Reed ease-of-playability versus volume

[joconnor58]

Warning: The following question will be written using generalities and applying those generalities to reeds. It is well noted that in using generalities when speaking of reeds, questions and answers end up being over simplified.

So the question is about ease-of playability. By that I mean, how much air resistance the reed creates against the air passing through it. One reed may require more pressure from the bag, another reed may require less pressure.

So generally speaking, if all else were equal (*yeah, that’ll happen ) - which one is louder? My knowledge of acoustics and some common sense have me thinking that “harder” playing reed is quieter, the “easier” playing reed is louder. But then I think about it again and change my mind, thinking the “harder” reed is louder…

Uilleann Forumites, What say you?

thanks

[patsky]

The harder the reed is to play…the louder, flatter and better the tone. Many of the masters such as Paddy Keenan, David Power, Jerry O’Sullivan,etc. play reeds that are so hard that one has to be an athlete to play them. I personally compromise and play the reeds somewhere in the middle.

Pat Sky

[uillmann]

Loudness is a result of elevation, i.e. the length of the gap between the lips of the blades.

Generally,

The more open your reed is, the greater the amplitude of the resulting soundwave.

The more open your reed is, the thicker it must be to perform the required frequencies.

The thicker your reed is, the more pounds per square inch of pressure on the bag is required to make it sound.

The more pounds per square inch of pressure on the bag is required, the harder you will have to squeeze the bag.

Efficiency is a function of all of the above, with the added twist that a particular scrape will be able to achieve the above with less pressure, albeit with an added idiosyncrasy of playability, or less desirable tone quality.

And therein lies the rub. One must decide where, on the rub scale, one wishes to play.

Sometimes. Maybe. I think. Although, of course, I may be wrong. But I think so. Usually. Except for those times when I think I am wrong. Which is on occasion. But not on those occasions where I am sure I am wrong. Which does happen. But not always. But it does happen. Now and then. But not usually.

And, of course, there are those other times, (roughly half the time,) when the complete opposite is true. And then you have to look at it all from the “other” perspective.

Somewhere, in between, is a reed you like. On occasion. Or not. Or sometimes, depending on the weather, or your hangover, or whether you had a good breakfast, or whether there is a guitar player present that you detest, or your girlfriends mood, & etc…

[an_seanduine]

Uillmann wrote:

And therein lies the rub. One must decide where, on the rub scale, one wishes to play.

Sometimes. Maybe. I think. Although, of course, I may be wrong. But I think so. Usually. Except for those times when I think I am wrong. Which is on occasion. But not on those occasions where I am sure I am wrong. Which does happen. But not always. But it does happen. Now and then. But not usually.

And, of course, there are those other times, (roughly half the time,) when the complete opposite is true. And then you have to look at it all from the “other” perspective.

Somewhere, in between, is a reed you like. On occasion. Or not. Or sometimes, depending on the weather, or your hangover, or whether you had a good breakfast, or whether there is a guitar player present that you detest, or your girlfriends mood, & etc…

Too true!

Bob

[joconnor58]

@uillmann

Sometimes. Maybe. I think. Although, of course, I may be wrong. But I think so. Usually. Except for those times when I think I am wrong. Which is on occasion. But not on those occasions where I am sure I am wrong. Which does happen. But not always. But it does happen. Now and then. But not usually.

And, of course, there are those other times, (roughly half the time,) when the complete opposite is true. And then you have to look at it all from the “other” perspective.

Somewhere, in between, is a reed you like. On occasion. Or not. Or sometimes, depending on the weather, or your hangover, or whether you had a good breakfast, or whether there is a guitar player present that you detest, or your girlfriends mood, & etc…

This disclaimer ought to be attached to any discourse on reeds.

[uilleannfinlander]

@patsky

The harder the reed is to play…the louder, flatter and better the tone. Many of the masters such as Paddy Keenan, David Power, Jerry O’Sullivan,etc. play reeds that are so hard that one has to be an athlete to play them. I personally compromise and play the reeds somewhere in the middle.

Pat Sky

Played Paddys pipes when was here, didn’t find reed extremely hard…really comfortable to play.

[PJ1]

In my own meagre experience, volume (amount of sound) is more about the internal volume (space) in the reed, which is defined by the gouging/sanding of the inside of the reed.*

A reed that requires significant pressure would risk throwing out the balance of the drones and regulators.


*I think Andreas Rogge mentions the relationship between internal volume and sound in the Heart of the Instrument DVD.

[CHasR]

first want to say that ive never fully understood what goes on in the uilleann pipes chanter reed. in particular its staple (what is UP with that thing?!?omg. )

however, other NORMAL double reeds i have got a decent handle on,
and have vats of rejects to prove it.

In the ideal situation, (lmfao, rofl & w-t-faghettaboutit )

one wants a strong, hard inflexible skeleton of cane that’s pretty close to the bark;
and as-much-as-possible surface of ultralight material to afford maximal vibration; (except of course for the heart and blend. )

whew. dreamin’s nice innit
personnaly, i will take ease of playability over volume ANY day… but thats just li’l ol’ me