I often see posts regarding how important it is to get the diameters right on a chanter and I have a couple basic questions.
I always thought that the diameter of a pipe expressed it’s volume, not it’s pitch. Having said this I am wondering why there is so much emphasis on such fine detail on non linear bores on a UP chanter. It seems to me that early builders would not have had access to machinist grade measuring tools that we have today and so they would have made linear bores ( as well as could be expected with bronze tools). It seems to me the irregularity we measure today in old chanters isn’t because of some black magic but it is a result of rudimentary tools, the expansion of old wood, and turning it on a kick lathe. Is it really all that important? I would think the critical dimensions are the length of the chanter and the distance and size of the finger holes. I am use to voicing non reeded organ pipes so maybe I am missing something. I am interested in making a chanter but all this talk of graphing and precision reemers is making me fearfull.
Thanks,
Randy
Heres some discussion on that topic .
http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=20499&highlight=straight
RORY
It’s amusing to me that so many folks think of the 18th and 19th centuries as technologically backward. In fact the machining technologies of the age were very advanced.
Certainly by 1780 very fine grades of tool steel were available, as were measurement tools. The art of wind instrument making was also very advanced, with closely-guarded techniques for producing the bores of recorders and oboes having been developed over many generations.
Before the 1920’s it’s true that treadle lathes (which perhaps you are thinking of when you mention “kick lathes”) were the rule for machining, but excellent machines were made with such lathes including the finest machine parts. (It seems likely to me that the earliest aircraft engines were probably produced on treadle lathes, for example - as small electric motors were not available). Treadle lathes were not phased out of industrial production until the 1950’s or even later - basically anything that can be done on a modern machine lathe can be done on a treadle machine, perhaps a bit more slowly.
It seems to me the irregularity we measure today in old chanters isn’t because of some black magic but it is a result of rudimentary tools, the expansion of old wood, and turning it on a kick lathe. Is it really all that important? I would think the critical dimensions are the length of the chanter and the distance and size of the finger holes. I am use to voicing non reeded organ pipes so maybe I am missing something. I am interested in making a chanter but all this talk of graphing and precision reemers is making me fearfull.
Thanks,
Randy
I think you’re missing a lot here… organ pipes by comparison are much less critical in all dimensions save, perhaps, the fipple. After all, an organ pipe needs to produce only a single note!
I wouldn’t let that make me “fearful”, but inattention to detail will lead to disappointment. The best of the old 19th century makers had a consistency and quality that has never been equalled.
When you speak of “diameters”, it appears from your post you are thinking of internal bore diameters; these are indeed very critical. A bit of acoustic analysis will show why this is the case, particularly for instruments with a relatively narrow bore which need to play more than a single octave.
best regards,
Bill
I heard an interview with one of Leo Rowsome’s daughters who mentioned that he only added a motor to his lathe in the latter days of his career. He seems to have produced the majority of his work on a treadle lathe.
Interestingly, I’ve also heard Paddy Moloney (who has several of Leo’s sets) mention that Leo’s best pipes were made in the 1940’s.
one curious thing I have noticed is the short fairly steep taper change just below the throat of many concert chanters (and maybe flat chanters as well not sure) almost as if the makers where intentionally narrowing the throat, or opening up the upper bore. this as well as the flaring at the end of the pipe bore. anyone with any clue as to whats going on with these? the flare at the end seems to be for volume and to tune bottom d but the throat taper is a little more complex. my thoughts are that if the fingerhole locations and sizes are maximised for intonation, these are the only significant bumps( but my thoughts are somtimes way off track). the boehm flute has a short taper in the headjount I believe, and without it doesnt seem to work… I have done alot of experimenting with rushes adding and subtracting material, all with very interesting results, but left me more confused than anything(‘:-?’) this conversation will certainly never be resolved but certainly interesting to here peoples thoughts on the subject! 
if these bumps are good for anything they surely seperate the men from the boys as far as pipemakers are concerned, reproducing them is no simple task, especially if you make your own reamers!
if these bumps are good for anything
they certainly are! Opening the bore up at the bottom of the chanter will assist in the formation of hard D and hard E for example.
edit to add
Other lumps in the bore will affect the tuning of the adjacent notes, and also the relationship between the octaves around that point. Also can have an effect on tone, the Hunter steely 2nd 8ve A and glassy back D are likely a result of multiple tapers I think.
just curious then why sticking a roll of cork in the bottom of a chanter also helps hard d? these would seem to cancel one another out.
they work for a similar reason. Hard D
(all of this should be prefaced with the statement “in my understanding garnered from different sources and some practical experience - I may be wrong but at least we can advance the discussion”)
- where were we, yes hard D is the result of the air column meeting a portion of the bore where it is forced to slow down, making a back pressure which gives you the hard notes. If the bore flares out at this point then the air has to slow down due to the greater volume it is passing through. I think a similar slowing down can be caused by an obstruction eg some emery paper.
