Earlier this year, I mentioned we should adopt a more standarized way of reviewing whistles. No one seemed to notice my comment (it probably was in the middle of a dispute to what constitutes a chiffy whistle), so I’m bringing it up again.
I think it would help folks decide what whistle(s) are be best suited for their needs, if they can see a chart of ‘whistle specs’ similar to the way Consumer Reports magazine tests/reviews products.
I’m not saying we should get scientific about this… but reviews of “pleasantly airy” or “this whistle sucks” is a bit hard to put to paper. Unless of course, you have a category “suck factor” then it’s acceptable.
Some items to be noted for each review:
Material (aluminum, brass, wood, composite)
Fipple material
Playing volume (low 1-3, medium 4-6, high 7-9)
Amount of chiff (low, medium, high)
Tuneable (or not)
Average price
Available keys
Reisitance to clogging
Availibility (or wait time on custom whistles)
Tony, I very much like your proposition, but I might add, if you will, another criterion, that being the expertise of the person doing the review. A more inexperienced player, or even a player who goes to sessions, may well have a different opinion of a certain whistle than one who plays solely for their (or their family and friends’) enjoyment!
All in all, though, I think what you put forth has much merit!!!
Good point… I considered it. Personal preference has to be extracted from the reviews as much as possible.
A great sounding LOUD whistle is just that. Even if your preference is for a more quiet one.
Also, for those who have lots 'o different whistles. Try recording a pure sounding whistle and a chiffy one (side by side, AB comparison) so whe can post it as a ‘point of reference’ and refer to it in the future.
Tony,
How about using a recognized “standard” whistle as the starting point for comparisons that is familiar to most players? For example, using a Gen brass D as the standard, “this new whistle,X, is harder/easier to play the high G, A, B than the standard (Gen D brass)” This would have to be refined but might make the ratings less subjective.
Mike
On 2002-12-28 09:28, burnsbyrne wrote:
Tony,
How about using a recognized “standard” whistle as the starting point for comparisons that is familiar to most players? For example, using a Gen brass D as the standard, “this new whistle,X, is harder/easier to play the high G, A, B than the standard (Gen D brass)” This would have to be refined but might make the ratings less subjective.
Mike
Good idea, Mike, and one I hadn’t thought of. A “base” to start from would be a fantastic idea.
I think some sort of standardization is a great idea, though not too rigorously enforced. A couple more things to add are evenness of volume across the octaves and accuracy of tuning, both absolute and relative.
To really standardize, we have to agree on what the scales (volume, chiff) mean. I think everyone would agree that, say, an Oak is low volume and a Copeland high, but there’s a lot of room in between. I would expect a Burke to be medium, but someone used to the classic injection-molded style whistle might find a Burke quite loud. Plus, if you judge by D whistles, something like a low-G is always going to be low volume. I guess this might be closely related to Larry’s comment.
Of course, then there’s the whole issue of rating chiff. I think all would agree that an Overton is chiffy, but what about a Clarke? I think of breathy and chiffy as separate qualities.
There’s also the variability of handmade whistles. My Thin Weasel has a fair amount of (what I consider) chiff; a lot of people take issue with my characterizing it as chiffy – that may be a difference in defining chiffy, but it is more likely variability in the hand-voiced instruments.
Mike,
No problem. A point of reference is a great idea… as long as the variances in ‘reference whistles’ aren’t too great or known up front.
Take for example, custom instruments like the Overton or Hoover can be tailored to suit the players needs. This must be noted on the review.
On 2002-12-28 09:35, chas wrote:
I think some sort of standardization is a great idea, though not too rigorously enforced. A couple more things to add are evenness of volume across the octaves and accuracy of tuning, both absolute and relative.
To really standardize, we have to agree on what the scales (volume, chiff) mean. I think everyone would agree that, say, an Oak is low volume and a Copeland high, but there’s a lot of room in between. I would expect a Burke to be medium, but someone used to the classic injection-molded style whistle might find a Burke quite loud. Plus, if you judge by D whistles, something like a low-G is always going to be low volume. I guess this might be closely related to Larry’s comment.
Of course, then there’s the whole issue of rating chiff. I think all would agree that an Overton is chiffy, but what about a Clarke? I think of breathy and chiffy as separate qualities.
There’s also the variability of handmade whistles. My Thin Weasel has a fair amount of (what I consider) chiff; a lot of people take issue with my characterizing it as chiffy – that may be a difference in defining chiffy, but it is more likely variability in the hand-voiced instruments.
\
Now here’s where we get into the semantics of everything, right? My Thin Weasel is also quite chiffy… but, I, too, wonder if a Clark could or would be considered chiffy…
On 2002-12-28 09:35, chas wrote:
…Of course, then there’s the whole issue of rating chiff. I think all would agree that an Overton is chiffy, but what about a Clarke? I think of breathy and chiffy as separate qualities…
The forum is moving quickly this morning !
I keep going back to sound samples as example. Thought there are great variances in recording equiptment, audio comparisons will help out greatly.
On 2002-12-28 09:35, chas wrote:
…Of course, then there’s the whole issue of rating chiff. I think all would agree that an Overton is chiffy, but what about a Clarke? I think of breathy and chiffy as separate qualities…
The forum is moving quickly this morning !
