has anyone out there used a parallel bored chanter for the up? I would imagine that if whistles and some other bagpipes use them instead of tapered bores it should be possible to make.
My plan is to develop a one piece pvc or tubing chanter, much like when I made a low whistle. I spoke to Davy Daye and he says his chanter uses telescoping tubing to replicate the bore taper, but I think just looking at the physics of it there’s an easier way.
thoughts?
Well the reason for the tapering is giving access to second octave in tune with the first … If I’m wrong please correct me.
Scottish small pipes have parrallel bores BUT they are not intented to get to the second octave …
Is it wise to compare a whistle to an UP chanter ???
Cheers,
Nicolas.
The second octave depends on the conical bore. If you end up experimenting with a straight bore, let us know how it goes.
Dionys
…
just from the low whistles i’ve made, all of which have straight bores and get the second octave. My thinking is that ability to overblow lies in the reed construction and the rest of the chanter amplifies that sound. As long as the reed can overblow, in theory it should amplify that overblow just like the whistle body does.
My difficulty is going to lie in calculating where to place and how wide to make the holes based on tube length and diameter. I’m thinking of making a test case using the same length and diameter as the low whistles as I know those measurements for hole placement and diameter work.
I’m going to try that, though I do have a plan B
The main difference that one should take into consideration is that a reed-driven, cylindrical (straight bore) instrument overblows in odd harmonics (1: 3:5:7…) [odd harmonic mode series] while a reed driven conical bore overblows at the octave [complete-harmonic mode series]. Unfortunately not much is actually known/published about the physics/mathematics of why a reed-driven conical instrument(closed-top) can have the same fundamental / overtone series as a mouth-blown (open-open) cylindrical flute.
You also need to take into consideration that the fundamental frequency of a cylindrical instrument of given length is about half that of conical instrument of the same physical length/size. For example, a clarinet plays an octave lower than the same sized instrument from the oboe or bassoon family.
There is an unfortunate lack of information concerning the physics of double-reed, conical instruments and what exists tends to focus on mouth-blown (oboe, bassoon, &c) which takes into consideration things that don’t apply to UP or have to be seriously modified to apply to UP in any way.
Dionys
P.s. If you’d like a simple demonstration of how a cylindrical bore will overblow compared to a conical, take some PVC pipe about the inside diameter of your conical bore about halfway down the bore (use measurements from the net), fit it with a reed (you can be creative. Use a drilled/reamed cork), drill a single hole halfway down (or so) and either mouth or bag blow it/overblow it to see the difference. (Yeah, it doesn’t take into consideration reed/staple size, &c but it’s a good demonstration.) When done, it makes a great toy for a younger child (not too young – Choking hazard!).
Have you seen the book: “The Amateur Wind Instrument Maker” ? It has been a couple of years since I cracked my copy open, but if I remember there was some useful discussion about hole size and placement, versus bores, etc. Hope you can find a copy. Good luck with your project. It could get a lot of people into piping who may not be able to otherwise.
Robinson’s book is a very good introduction to the basics of instrument making. I would reccomend it to anyone. However it should be noted that it is extremely basic information and matches much of what can be found on the net. Tone-hole placement is covered, but it is mostly the drill & guess method (which works). In other words, guess at your hole distance approximations and enlarge (then start from the bottom again).
Dionys
that’s basically the method i’m going to use. I copied the inside diameter at the bottom (1/2" internal diam), which also gives a comfortable size to hold. I copied hole placement and diameters exactly. Once I reed it we’ll see what that gets me and if I have to enlarge holes I can. If this works, and that’s a big if, total cost will be below $5 per unit (I got all my supplies for four to six attempts for under $10). perhaps i’m getting ahead of myself, but if the chanter can be fudged like this, why not drones and regs? That would greatly increase availability for full sets to beginners, and the price would not prohibit a later upgrade (after all, if you’re a beginner and can get an in-tune full set for around $500 wouldn’t you?) I already have an economical solution to bag/bellows leather.
my plan b is to make an inside and outside cast of an existing chanter and use it as a mould for Primo, which is a synthetic clay that bakes at 275F. How exactly does one bore a conical hole to begin with? do pipemakers have to make their own bits?
Drones and regulators would actually be much easier to ‘fudge’ by this method. You don’t have the issue of overblowing and worrying about the harmonic series. Re-read about conical bore vs. straight/cylindrical bore, overblowing and harmonics. That way you won’t be as surprised by your experimental results.
Dionys
Okay, I’ve made a wooden bore that’s 5/32" at the reed end and 1/2" at the bell end. I had a pakistani chanter that played in tune and really sounded nice, so i’m copying that one. Next step is to dust it with flour, cover the outside with black primo clay and bake 30 mins. I’ll be sure to let you know how it turns out once i drill the holes (prolly this weekend). With all the measurements the same in this chanter as the one I know works, this should pretty much be an exact copy, and would mean that a chanter could be made for $5 in under an hour. Because the clay, once hardened, acts similar to wood when being whittled, cut, or sanded, i’m hoping i get a similar sound.
