Would anyone be willing to describe the differences in timbre between whistles made with a conical compared to a cylindrical bore?
I would like to buy a whistle and don’t have any recordings of either bore of whistle to listen to and compare. I recently heard Tim Britton play some conical bore whistles and liked the tone, but would love to hear from anyone who has an opinion on the matter.
Also, would anyone care to explain the physics behind the difference in sound?
My Oak D (cylindrical bore) sounds better (IMHO) than my SweeTone D (conical bore) but then, that might just be those two particular whistles…
I have found some of my conical whistles harder to play compared to the cylindrical ones because of the greater air requirements. You might want to also consider air requirements when choosing a whistle.
Best wishes, Tom
The conical bore produces a more
flutey sound–I don’t think it
is tied in any essential way to
wind requirements, though.
That is mostly a matter of windway
design. I like the flutey sound
very much, but it is certainly
a matter of individual taste.
There are beautiful sounding
cylindrical whistles.
The conical whistles I’ve played
are Clarkes and Copelands. Unless
you have a lot of money with which to buy
a Copeland, I don’t think there are
any inexpensive conical options except
Clarkes (these come in the classic
and the Sweetone).
I’ve compared some conicals (Shaw, Clarke original) with cylindricals (Generation, Dixon, Feadog) and find my conicals more in tune internally and more balanced (in terms of volume & air pressure requiremts) across the 2.5 octaves.
The drawback is loudness, esp in the lower notes. I can’t play the conicals loudly; blow too hard and they’d jump to the next octave or a higher harmonic note.
I’m not saying the cylindricals are grossly out of tune; tuning is kind of within acceptable limits, but just not so bang on in tune as the conicals. An electronic tuner was used.
Holes on my cylindricals are bigger so sliding is easier.
The whistles compared are all cheaper and mid-range ones, and no conclusions should be drawn on hand-made and more expensive whistles.
Much obliged.
So…
Conical-more similar in timbre to that of a flute and surer intonation.
Cylindrical-louder
Are these acceptable generalizations?
I think I have read comments before concerning the “flutey” timbre of conical bores and comparative loudness between bores. Beyond that, could any generalizations be made concerning things like: brightness vs. darkness of sound, difference in the sound of the “attack”, difference in harmonics, focused-ness of sound…
Thanks again,
Shane
I have also played only Shaws and Clarkes from the conical bore. My big complaint with both is that the C-natural has to be played with four holes covered instead of two, and also making vibrato by covering lower holes is impossible. The first is by no means peculiar to conical-bore whistles, and a lot of people are used to it. The second is of little consequence to whistle playing, and also allows you to cover most unused holes if you choose.
OTOH, if you have small fingers these whistles have small holes, and as has been pointed out, they’re much better about being in tune with themselves.
Charlie
Charlie, I see you’re a physicist. Any input on the physics question?
Shane
Wish I were a physicist! Well, I can
speak to the loudness question.
Copeland conical whistles are quite
loud, especially the high D. I play them
them (Ds, Gs, and As) on the street. It’s possible that, on the
inexpensive conical whistles, the
fluteyness dampens the lower notes
slightly compared to cylindrical
whistles. The Clarke Sweetone
has pretty good volume throughout, though.
I don’t think there is any necessary
connection tween conical shape and
low volume–though inexpensive conical
whistles like the Clarke classic and
the Shaw are on the quiet side.
Brightness has a lot to do with
the material the whistle is made of,
as you probably know. My favorite
bright whistle (and my favorite
whistle) is the Copeland nickel D.
Oh yes, so in the light of my comparisons, what do I use? Mainly cylindricals, but that’s mostly what I have anyway.
Dixon D beats my Clarke D most of the time. Dixon’s tuning is more than acceptable except for the very high notes, and its volume, ease of play, tone and low breath requirements are good. I still like my Clarke, but I only play it at home when I need a softer whistle.
Dixon A over Shaw A - tunable, MUCH lower air requirements! Pity becoz I like the flutey sound of the Shaw.
Shaw E – it’s great. OK air requirements, maybe becoz it’s short. Not many other low-end whistles in E anyway.
My 2 cents:
I find cylindrical bore whistles to be stonger and clearer in tone, and generally better in tune than the more breathy conicals.
I have played Clarks, Shaws and Copelands and prefer Generations, Sindts, Silkstones, Riordans and Weasels. Just my opinion…
On 2001-12-15 22:45, Shane Klein wrote:
Charlie, I see you’re a physicist. Any input on the physics question?Shane
Well, I’ll give it a go. Physics has bearing on two aspects that I know of. First, the conical bore can have smaller holes with them comfortably spaced. For most this is a good thing for low whistles; the Shaw low-D has an easy reach and easily sealed holes. But depending on your fingers, it may be a drawback for high whistles, eg, not being able to feel the hole properly.
Equally or more important, a properly designed conical bore will be more in tune with itself across the octaves. Makers of cylindrical whistles, such as Mike Burke, correct for the cylindrical bore by “perturbing” it – adding wider and narrower parts to correct for the slight dirrerences in a note in the two octaves.
As for the characteristics of the sound and playability, the fipple design has much more to do with it than the shape of the bore. The Shaw and Clarke both have the notorious gargantuan breath requirements and extremely breathy sound, but the Sweetone has a moderate breath requirement and much purer tone.
Charlie
All of the intonation accuracy and tone color issues aside, I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts on the practical playable ranges of these two instrument designs.
I have found cylindrical bore instruments, regardless of make, to produce 3rd octave notes a bit more easily as a rule than the conical models (from Copeland on down to Clarke). Is this simply part of the general air requirement issue, or is there something else with the physics of the instrument design that prevents clear production of 3rd octave notes? Obviously, in a perfect instrument design, one would expect the highest notes to be a bit louder than those in a previous octave, but not excessively so.
[ This Message was edited by: rpmseattle on 2001-12-17 19:45 ]
I just couldn’t let our new contributor RPM fall off the bottom of the page.
Playability aside:
The conical whistle is from the tapered part of the ski pole and the cylindrical is from the straight part closer to the handle. One is just as much fun to make as the other.
OK, Robert, I’ll try to be serious.
Merry Christmas , and God bless us every one.
Mack