpressure, less breath. I’ve never consciously thought of that before, but its definitely part of the whistles I call sweet. ‘Good natured’ might be an apt phrase.
Tartan Ball tonight…so The Cat’s getting tarted up. . .no sweetness here tonight! Time to start the prep…bye!
I’m probably one of those more guilty of using the word sweet to describe whistle sound. Of course, I use it because I can’t think of another term for what I want to describe. I would say that it’s distinct from chiff, full, and, to some extent pure.
Some pure sounding whistles are Rose, Susato, Burke Al, and Silkstone alloy. Of these I would say the first two are sweet sounding, the latter two, not. I would also call the D and E Water Weasels sweet.
Some more examples: I would call the vibrophone sweet, but not the marimba; the pianoforte but not the modern piano; the celesta.
As Redwolf said, definitely subjective, but it’s nice to know what some of the frequent contributors mean, should be a very interesting thread.
Sweetness: Dead, lack of charicter, no guts, unable to project emotion, frivolous and safe. 
Well you said it was subjective.
I hate sweet.
Tom
Sweetness = Walter Payton.
~Larry
It’s hard to define, but you know when you hear it.
I have a chieftain sop’D that has a ‘wide, rich’ sound, especially in the lower octave.
Compared to the chieftain’s upper octave my Dixon sop’ D is sweeter, but narrower!
I know that doesn’t help much
tyghress, i agree with the purity part of your definition, but i think that the presence of at least some overtones, in the technical sense, is actually a good things. lack of overtones results in a thin sound without ‘character’: maybe another thread? i think i know what you mean. anyway, what you say, to me, applies very well to the sweetheart professional. as i keep mentioning, i’ve got the laminate version and i’m crazy about it. i just read your extremely interesting thread on it–lots of good information and your analysis of it hit the nail on the head (or as jeeves would say: rem acu tetigisti.). i think the sweet’s deserve a lot of credit for developing a remarkable instrument, one with wonderful purity of tone and sweetness, but with character, too.
[ This Message was edited by: tinuviel on 2003-03-01 16:17 ]
On 2003-03-01 15:16, Blackbeer wrote:
Sweetness: Dead, lack of charicter, no guts, unable to project emotion, frivolous and safe. >
Well you said it was subjective.
I hate sweet.Tom
That’s actually why I added “rich” to my definition. I like some overtones (they add character…that’s the timbre I keep talking about with my Elfsong). Perhaps there are subcategories to “sweet”…I would define both my O Briain improved and my Elfsong as “pure,” but the Elfsong definitely has more tonal character and “expressibility.”
Redwolf
I’m mostly with Tyghress here. I might define it concisely as the opposite of “edgy.”
Sweet whistle == Elfsong
Chiffy whistle == Serpent Village Smithy
In-between whistle == Brass or Copper Serpent
http://www.serpentmusic.com/music/countydownvs.mp3 to hear the chiffy. Sandy Jasper’s site http://www.elfsongwhistles.com to hear the sweet.
I like both voices, but for different sorts of music. And I’m dying to get my hands on my new Busman D!!!
serpent
Well, defining “sweetness” is sort of like asking someone to define “green”. Go ahead, how would you define it? 
I think of sweetness as having a relatively pure tone, with a soft roundness to it. ie, little to no chiff, and no shrillness.
Of my own whistles, I would say my Dixon high-D is the sweetest.
Again, the pragmatic answer: green is the electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum with a wavelength of 5770-4920 Angstroms .
But again, Lewis Carroll had it right, “When I use a word, it means exactly what I intend it to mean.”
Tyghress
…And I go on, pursuing through the hours,
Another tiger, the one not found in verse.
Jorge Luis Borges
[ This Message was edited by: tyghress on 2003-03-02 12:58 ]
Yeah, like I said, I’m with Tyg.
Philo
Oh, and I wanted to post a response to you Tinuviel…I don’t want to say that overtones are good or bad…they simply exist or don’t. When I’m playing certain tunes and certain tones, a complexity of sound is important: I want the overtones. Other times I look for a purer sound…something that reminds me of a tuning fork rather than an organ pipe.
