Ebony Vs Blackwood

Uilleann Pipes
21

OK Liam, point made… cosmos man, cosmos.

They’re different bores and that’s the reason for such a difference in the sound.

But …I’ve said this before several times… take two chanters of different woods using the same reamer and same methods of fabrication (like the same maker doing both in the same batch) and you should get different sounding chanters.

Rogge, Preshaw, Stephenson all make comments about different woods yielding different sounding chanters. Davy liked to use the word strident for chanters made in blackwood. Yes, the selection of wood must have some affect on the tone of the chanter.

22

Ever play a glass flute? I have. Make a glass chanter and find out the truth real fast. :wink:

23

Unless the chanters are made by robots on a factory assembly line to ensure complete uniformity, I don’t think you will ever see two perfectly identical chanters from the same maker, it’s just not humanly possible. So you can’t really test this hypothesis.

In the flute world, you hear all the same arguments from makers and players. But they have the same problem: no two flutes are exactly alike, even from the same maker. The tiniest change in the shape and profile of the embouchure hole, a hundredth of a millimeter here, a thousandth of an inch there, can make a huge difference in the sound of the flute.

I do think the differences in tone that people ascribe to various woods, whether perceived are real, may boil down to the smoothness of the bore of the chanter or the flute. I’ve played blackwood flutes that sounded mellower than most boxwood flutes I’ve tried, and when I looked down the bore it was clear that the maker didn’t finish it very smoothly. And one of the loudest, most crisp-sounding flutes I’ve ever heard was a boxwood Olwell played by Chris Layer, a flute that was anything but “mellow” in tone.

(edited to change “thousandth of a millimeter” to “thousandth of an inch”…since movin to Canada 2 years ago I find I sometimes say metric units when I mean English and vice versa!)

24

But glass flutes can’t be compared to wooden flutes because the glass ones don’t have conical bores (at least not the ones I’ve tried).

The concrete flute experiment was pretty good because the concrete flute was based on a casting of the cherry one. So at least there you’re getting close to comparing apples with apples.

You could try making a casting of a chanter and producing a replica from that in some other material (concrete, plastic, etc.), but small imperfections in the casting or the production of the replica could still introduce differences that you would think were due to the material. This is a very complex issue, nobody has the answers yet.

25

This thread has reported assertions and anecdotes from experienced players and makers who believed the material of a pipe chanter is a significant factor in tone; and has reported also the point of view of acoustical physics which refutes or debunks many of the common explanations for such effects.

For those who may want to have it both ways, there is some theoretical acoustical basis for thinking that material matters even in thick-walled wind instruments like pipes, even aside from issues of manufacture and the fact that different materials unavoidably react different to tooling.

[If you don’t care a fig about theory, read no further :slight_smile: ]

Besides the “macroscopic” surface roughness effects, the effects of surface porosity may come into play; likewise very small movements of the cavity wall, depending on the elasticity of the material , tend to get magnified when they are manifested as changes in the “effective” “acoustic impedance” (read, “effective bore diameter”); a chamber with even very slightly elastic walls acts like a rigid chamber of larger dimension. The explanation for “tonewoods” usually given is rooted in “resonating” instruments like violins, guitars, and pianos, where the vibrations of the material account for most of the propagation of the sound; with pipes of course this effect can be shown to be truly negligible; this means that most such explanations are not on solid ground. However, it can be demonstrated that a stiffer wall may act like a “smaller” bore. There are also “damping” effects, which because they are nonlinear are poorly understood in the case of woodwind instruments. My personal fringe theory is that the thermal conductivity of the wall actually is a big contributor, since PV=nRT and any thermal dissipation in the pipe walls as the local pressure cycles would result in increased damping.

“Density” is a favorite attribute of tonewood associated with particular sound qualities, but I know of no theoretical basis for such an association; personally I think density as such may not matter “at all”, i.e. enough for even the subtlest ear or device to notice.

  • Bill
26

Ok well it seems opinions are a little divided.
What about in terms of longevity? Has anyone noticed one type of wood (Ebony or Blackwood) surviving (ie no cracking warping etc) better than the other? I live in a relatively humid climate in Summer.
Ausdag mentioned that his Blackwood set has faired well in Brisbane which can be extremely humid. Any other thoughts?

27

Humidity isn’t the enemy, it’s dryness. Or rather, wide variation of humidity, particularly if it gets very dry.

28

This discussion was old a hundred and fifty years ago.
Some says nay and some says aye.
I says Bunker Hill.
And so forth.

29

This may have little or no bearing on chanters, but makers of wooden instruments like the violin, guitar, mandolin and so on, choose the wood they use to make their instruments out of chiefly for reasons of acoustics. Certainly, cosmetic appeal is also a factor, but it does little good to have a finely crafted, good looking instrument which is made out of lumber that is acoustically ‘dead’ or undesirable.

