i think it could be done and sound very good. it would have to be designed by someone who had the knowledge of such things. i built a square bore uilleann chanter(by craige fischer design) and like it more and more as i play it. it is a bit quiter than my other chanters but is very well behaved and in tune. it is round on the outside and you wouldn’t think square unless you looked up the end. i used thick enough wood and then hand planed it round
i was thinking of making just the square tube for a whistle and fitting an existing, proven head on it.
pipe organs sometimes have square tubes, bass recorders(sorry)i believe do also.
it’s all in the design.
thoughts from the dark side, tansy
Nah, you’d be surprised what sorts of instruments people have managed to make (and play) without damaging themselves. A square-tubed whistle is pretty mild compared to a rankett, for instance, as far as hand requirements go.
I have seen pictures of square-bore recorders, and have heard that they play quite well. I’ve never had a chance to try one, though.
It is true that many pipe organs have square bores but primarily the lower bass notes. I don’t see why a square bore shouldn’t work as long as the area is correct.
The Paetzold Square Recorder is a good example of a square bore and as Daniel B. pointed out, square bore designs can be easily calculated. There are certain “drawbacks” that must be considered in square bore design though.
A square bore woodwind will still use only a cylindrical internal air column in the low pressure of the first register. The “corners” are ignored by the air column and the cubic volume there is dead/unused space. In the overblown registers the square bore runs into problems. The higher pressure of the air column in the overblown modes pushes out into the “unused” corners, increases the “used” cubic area and results in a very flat scale.
This flat second scale can be compensated for in the same way that Recorders compensate, by the addition of a dorsal thumbhole that can pe “pinched” open to sharpen the entire scale. The 3rd and 4th registers would be pretty much useless though. Don’t let this discourage you, Recorders only have a 1 1/2 octave “usable range”.
For some design references you can search “Paetzold Recorders” and the “illustrations” section of…
thomas, i was wandering if removing (gouging out) some areas around certain tone holes could improve second octave tunings? this is done on the chanter i made.
also what if you made it tapered- large at mouth piece becomeing smaller toward the bell note end?
tansy
“Undercuting” toneholes WILL help with the phase-shift flattening effect in the upper registers. It helps the air column “find” the toneholes better and improves response in the upper registers by allowing the air to “follow” the inner slope up to the tonehole opening, instead of passing a small inner opening(weak tone). This is a physical/aerodynamic property of fluids/gasses called adhesion. You will sharpen each individual note by doing this unless you “average” the diameters of the toneholes in your design.
Using a conical decreasing bore of the correct angle will help to match/tune the 1st and 2nd registers and correct “phase-shift” just like undercutting toneholes. Take some percentage measurements from any Recorder for reference. A combination of conical bore, undercut toneholes and a dorsal thumbhole will correct almost all of the “phase-shift flattening effect” over 2 octaves. Conical bores do limit the range to 2 octaves though.
No design is perfect, and other factors such as a tuned cavity above the voicing hole,reduced thickness at the toneholes and a deep voicing hole(for pitch stability) will also improve acoustics. There are endless possibilities for the designer. Did I answer your questions?
S’bin done before. I once saw some on display in a pub somewhere and was mildly interested.
Are you thinking of a square whistle or a round whistle with a square bore?
As a fledgeling manufacturer, I have often thought about trying one. I can’t see why a square bore would make too much difference to the tone. It would take all the ball -ache out of drilling a long straigt hole through a piece of wood too.
Isn’t the NA approach a less radical, but just as efficient way to solve the manufacturinbg problems? I mean, carving in a round bore from two half-blocks glued together lengthwise?
Same idea, but you get two seams instead of four, and even more freedom for the bore profile…
As somebody pointed out, square organ pipes are not at all unusual, especially for low notes. Organ pipes have the luxury of only needing to sound a single note. All sorts of optimizations can be made. No need for conical bores or anything like that…
One of the problems on the Paetzold Recorder is the couplings. They use a rubber gasket and if just a little bit of the gasket sticks out in the windway, the sound dies out big time.
