This is one for the whistle makers. According to Guido Gonzato, “a short mouthpiece makes for a highly responsive whistle, but consumes slightly more air.” I’m curious to know more about how a shorter mouthpiece/windway affects playing dynamics. Does it reduce backpressure, making the bell note weaker? Does it make the second octave easier to play? Any such differences may be more apparent on a low D than on a high D but the pattern should be the same.
You relize your awakening another sleeping perpetual debate. 
I didn’t realise that. Do you have any links to relevant threads?
I just searched topic titles using “beak” “beaks” and “windway” and only came up with this
https://forums.chiffandfipple.com/t/does-windway-size-affect-tone/73658/1
Excelent find Rich. 
Interesting find, but I don’t find anything in the thread that speaks about the length of the windway/beak. There’s much about its height and also the length of the window or vent. But I may have missed it. Can you point me to any particular sections?
That was my point: I couldn’t find evidence of this issue being an old standard C&F debate (like cheap whistles v boutique whistles etc).
Search some things and you get endless threads.
Ah, thanks, Richard!
Mike, here’s my take on the length of the windway. The longer the windway the more drag on the airstream due to more contact with the walls, ceiling and floor of the windway. So more drag (resistance) translates to more back pressure and thus more difficult to hit the upper notes of the second octave. When the airstream is more free flowing, like your latest Goldie, it plays easier but also takes more volume of air.
I’m not sure if this this explanation is accurate but I find that it applies when I shorten the airway on my instruments or vice versa.
Ronaldo
www.reyburnwhistles.com
Thanks Ronaldo. That’s helpful. Even though the windway height would label it as one of Colin’s medium blowing whistles, it blows like a soft blowing whistle, though with less air. I haven’t as yet managed to gauge how much more air it uses than my standard medium blower. I guess if I’d gone with the standard length beak, despite the shortened window, the lower third octave wouldn’t have been as accessible as it is now with the short beak.
What about responsiveness? According to Guido, a shorter beak/windway leads to greater responsiveness. And ornaments do feel much crisper to me than on any other Goldie Low D I’ve played, whether soft or medium blower.
I gauge a whistle’s air consumption two ways
- play a certain note and time how long I can hold it before running out of air.
For this I do it several times for each note for each whistle and take the average.
I discovered that various notes have different air consumption, high B usually requiring the most air.
Two whistles that have the same air consumption for low B might have very different levels of air consumption for high B.
I usually just test those two notes which give me a good notion of the whistle’s overall air consumption.
- do a “real world” air consumption test by playing a jig that ranges from the bellnote to high B and see how far I can get on a single breath before running out of air.
Thanks!
What I don’t understand is how the MKs I’ve owned are among the most air-efficient whistles I’ve played, yet have very light/easy 2nd octaves. The Lofgren I had had an equally light-easy 2nd octave but a much higher air consumption.
The Goldie I have, and the Burke Viper I had, had equally stiff 2nd octaves but the Goldie was the most air-efficient whistle I’ve ever tested while the Burke was just about the least.
It’s all puzzling to me. I have to leave that stuff to you whistlemakers, and just worry about playing.
“Shortening the channel seems to allow a better control of the instrument at low blowing pressures and makes the sound spectrum richer in high harmonics, but it also reduces considerably the pressure at which the instrument overblows.”
“… the instrument tends to overblow at relatively low pressures and almost without any transitional behavior. This considerably reduces the dynamic range of the instrument.”
Segoufin, C., Fabre, B., Verge, M. P., Hirschberg, A., & Wijnands, A. P. J. (2000). Experimental study of the influence of the mouth geometry on sound production in a recorder-like instrument : windway length and chamfers. Acustica United with Acta Acustica : the Journal of the European Acoustics Association, 86(4), 649-661.
Richard,
Regarding your last two posts, useful tips for comparing the air efficiency of two whistles but, until my chest walls are completely healed, I don’t want to be pushing my lungs to their limits either with high or long notes.
To get an easy/light second octave you need a shorter window and/or soft blowing whistle. My guess it that the MK is more a medium blower but has a shorter window giving it decent air efficiency. The Lofgren is perhaps a softer blower maybe with a slightly shortened window, but with it being a softer blower it will use more air. The Burke, I venture, is I believe fairly free blowing. Add to that a long window and you have a powerful bottom end but I hard to get second octave. The Goldie you have is a medium blower, using much less air and having an average sized window making for a decent bell note plus a similarly stiff to get second octave. Each whistle is a function of many variable but all other things being equal windway height, window length and air efficiency relate to each other in the ways I’ve mentioned. Of course whistle bore comes into it too, a bigger bore making for stronger bottom notes, more difficult second octave and more air consumption. And hole size makes a difference. As I recall, the MK has smaller holes which reduce air consumption but make second octave more difficult. I’m sure there is a whole list of whistle parameters that whistle-makers take into account that I’ve missed.