I don’t understand why my B flat whistle crosses the octaves so effortlessly, especially in the upper range of A to high C and D. Does this have something to do with bore diameter?
Thanks!
nansaidh
Pretty sure this is very brand-dependent. What brand of whistle did you get?
All things being equal, the narrower the bore the easier the 2nd octave is, and the wider the bore the stiffer the 2nd octave is.
The reverse is also true, the narrower the bore the weaker the low octave is, and the wider the bore the stronger the low octave is.
Many other factors can come into play such as windway width, height, and length, distance from the end of the windway to the blade, the design and positioning of the blade, etc.
I know why it was easier for me, but it may not apply to anyone else.
I’d come back to playing after decades away, and quite a lot of the time the top notes of the D whistle sounded horrible. They never did on a Bb, so I didn’t subconsciously hold back, try too hard, or overblow them. I just played them.
In reality it didn’t take long to get past that, but at the time it felt like moooonths. 
@Cyberknight @pancelticpiper @Moof thanks so very much for your responses!! The Bb is just an old Generation whistle but it sounds absolutely beautiful - my issue revolving around that is a new Nick Metcalf standard D whistle that is incredibly difficult to get the high A, B, C (and D) to voice. It probably does have a larger bore, and the lower register sounds gorgeous but those top notes are a real struggle and I don’t want them to be. I returned to the whistle (after about 35 years) a few months ago and my current favorite whistle (a Tony Dixon DX005) just glides through the high and low notes almost without effort. I admit my breath control isn’t what it used to be (I was a classical and military clarinetist, so I know about diaphragmatic breathing) but at my age I’m finding it difficult to get it back. I guess I need to be looking specifically for smaller bore whistles then.
I’ve got a DX005 too. My Killarney needs slightly less breath pressure even than that for the high notes.
I don’t need a loud whistle, so narrow bore types are fine. The other whistle I play, an O’Brien Rover with a slightly wider bore, needs a bit more pressure – but it’s still easily manageable even for an asthmatic.
I was wondering if you could measure the bore of the Metcalf (calipers are best but a ruler is fine) and also the distance from the cutting edge (end) of the blade to the open end at the bottom (bell)?
It’s best to have the head positioned so that the whistle overall is in tune to Concert Pitch.
Those two measurements have been what I’ve used to calculate and record the length-to-ID ratio of all my whistles.
Here’s ratios of some of my great-playing (easy high notes) whistles that I have:
Feadog D 23.3
Generation C 22.7
Generation Bb 24.8
home-made A 24.5
Goldie Low F 25.0
Alba Low E 25.9 (a rather narrow bore, exceptionally sweet player)
Goldie Low D 24.6
Goldie Low C 28.3
Alba Bass A 29.2
You’ll notice that as the whistle gets longer the relative bore generally gets narrower (the higher the ratio number, the narrower the bore).
I charted these and many other whistles, and I’ve found that of the whistles I’ve played any whistle that strays above the ideal bore width doesn’t play very well.
I get different values for my Generation C and Bb:-
C: length 294, bore 13.3, ratio 22.1
Bb: length 338, bore 14.6, ratio 23.15
Note that measuring the bore is the most difficult part of the process as it’s easy to get big errors there. I used a ruler and found that the stronger the lens I used to view it all at once, the bigger it made the bore appear to be due to the angle of view to each side not being parallel, so I switched to looking in horizontally with the whistle held vertically, viewing it through a lupe designed for examining slides (photographic ones) on a lightbox, and I moved the lupe to view each side and compare it with the markings on the ruler. It would still be easy to be out by one or two tenths, so I erred on the side of reading the bore as smaller than it might actually be.
I don’t own any other brands of whistle to compare with those, but have made some.
Homemade C whistle: length 287, bore 15.0, ratio 19.13
The bore of this came out as 15.0 using the same measurement method, and the mould for this resin whistle was taken from a tube made to high precision by an acrylic tube manufacturer to be 15mm bore. I get the same measurement from that original tube too. As for which is the better player, it’s the homemade one. The Generation is tweaked to improve the tone, but the homemade one is superior across the whole range (especially so for the higher notes of the 2nd octave) and is just as easy to play.
Yes measuring bores is tricky and prone to error.
I use calipers, taking measurements from both ends of the tube, on smaller whistles.
On bigger whistles I use those spring-loaded gauges which are better because you can take measurements further down in the bore.
I’ve used them to measure up a large number of Highland pipes. They’re wood and wood often moves over the years. Sometimes the bores are different IDs at different points in the bore. Sometimes the bores have gone slightly oval, so you measure the widest direction and the narrowest direction and do the maths (probably not exact but fairly close).
I’ve never played a Metcalf -and he only live about 40 miles away!- but p’raps you might wish to contact him? As you’re an experienced individual I imagine it’s not you,so maybe somethin’ up with the one you have? Might be worth finding out what he has to say.
