Does anyone have any idea or experience what is originaly the sound-tone difference between Michael Egan 1845-50 B chanter and Coyne 1850 chanter, if it is possible at all to describe these minimal differences with words? And which of these two, originaly can play closer to modern B pitch, Thanks, Ales 
Iâm fairly certain Peter Hunter would have succinct and very insightful (based on experience) things to say on the matter⌠if at very least, to give you a sound foundation twix the 2 instruments.
Probably as dependant upon the reed as the chanter design
Have read somewhere that Egans pipes were quiter
John
First - weâre talking about original chanters here, not âcopiesâ⌠if you are hoping to make a choice between two instruments of recent make, you are better off asking about the specific modern maker and listening directly to examples. So-called âcopiesâ rarely resemble the originals on which they are supposedly based, and even then the degree of resemblance varies.
Egans were not, in my experience, quieter - louder, if anything. The longer Egan chanters are usually described as âB flatâ and are about 18" long. Their pitch seems to be between modern B and Bflat - probably closer to Bflat. Tonehole spacing is wider apart than Coyne B. That said, my hands-on experience with original Egans has been limited to four instruments, and the Bflat was not in working condition - for Bflat I have to rely on other peoplesâ measurements and reports. The C Egans were definitely louder than Coyne C, and I expect from bores and toneholes that the same would be true of the âBsâ.
Coyne âBâ chanters are about 17.5" long, and in my experience can be coaxed into playing in modern B without too much trouble. In fact, if youâre talking about an original chanter, pitching it high has the advantage of assisting with the one-finger back d, which otherwise can be rather flat (the fingering charts of the period, and the Ennis tutor, show o oxx xxxx for back d).
Egans had somewhat larger bores and seem to have had slightly larger toneholes than Coynes. Few unmolested examples of either have survived. Personally I find the Coynes much easier to reed.
But as I said, if you are talking about âEgan styleâ and âCoyne styleâ from a contemporary maker, itâs a whole different kettle of fish.
best regards
Bill
edited to all: I notice the â1845-50â notation. Thereâs a 17.5" Egan in the National Museum of Scotland that was made in 1850 or 1850 for Charles Ferguson, that instrument might be closer to modern B⌠so it depends on exactly which Egan âBâ youâre talking about⌠do you have more details?
The Egans were sought after because of their higher volume werenât they?
Hello to all,
Thank you wery much for all replys. Thank you mr. Bill also for detailed explain. I was talking here about two different chanters made today by two exelent makers. Michael Hubbert copy of Michael Egan B pipes and Sam Lawrence/Peter Hunter 1850 Coyne style B pipes. I didnât include you Bill, since on your web page I found that you make only Coyne and Harrington based B pipes. I was wondering about difference in sound charachter moustly, to get more idea about Egan B chanter, since I donât know if I can hear it on some records. I was already owner of superb Hunter B Coyne chanter, which I stupidly sold becouse some family problems, and soon I want to repair that mistake. I wanted to understand if Egan B chanter would work also in situations??? where you have to play or record some music together with modern instruments, like for example Mick OâBrien was playing his Alain Froment B chanter on his record âThe Ancient Voice of Irelandâ. He used B chanter for slow air playing together with flutes, pianos, synths and it looks it works just fine althought modern instruments are tuned to Equal tempered scales. How he managed to be so intune with them. Did he put tape on holes, or something in the bore to get perfect tuning.
Thanks again, Ales
I own a Hunter/Lawrence B and have played the Hubbert B as well. Both are excellent. The Hunter has a far easier stretch, and plays in modern B. The Hubbert, and excellent instrument performs best w/a reed that plays flat of B.
I have a (pre-Lawrence) Hunter B chanter, and have played a Hubbert B chanter (based on Barry OâNeillâs original Egan). Both chanters seem happiest south of modern B (the Hubbert more so than the Hunter). As Kynch points out, the stretch on the Hubbert is longer than the Hunter (though quite manageable). They are both very nice chanters indeed.
No E
This is in keeping with what I know about the original instruments in these two cases.
Iâve tried a Hunter B and it was nice, with a resemblance to the original âtypeâ. I hear very nice things about Hubbertâs work, and his Egan-based design. My understanding is that the original Egan was/is very flat of B, halfway to Bflat or even lower, thus the usual terminology of âB flatâ for these 18 inch Egan-type instruments.
best regards,
Bill
The Hubbert âEganâ copy is indeed an 18" chanter that plays optimally around 20 cents sharp of B-flat. Michaelâs set and another one Michael made belonging to another forum member were playing just a little flat of B at the SoCal tionol a couple weeks ago. Though it should be noted that they are happier, as is the original, a bit sharp of B-flat. By happier I mean that one is able to coax a bit more tone out of the chanter at this pitch than if it were reeded to play in concert pitch B.
To answer your question, I have had the pleasure of playing NoEâs Hunter-Coyne B set and found it very nice. It had all the tone pouring out if it that one would hope for. I own a Hubbert-Egan chanter and would agree that personal preference aside, and thatâs what a lot of this comes down to, the volume of the Egan copy being greater was one of the main differences. Both chanters are superb in their own right. If you would like, Iâd be happy to send you via email a sound clip of the Hubbert copy in action. Hope this helps.
Bill, yes youâre correctâŚ(Hubbert) very south! itâs an excellent stick.
My Hunter locks in right at B, but you could build a reed thatâd be as no-E says, happy below B.
Either way and again, theyâre both excellent!