You’re going to do what ??
Heating clay in an oven… won’t that shrink?
Placing a wooden chanter in an oven… won’t that warp?
This reminds me of the time I spent weeks making a plaster mold of a model helicopter so I could cast the plug to make fiberglass fuselages (copies) of the original. I waxed it and sprayed on the PVA release agent per the instructions. I decided to use catalized foam instead of plaster and the foam bonded to the mold. I destroyed the mold trying to remove the casting material.
It’s entertaining to hear about, anyhow.
Dionys
this is a synthetic clay that doesn’t shrink or harden into something brittle. The chanter isn’t going in the oven. I made a wooden spike of the same dimensions as the bore of the original chanter. The chanter i’m making will be made of the clay, rolled uniformly around the wooden bore copy, hardened in the oven, and then drilled for fingerholes. I would never dream of putting a chanter in the oven. 
hmmmm, the pipes have been around about 200 years or so, it would seem that a straight bore would be easier to make than a conical one…Gosh, why hasn’t anyone ever tried this before? (heavy sarcasm).
It would be my guess that this has been tried and abandoned already.
Of course I could be wrong - my wife reminds me of this frequently
Jeff
oh, without a doubt conical would be preferable (hence the clay idea, which would give me a conical bore). My thinking was that the move from cylindrical to conical came for reasons of tone, volume, and size. While conical would be preferable for a number of reasons, cylindrical is perfectly acceptable in other instruments and so I don’t think an in-tune, pleasant sounding cylindrical bore chanter is an impossibility, I do, however, think that the idea had been abandoned long before pvc and the like were possibilities. I mean, if you’re going to have a bit made (cylindrical or conical) 200 years ago to bore out a chanter from a block of wood, naturally you would opt for the more efficient conical because it’s all the same to you. but nowadays if you’re interested in an inexpensive do-it-yourself chanter the only option is david daye’s $180 intricate design. No doubt his will give superior tone et cetera, but what about the absolute beginner who’s still unsure and just wants a cheap practice set to knock around for awhile?
I don’t mean to be discouraging, Antaine, but did you not read a thing I said about the differences between conical/cylindrical bores and how they relate to the reed and overblowing into the second octave?
I’m all for experimentation. I even encourage uneducated experimentation because it’s fun and you do learn from it. However, considering what is available concerning the physics/mathematics of instrument building and specifically concerning bores and generators I would seriously suggest you take a look at what is out there.
You should also think about instrument making. Do you honestly think that creating a conical bore was / is easier than a cylindrical?
David Daye’s instrument costs a lot less than $180 if you put it together yourself and you learn a lot by putting one together.
As for the molded clay idea, the clay will indeed change shape, either shrinking or expanding (perhaps both considering it’s journey into the oven and return to the cool air). It probably won’t be a visible change (then again, it could be), but it may easily be enough to affect the instrument. It doesn’t take much to change a beautiful instrument into a stick.
Please let us know how things are going, experiment as you will, but please take the time to do some research on instruments, instrument making, wood working, the physics of music, &c. It can only help in your persuit.
Dionys
oh, no…i did read your post, but i must say i’m baffled as to why cone vs cylinder should affect overblowing when other cylindrical bored instruments can overblow. My feeling was that using a conical bore necessitates a longer instrument, which necessitates different sized and placed holes, and affects the tone as well giving more of a low-whistle hollow sound instead of a more bagpipe like sharper sound. All of those above factors I felt would account for the switch to conical bore, and that the ability to overblow came from the reed and not the bore.
Anyway…i put the pvc idea on hold and tried the clay idea last night, and it does play in tune. The trick is to bake the clay with the wooden bore inside it so that the only part that could possibly change shape is the outside. if you leave some extra clay on the bell end it allows you to trim it afterwards to a true D (just in case shrinkage occurs).
as far as the metalwork involved to make one bore or the other - if you’re truly starting from scratch and having a bit made I do feel that one is just as difficult as the other (although there’s alot more math involved later in calculating holes for conical). Anyway…I’m making a second clay chanter and seeing if I get the same results.
pix man we want some pix
havent’ figured out how to post pics here yet. But they’re nothing big - 14 1/4" overall length (13" conical bore), a featureless black cylinder save the fingerholes. I’m still perfecting my synthetic reedmaking so it’ll be a bit before I can really give them a whirl, but they’ll have a pvc and brass windcap
The thing I like about the clay is that in the future some well placed lumps before baking can make great keymounts. I think I’m going to need an outer shell mould for that, though. This should be good enuff to give my friend a practice set without going for my lungs. I need a better bore, though, the wooden one has somewhat deteriorated…i think it would be better to roll one out of a thin sheet of brass or copper, that’ll also make sure it’s a smooth bore and symmetrical.