Just as back pressure isn’t good or bad, its very much a matter of taste. For me, I don’t like it much in a soprano instrument, but need a certain amount in the lower keys or I run out of breath too soon. Some people really like to ‘lay into’ a tune (Blackbeer…does this ring true?) and want to push at the instrument.
Tyghress
…And I go on, pursuing through the hours,
Another tiger, the one not found in verse.
Jorge Luis Borges
[ This Message was edited by: tyghress on 2003-03-02 13:29 ]
yes, but…
my experience with tuning forks is that they produce a tone that is relatively rich in overtones–not an organ pipe, but not lacking by any means. perhaps another example would work: the fiddle. it’s obviously an instrument that is very rich in overtones, yet that doesn’t prevent a good player from producing an almost ethereally pure tone: overtones aren’t the enemy of purity. a whistle like the sweetheart is also much richer in overtones than a generation or a clarke, but it produces a far purer tone. bottom line, of course, i play 'em all, depending on what i’m looking for (except my fiddle, now, due to rotator cuff tendonitis).
but that leads me to another question. your taste in whistles seems to run toward mine, judging from your excellent analysis of the sweetheart. i found your sound clips extremely interesting (and clear), particularly the contrast with the burke. i just ordered a dixon soprano as a backup/knockaround for my sweetheart pro d (several people in this thread have characterized their dixons as “sweet”), and you seem to own just about every whistle under the sun. what do you say about dixons–how would you characterize them to someone who’s nuts about the new sweetheart? i’m hoping it will be in better tune than my generation in the top register, but relatively undemanding in its breath requirements (easier than a susato, for example). oh, one more thing–what do people mean by “back pressure”? anyone else who wants to, please join in.
If the overtones are all in the harmonic series, then the instrument will sound pure. The tone quality (not purity) will depend on the amplitudes of the harmonics. For example, if the overtones consist only of odd-numbered harmonics, the tone will sound hollow, like a very pure clarinet tone in the bottom register. If the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th harmonics dominate, the tone will sound more like a flute. An “impure” tone is caused by the presence of overtones (and non-musical noise) which are not in the natural harmonic series.
A sine wave generator will produce only the fundamental frequency with absolutely no overtones, and it sounds hideous!
I need to qualify things just a little. The harmonics produced by musical instruments are effectively only the first few. It is possible to artifically generate any waveform whatsoever by using a large portion of the harmonic series. For example, one can produce a perfect square wave if an infinite number of harmonics is allowed, and a square wave sounds like a jackhammer.
[ This Message was edited by: Ridseard on 2003-03-02 16:47 ]
thanks much, ridseard–i knew i was over my head. now, would you like to give a scientific opinion on the vexed issue of what effect the material used in constructing a whistle might have on the sound? does the material used relate in any way to overtones/harmonics? polymers, natural woods, laminated wood, brass, tin, aluminum, bone, whatever? i personally find it hard to accept what some say, namely that the material doesn’t matter. a somewhat scientific colleague of mine suggests that metals can be problematic because they vibrate and cause disturbances that may be unwelcome. he also says bore shape will definitely have an effect, as well. thanks again.
Sorry, Tinuviel, I don’t know anything about how the material might affect tone. I’m just a mathematician who did a lot of harmonic analysis once upon a time.
that’s OK. since i got my new sweetheart pro D i’ve just gotten fascinated with the complexity of wind instruments. ralph sweet told me the laminated wood is essentially a plastic and should be pretty impervious to humidity and moisture. plus, it has a beautiful ‘sweet’ ‘pure’ tone that’s in tune through 2 octaves. but i should be receiving a dixon tomorrow as a backup, which most everyone seems to agree is another ‘sweet’ toned whistle. btw, that is one cool webpage you’ve got there. i have 60-70 rose bushes in my yard, so the little rose pitcher definitely appealed to me.