If this is the case, then I would hazard an educated guess that chanters cannot be omitted from this scenario simply because the physics behind the acoustics of different woods would not permit it. But, like Mr. Levine put it, this is an old argument, and one that will continue to go until somebody takes it unto themselves to, under controlled circumstances, make a series of chanters out of different woods using exactly the same measurements, tools, finishes etc…and applies the same reed to each, recording the results, analyzing them and finally puting this question to bed with a ginger cookie and a glass of warm milk. Until such a time, all arguments are valid until proven otherwise. :smiley:

30

…I wonder if a chanter made out of balsa wood, reamed with the same tool used to ream a blackwood chanter, and made to its specific dimensions, would be equally as loud?

31

I was comparing the tone of a cylindrical glass flute to an exact replica of the maker’s cylindrical wooden flutes.

32

As I pointed out in a previous post, the acoustical physics of woodwind versus “soundbox” instruments is radically different from that of “woodwind” instruments. Trying to apply the lessons of soundbox instruments to woodwinds in this regard easily leads one to erroneous conclusions.

-Bill

33

Joseph…do an experiment, like putting a silencer on a rifle, or putting a clip on the bridge of a violin. There must be something you could attach to or around a chanter or flute to see if the material will absorb the sound. And if it does, that would lead one onward to explore the difference between tone and volume, and how one depends on the other.

34

Billh:“Trying to apply the lessons of soundbox instruments to woodwinds in this regard easily leads one to erroneous conclusions”

I have little doubt of this. I am pointing out that the acoustical aspects of wood, whether or not it is a sound box or woodwind instrument, has something to say about that instrument’s tone. The sound box simply acts as an amplifier, the wood that it and the rest of the instrument is constructed of dictates the instruments tone.

Admittedly, I do not have a degree, nor do I ply my trade in woodworking. Therefore, I cannot say with any conviction I am correct. But I have been playing wooden instruments for over thirty-five years, and I do notice tone differences in different woods…woodwind or not. Could you tell the difference between a pine flute and an Ebony flute? I bet you could.

35

Lorenzo:“Joseph…do an experiment, like putting a silencer on a rifle, or putting a clip on the bridge of a violin.”

I sometimes mute my fiddle with one out of Ebony. There is a definite tone difference. As far as muting a chanter…I would think for that experiment to work, the bore walls also must be muted with a different material. Simply applying something to the outside body of the instrument wouldn’t have quite the result I would be looking for. What do you think?

36

The ebony mute works by adding mass to the viollin bridge. Brass ones do it too, but of course the weight is different and the “damping” is different in both cases. Again, a totally different kettle of fish to the role of wooden chanter walls.

Bill

37

In short, Bill H is right. Basically, it does not matter at all what type of wood pipes are made of, rather it matters how that wood reacts to machining. Woods that, due to their grain and other factors, yield a very smooth bore produce a brighter tone than woods that yield a grainy bore.

The factual part:
I can add some actual “I have done this” experience here. I will keep it short, write me a PM for more detail if interested. I made 10 identical Northumbrian smallpipes chanters in a variety of woods. These all had gun drilled bores, as these bores are cylindrical, would be as close to identical as possible. The woods ranged from African blackwood and ebony (both brightest, the blackwood being just a touch more so), to Honduras rosewood, bubinga, hard maple, mesquite, cherry, walnut, pecan and white oak (in more or less that order of descending brightness).

Based on the notion that bore smoothness at the micro-level was the answer, I then, on advice of another maker, shellaced the bore of some of the duller chanters and ran the gun drill through carefully to remove any excess shellac, the idea being to only fill in the pores and tear out areas. Sure enough, all the ones I shellaced did in fact come out brighter. For example, the walnut was now brighter than the cherry.

This was all with the same reed. No, I made no recordings and have since done away with the evidence in one way or another (rental sets or interesting kindling).

The “what I think” part:
Northumbrian pipes having small bores makes the bore smoothness that much more critical than uilleann, I believe, as a small open grain or tear out is a larger % of the total bore volume than on a larger bore instrument. So it makes sense that the larger the bore, the less difference the wood makes.

I personally use dark woods like blackwood, ebony, and ziricote, because (a) they sound good, (b) they look good with imitation ivory and any metal, and (c) they are easily repairable (try replacing a knocked off key block on an oak chanter so that it is not detectable!). Grainless light colored woods like box would be fairly easy to repair as well.

Disclaimer:
I did not make a glass chanter. I think that is Bruce Childress’s realm!

38

Bill, where do you stand on the tone issue? I suppose I could reread all of the previous pages, but I am very lazy.

Yes, pipes and fiddles are about as different as fish and cattle. But don’t you discern a notable difference in chanter tone when listening to those constructed out of different lumber? I do…of course, I am also psychologically challenged but that shouldn’t matter, should it?

39

Liestman:"In short, Bill H is right. Basically, it does not matter at all what type of wood pipes are made of, rather it matters how that wood reacts to machining. Woods that, due to their grain and other factors, yield a very smooth bore produce a brighter tone than woods that yield a grainy bore. "

Makes good sense.

40

EXCELLENT post John, and to the point.I would love to see this experiment re-created with reproduceable, measureable data. Perchance using a decible meter etc. Brightness is not an easily defined or measureable value, volume on the other hand is. Hmmm…do I detect a Piper’s review article?