So, I’m just wondering…is there any inherent difference between conical and straight whistles (don’t know if those are the “right” terms). I know they are one or the other, and I have one of each, which produce very different sounds. But are there consistent differences between the two types, other than just manufacturer? I’m just curious, and new to whistles…
Yes, there are differences between conical and cylindrical. It is phyisically impossible to get 2 octaves in tune with a cylindrical bore. Don’t ask me the physics; that’s a matter for the whistlesmiths, but I did get that bit of information from a physicist who is also a whistle maker.
There is also a matter of balancing the octaves’ volume.
I think there is a fair amount of info on this topic if you do a bit of a search, also.
I’ll take a stab at this one since it’s a favorite topic of mine.
There are a few ways people discuss the two different bores. ‘Conical’ is the usual way to describe that bore. The other is ‘parallel,’ ‘cylindrical,’ or ‘straight,’ or whatever. So the way you described them is perfectly fine.
Conical bores have a couple of potential advantages over the straight bore. Although this has probably been discussed before and a lot of people would just point you to an old thread, I’m too lazy to do that. One of the differences comes down to size. For a given pitch, the conical bore can be made comfortably shorter than its cylindrical counterpart. Doesn’t matter much until you get down below low G, at which point some folks with small hands have trouble playing cylindrical low whistles. I guess what I didn’t explain is that, along with a shorter overall bore length, the finger spacing is shorter.
Something else which enters into the discussion from time to time is internal tuning. It’s evidently easier to make a conical bore in tune with itself over more than one octave. It’s easy to have a single-octave cylindrically-bored instrument in tune with itself (cf. Northumbrian and Scottish small pipes), but once you go much outside the octave and start overblowing, watch out.
That’s part of the reason why you’ll see it mentioned that some high-end cylindrically-bored whistles (e.g. Burke, Reyburn) have bore ‘perturbations.’ Meaning, the bore no longer has a fixed diameter, but the diameter is wider or narrower at various points to bring some notes into better intonation.
There are other differences as well. I personally think that there are advantages to the cylindrical bore in that I think it tends to have a more complex sound in whistles. Conical whistles tend to have a very pure tone. Some folks will say that a Copeland low D has a ‘breathy’ tone, others ‘flute-like’ (the two are mutually exclusive in my vocabulary) . . . I think it does sound more like a flute than your average whistle. But it’s nowhere near as breathy or chiffy as are good cylindrical low whistles.
I think it does come down to personal preference and hand size/flexibility. I have no trouble with the cylindrical low whistle, personally, and am completely enamoured with my recent O’Briain low D acquisition. Actually, it was the O’Briain which finally taught me why it was that I sold my Copeland low D: I wanted my whistle to sound more like what I think whistles sound like. I have a Burke low D as well, which is also nice, but not as ‘dirty’ as the O’Briain (in the good sense).
Any time I say something like this it comes back to bite me, but there you have it. Oh, conical bores are harder to make, too, so they tend to be a little more expensive. Who knows. I like both for different reasons, but lately I have been on a cylindrical kick.
Stuart
I think Stuart has summarized the high points well. I would disagree, though, with the assertion that the conical bore makes a purer tone. I have many cylindrical whistles, from various materials, that are purer sounding than the Copeland high-D, and I would say that the Burke low-D is purer than the Copeland low-D, and the Shaw low-D is pretty chiffy. I do agree that the Copeland low-D is very flutey sounding.
Another characteristic of conical bores is the D hole is always very small, so it’s very difficult to half-hole it (Loren pointed this out recently, and I have lately obtained a Copeland low-D, and his remark was very timely for me).
Another reason why conical whistles
are easier to finger, especially
low ones, is that the whistle
becomes more slender at the
bottom. All things being equal,
skinny whistles finger easier
than fat ones.
I appreciate your comments, Charlie (et al!). It’s just my opinion on the conical bores. My conically-bored high Copeland (Eb) is quite ‘pure’ relative to my Abells. It’s taken me a while to get used to it.
By ‘pure’ I’m referring to the absence of strong harmonics. I do feel that, particularly in the case of the lows, the cylindrical bore has much stronger (=louder) harmonics than does the Copeland low D. If we’re talking ‘breathy’ or ‘chiffy,’ then yeah, it’s more a function of the make of whistle than simply its bore’s shape.
Stuart
Actually, a cylindrical bore can be made with a reduction of the bore in the headjoint like that of the Boehm Flute.
Another practice is an insert known as the Sandner spike, a tapered rod that is installed in the headjoint portion.
I approximate a reduced bore in my whistles by using a thicker tubing in the headjoint section.
Cylindrical whistles however can bring bring the bottom toneholes a bit closer together - that helps a lot with Low-D’s.
What non breathy conicals are there(besides copeland)? I know of clarke and shaw, but but if you’re looking for a more pure sounding conical whistle that does’nt have a multi-year waiting period, what do you do?
[edited fer spellin]
[ This Message was edited by: jeffmiester on 2003-01-13 17:56 ]
On 2003-01-13 16:34, jeffmiester wrote:
What non breathy conicals are there(besides copeland)? I know of clarke and shaw, but but if you’re looking for a more pure sounding conical whistle that does’nt have a multi-year waiting period, what do you do?
I wouldn’t call my Copeland non-breathy except compared to Clarkes and Shaws. Other conical-bore whistles include Rose and Bleazey. The Rose is generally viewed as one of the purest-tone whistles. The Bleazey is chiffy, but I wouldn’t say very breathy. I’m pretty sure that Jon Swayne’s whistles are conical; I have a few months to wait for mine, so I can’t comment on the sound.
I don’t know what Rose’s wait is, but Bleazey and Swayne are both around six months.
On 2003-01-13 16:34, jeffmiester wrote:
What non breathy conicals are there(besides copeland)? I know of clarke and shaw, but but if you’re looking for a more pure sounding conical whistle that does’nt have a multi-year waiting period, what do you do?
[edited fer spellin][ This Message was edited by: jeffmiester on 2003-01-13 17:56 ]
The Rose is just about the purest sounding whistle there is with good volume too - the waiting list is c.6 months.
-
Does Fred Rose turn anything beside the basic D key, now ?
-
May I add Alba to the list of “perturbed bores” whistles ? This is the case of my recent big bore Low C, and it makes a whole difference in low-end stability, high-end tuning. Fingering is easier too, and that can add a lot of comfort to such low whistles…
[ This Message was edited by: Zubivka on 2003-01-14 06:03 ]