The bore characteristics that bring on the hard notes, D E and F, start above the F hole and so cannot be cancelled out by a bit of stuff in the bottom inch of the bore.
Hi Sam;
I agree with you about the observations (though not the explanation 
) regarding hard D and also E and F - and even more, I agree that theoretical musings about the causes ought to carry a disclaimer. 
Personally I don’t buy the “air column slowing down” argument, nor have I encountered a convincing theoretical underpinning for hard D anywhere. I suspect it’s an example of what acousticians call a multiphonic or even chaotic phenomenon. If either is the case then the relevant theories are quite poorly understood.
Of the various theoretical discussions I’ve seen, the ones that seem to resonate (pardon the pun) most with my experience, with respect to hard D, make note of the fact that the third ‘A’ harmonic of hard D is very dominant. It seems that the hard D’s ease of production, stability, and tone are strongly dependent on the relationship between the first three resonance peaks of the instrument. Thus anything that moves these peaks around with respect to one another for the note ‘D’ (i.e. changes to the bore near pressure nodes for those modes) will potentially change the behavior of hard D. This would explain why changing the bottom of the bore - possibly in either direction - would have this effect, and also why changes higher in the bore at particular nodes could do so. While this falls short of an “explanation” for why the ‘hard’ D/E/F behave as they do, it may shed some light on why the phenomenon can be affected by such seemingly unrelated bore changes.
It also would imply that the phenomenon is complex and that a simple methodology for controlling it might be hard to formulate - which seems to be the case.
One potentially useful hypothesis that’s been mooted (I believe first by Craig Fischer) is that the hard D’s stability depends to some extent on the third ‘A’ harmonic being sharp relative to the fundamental. So far I don’t see anything that disproves this, but it does imply that if you ever were to get the soft and hard Ds perfectly in tune with one another, the hard D would become unstable.
best regards
Bill
Just do add my two cents regarding hard D and E.
On my Northumbrian Smallpipe chanter (straight bore, closed end) I can play hard D and E by venting with one of the higher keys while playing the note. Hard D is perfectly in tune with the soft D, hard E is slightly flat. Might be a new aspect for theories about hard D…
Cheers
Elmar
are there any surviving tools known to have been used by any of the great early makers (or any of the greats for thtat matter)? I remember reading somwhere that most of the early pipes where made with ground bayonets as reamers. these would be more equivilent to flatstock reamers that many makers seem to scorn and would imply that the level of accuracy in the bore department was slightly loose. I prefer d bit reamers for accuracy and repeatability, but what did the greats use? are there any documents, pictures or plans linked to coyne kenna egan etc. ?
The short answer is “no”, except for a few Taylor tools that are, or were, held by a museum in Pennsylvania. I believe the Taylor reamer(s) were multi-fluted, I seem to recall someone saying 5 flutes. No one knows how or by whom they were made - my bet would be that they were made by the Taylors themselves.
I used to have some pictures of tools from Michael Carney posted online, before Imagestation closed down… those were much cruder tools, labeled by Tom Busby “Michael Carney’s tools for Making Pipes by Hand”, i.e. possibly without a lathe. They did include a couple of “bayonet” style reamers along with some spoon reamers and long twist drills - but I wouldn’t draw too many conclusions from those.
Nothing has survived from the pre-Taylor workshops as far as I know.
There is lots of stuff, some of it rubbish, that has been asserted in modern times about how things may or may not have been produced, bayonet reamers, etc. and I would strongly advise taking it with several “grains of salt”. I don’t understand the reluctance some folks have to accept that extremely high machining and boring tolerances were achievable in the 19th century. Close examination of multiple older sets shows a high degree of precision, at least on the part of some makers. On the other hand people have been making rough stuff for a long time too; sometimes some of it works OK anyhow. Using that observation to justify sloppy standards today, however, seems like bad practice.
Remember too that these older makers almost certainly had the benefit of long apprenticeships and generations of carefully guarded knowledge to guide them in the event that they chose a more “organic” way of working. Following in their footsteps in the absence of their guidance and accumulated wisdom means, in my view, very meticulous observation and more reliance on measurement.
When I began making instruments I took what I thought was a conservative view of the precision required, with the thought that experience might show when and where such cautious precision might be relaxed. What has actually happened is this: the more experience I gain examining and reeding old sets, and making new ones, the “tighter” my estimation of the ideal level of precision becomes.
best regards,
Bill
This seems to go for all areas of work today. Just compare today´s “shoe-box-architecture” to - lets say - 19th century houses. Manpower is expensive today and material “cheap as dirt”. This fact however has led to todays mostly extremely poor standard of workmanship and the lack of ornaments that “please the eye”.
I heard the sad tale of somebody’s reamers being used as turnip spikes after the demise of the pipemaker. I forget who it was.
There’s been much discussion round here about the hard D phenomenon! All on the edge of my comprehension so I won’t try and give a precis here . . .
Ah, I love all this acoustics discussion…very fascinating.