I am confused about the definitions of pure sound and sweet sound. I thought they are the same. I believe this topic was discussed on the message board before. I just coundn’t find it.
To me there is a difference, wherein, e.g., a whistle can sound pure yet not sweet. Pure is free of chiff and perhaps focused. Sweet has to do more with the inherent tone. For example, I think my Burkes, Sindts and O’Riordan D are pure yet not sweet; but, my Abell Blackwoods are sweet yet not pure. My O’Riordan G is both pure and sweet.
Philo
Huh
Hey John. A whistle with a pure sound…oh heck, you’re right. Too much analysis. We’ll know it when we hear it, right? 
Philo
Different people interpret these terms in different ways, but there are a couple of interpretations that are frequently used.
Pure, meaning #1: Making only musical tones; without chiff or wind sounds.
Pure, meaning #2: Having a more “flutey,” or simple timbre, as opposed to a more “reedy,” “husky” or “complex” timbre. In this version of purity, the whistle would probably also have to have less wind sounds or chiff, as well. (I say this in full knowledge that there are flutes that sound husky, reedy, “earthy,” “dark,” “woody,” etc. that would not fit the definition of flutey as it’s meant here. In fact, a whistle I would call “pure” would usually be purer sounding than most flutes by this definition. The term is just to give an indication.)
Meaning #2 may indicate that the whistle produces fewer audible complex overtones, though even a “pure” sounding whistle will be complex compared to a simple sine wave sound.
“Sweet” may be harder to define. To my ear, pure definition #2 usually sounds sweet, although there are cases where it may sound strident or piercing, which I wouldn’t consider sweet. Since a whistle can be “pure” sounding according to definition #1 even if it has a husky or reedy timbre, a pure whistle by definition #1 may or may not sound sweet.
Best wishes,
Jerry
I too find this interesting, since I have heard both terms, pure and sweet used together. I could be wrong, but in my mind, “sweet” refers to a more musical, smoother note that seems to sing, rather than play—if that makes sense. There is a website with a sound clip of an O’Riordan that to me, sounds pure and sweet, a very clean sound that is refined, focused, and sings, as if being played by angels. Am I crazy???
sweetness can point towards tuning/intonation content of the sound?
Can you elaborate, Peter?
I appreciate discussions like this, even though there may be many different interpretations of a single word.
Best wishes,
Jerry
For me, it does. I think the sweetness of the Humphrey/Raindog whistle i have comes in great part from its tempered scale.
I think “sweet” is the opposite of “harsh”. I think the wide 3rds that you get with equal temperament are harsh. But there are other factors that can make a whistle sound harsh. Many whistles turn harsh on the second octave, generally by or after the G.
But what makes reading whistle reviews so much guesswork is that each person has a different definition. What’s sweet for me may not be the same for Jim or Peter.
The softest whistle in my drawer, and the one with the most hiss, was one that was advertised by its maker as a loud whistle with a pure sound… :roll:
Oh, right.
Definitely, tonality plays into sweetness, along with timbre. It may be that sweetness is more subjective, harder to define than pureness, though Glauber’s description of harshness as the opposite of sweetness is right on, IMO.
Best wishes,
Jerry
Hey Glauber!
I’m just a beginner, but my Dixon high D (non tuneable) gets harsh (to me it simply sounds unstable, wanting to move in all directiosn) once I hit the G note in the second octave. It sounds like this happens on many whistles from what you mentioned (unless I misunderstood). If this is so, how would I find a good whistle to learn on that is more consistent, with not such a huge jump? Is this a benefit of using a tweaked whistle?
When I’m writing a review, if I say a whistle is “pure” toned, I mean that it lacks clearly audible over tones, as well as non-musical sounds such as chiff. The opposite of “pure” to me is “complex.”
“Sweet” and “rich” (another one I tend to use) are more subjective, I think. A “pure” whistle is more likely to be “sweet” to my ear, whereas a “complex” whiste is more likely to be described as “rich.” Both imply pleasant sounds, but “sweet” is a more delicate sound, whereas “rich” is full-bodied and, well, complex.
Redwolf
Using the definitions Redwolf has given here …
If a complex/reedy voiced whistle sounds pleasing, it might be called “rich,” “reedy” or “woody.” If it sounds harsh, it might be called “raspy” or “edgy.”
If a pure voiced whistle sounds pleasing, it might be called “sweet.” If it sounds harsh, it might be called “strident.”
Again, these terms can’t be matched up 100%. For example, a complex voiced whistle might be strident, too.
Best wishes,
Jerry
This all reminds me of how people describe the taste of wine or coffee. Maybe we need whistle-tasting classes, with Master Whistle Tasters to keep the tradition alive and pass it on to the next generation…
my answer is burke brass!!
http://www.tinwhistletunes.com/clipssnip/index.htm
Sweet; is what you get when you have remembered to clean your mouthpiece after a long Guiness laden session and you pick up your whistle to play the next morning
Rich; is when you did not clean your mouthpiece
Pure; when you have a good whistle and play it well regardless of your fipples cleanliness
Hi, this is Mrs. NorCal
I really like the way you explained this. It fits my feelings almost to a T. I just was not able to figure out a way to express it.
I sent you a PM (personal message).
To me, “pure” implies not departing far from a strong fundamental tone (or whatever the correct terminology would be) for each note. That is, the purest note would be like that produced by a good tuning fork–no overtones and no white noise.
“Sweet”, on the other hand, seems very subjective. I have only two whistles that i would characterize as sweet. One is the Feadog-Whitecap and the other is the Burke aluminum narrow-bore D (but not the Burke brass wide-bore C). The sounds of both are also relatively pure, so that seems to be an element in my definition of “sweet”. The Burke is sweeter in the upper octave than in the lower.
“Harsh” has been contrasted with “sweet” here. To me, “harsh” could imply lots of white noise, like my pre-Whitecap Feadog, or the inclusion of odd overtones that are a little off from what one would expect of normal harmonics. So, in addition to low white noise, “sweet” implies a strong fundamental and clean harmonics.
Having said all that, I’ll backtrack and say that, for me, “sweet” also seems to involve a bit of a quaver or vibrato, which might imply a slightly less than perfect set of harmonics.
But that’s just me.
Yep…that would square with how I tend to hear things.
Redwolf