Of course what you really want is a 1st generation Feadog! 
Circa 1980.
They do occasionally pop up on eBay when people clear out their lofts. I have one that I bought at the time, but it’s so battered that I decided to keep an eye out for a back-up in case the head splits. It was two or three months before I spotted one, and though it’s not quite as sweet as my original, it’s still very good. A bargain at £8 including postage.
Mark IIs seem easier to find, but I don’t like them as much (louder and the tone has a harder edge to it). I’d still choose them over the current model, though.
I was just about to suggest the exact same thing: try to find a first generation Feadog. It is the one on the left in the picture below. The middle one is a second generation and the right hand one is the most recent. Are there more than three generations?
They seem to have got worse with each generation … as did Generation whistles. I think it is a shame that these companies have been willing to sacrifice playability and musicality in their quest to get louder. And it is not like the new ones are really much louder anyway.
It is also interesting that the label on the second generation Feadog says “the Original” whereas the label on the original one doesn’t. 
Are there more than three generations?
There was a sort of a transition between second and later design. One with a ‘bulge’ (much like Generations have) I don’t know if that version lasted long, they are rare and the one I have is pretty awful.
It sounds as if there’s an opportunity for someone to 3D print replacement heads for a lot of whistles to bring them up to a high standard - the metal tubes and holes in should be fine as there’s less that can go wrong there. Alternatively, if 3D printed heads vary too much (perhaps because some parts need reshaping after manufacture), it should be possible to print windway parts separately from the rest of the head so that the buyer can adjust the position before gluing it in permanently after finding the best place and angle relative to the sharp edge it’s being aimed at, and making them separately means a better finish to the component parts than if you try to make the whole head in one go. There really isn’t a lot you can get wrong with that edge or with the windway if they’re made in an appropriate way - it’s all about how they’re placed relative to each other, and if you have significant variability in the manufacturing process, you need variability in the subsequent adjustments of their relative positions to make them work properly. The buyer is the best person to do that work as it takes time to get it right, and time is money.
The head on the Mk 1 was made in at least two parts – there’s an obvious seam at the base of the ramp, just where it juts out to a point. If anyone ever found an unplayable one, cutting the head apart there would reveal a lot about the shape of the innards.
Thanks for that! So that one with the bulge came after the second generation and before the current (4th?) generation?
Is that the one that people sometimes refer to as a Feadog MK 2.5? i.e., between MK 2 and MK 3, with MK 3 being the current generation?
Is there a standardized terminology for these?
I had a similar thought. Although I’m not sure if you can get sufficient accuracy with 3D printing, or in the final assembly for that matter. These whistle heads are very sensitive to quite small variations in dimensions. For example, I was just trying to take some window measurements from various whistles (and various generations of the same whistle), and dimensional changes on the order of less than 0.2 mm seem to have quite a profound effect. Ensuring the final accuracy seems to be where the true cost is, in that the cost of the work to refine and quality check each whistle can far exceed the cost of the whistle.
Having made a few, my impression is:
“one wrong stroke of the file can spell disaster”.
(especially with PVC)
trill
Is there a standardized terminology for these?
There isn’t really. The ‘Mark I etc’ is something some people here started using but I don’t think it is used anywhere outside this forum. That aside, the terminology is fatally flawed by omitting one iteration and then in hindsight squeazing it in as ‘2.5’. But it is handy enough for rough and ready/day to day quick reference here so not worth fussing too much about.
It’s also difficult to judge the best position because you have to make a compromise between higher quality low notes and easier high second octave notes. I’m now thinking about making the windway user-adjustable so that they can set it up the way they like it best for the kind of music they play. There could be interchangeable windways to get different widths, heights and different narrowing rates as you go along the windway. (I get a stronger, more focused jet of air out of a windway by having the floor-to-roof height reduce as it goes towards the ramp, but I don’t know how much narrowing is optimal as it takes so long to make new prototypes). The expense of making such a system could be cancelled out by the cost saving in having to test each instrument carefully when fitting them: it might use three adjustment screws with one controlling windway-exit-to-ramp distance and the other two controlling windway height at that end and further back (for angle adjustment).
But maybe customers would be happy to use blu-tack in a simpler system where you just pack some under the windway and then move it fore and aft and press it down or pull it up until the best sound’s obtained, then optionally lock it in place more firmly with a small amount of glue/epoxy (in such a way that it can be removed if necessary) to ensure it never slips during performance. The blu-tack wouldn’t be visible in use, but would make it user-serviceable, and enable windway replacement for trying out different designs. To keep the costs low, and the manufacturing fast and minimal, I’m leaning towards the blu-tack solution - the stuff lasts for decades and is easy to replace.