I keep going back to sound samples as example. Thought there are great variances in recording equiptment, audio comparisons will help out greatly.
Now, Tony, there could be a problem there, too. How would we “standardize” the audio comparison requirements?
When someone reviews a whistle, he or she mentions volume and calls it low, medium or high, naturally. Why do we need numbers for that? I think you just called on the normal things that people think of when reviewing a whistle, and over time, people can learn who people are, where their perspectives come from, and whether they can agree with them. Also, comparing any high end whistle to a Generation seems unnecessary to me. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I don’t think what you’re calling for is necessary.
Larry, I don’t mean standarize the recordings. Unless the same person played the same room using the same recording setup it’s really not practical.
What I mean is show (by sound sample) 2 or 3 different whistles in a side-by-side comparison Even if the recording is somewhat skewed the listener can get some understanding for a ‘standard’ or reference.
Ever compete in an amateur event? The ones I’ve been in took time to ‘train’ the judges to look for specifics on which to judge. In the same way, by hearing a musical ‘standard’ we have a better idea of what the range is like.
An example (no names mentioned) of a whistle maker who can voice an instrument to play both octaves to be musically correct, also has the ability to set the second octave slightly flat to sound more pleasing to the ear. This is good for solo work but not when played with other even tuned instruments. A sound sample will demonstrate this better than just a description.
On 2002-12-28 10:27, JessieK wrote:
When someone reviews a whistle, he or she mentions volume and calls it low, medium or high, naturally. Why do we need numbers for that? I think you just called on the normal things that people think of when reviewing a whistle, and over time, people can learn who people are, where their perspectives come from, and whether they can agree with them. Also, comparing any high end whistle to a Generation seems unnecessary to me. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I don’t think what you’re calling for is necessary.
~J
Jessie, you’re not raining on anyones parade. But if a $70 whistle doesn’t sound or play and nicer than a $20 whistle, wouldn’t you want to know about it?
Why do we need numbers to express volume? so people don’t have to keep asking these questions over and over again or spend hours sifting throught the archives to figure out if whistle ‘Z’ plays soft or loud. That’s why.
“…and over time, people can learn who people are, where their perspectives come from, and whether they can agree with them.”
Huh?
Are you saying we can’t take a review at face value and that we have to ‘learn peoples perspectives’ and figure out their personality quirks just to understand how whistle ‘B’ plays?
Here’s a first draft of the form. If people want to change it they post another version by copy and paste. ( I used Tony’s ideas). You can post your improved version so that others can copy & paste and improve further on it. Using a unique searchword that will bring up only evaluation forms. I suggest EVALUATION FORM, but written as a single word. (I haven’t written it that way because I don’t want this thread showing up on the search).
An evaluator doesn’t have to address every issue listed.
RATING SYSTEM (Can be used in addition to your own descriptions)
ABOMINABLE: 0
LOW: 1-3
MEDIUM: 4-6
HIGH: 7-9
TOTALLY EXCELLENT: 10
ME:
My experience:
My whistle collection:
My whistle preferences and bias:
How long I’ve played this whistle:
THE WHISTLE:
Design:
Materials:
Workmanship:
Pouch:
PLAYING:
Loudness:
Air demand and backpressure:
In tune:
Chiff & my definition of it:
Breathiness:
Raspiness:
Penetration:
Tendency to make unwanted sounds:
Pure tone versus rich:
Round vs. sharp:
Icy vs. warm:
Recorder-iness:
High notes sound…
Bell note sounds…
Octave changes:
Cross fingering:
Tuneability:
Hole size & spacing:
Resistance to clogging:
Comparison to another whistle brands:
Is this your favorite whistle, and why (not)?
Actually, I thought we did kick this around a bit, but never finalized anything. Usually, I’ve tried to review from the outside in, i.e., appearance, fit and finish (or workmanship, including fingerholes, slide, etc.), tonal qualities (which would include chiff I guess), ease of octave transition, air requirements, and physical comfort.
I guess main areas would be for me, appearance, workmanship, physical comfort, ease of play, tonal qualities, cost.
E = Fb, great idea… let’s not get too complex though. For an initial review yes, but more like Philo’s ‘main areas’ if the reviewed whistles get put on a comparison chart.
On 2002-12-28 10:56, Tony wrote:
if a $70 whistle doesn’t sound or play and nicer than a $20 whistle, wouldn’t you want to know about it?
Um yes, but my point is that almost any handmade whistle would sound better than almost any inexpensive whistle, and it’s basically a given that a handmade whistle would sound different from a Generation. A good comparison whistle would be a higher end one, like perhaps a Water Weasel, but there are a lot of people who have not played a Water Weasel, and therefore, the “standardized comparison” won’t be helpful.
Why do we need numbers to express volume? so people don’t have to keep asking these questions over and over again or spend hours sifting throught the archives to figure out if whistle ‘Z’ plays soft or loud. That’s why.
Tony, what on earth makes you think that a given person’s “medium” or “5” volume would equal that of another person’s???
Are you saying we can’t take a review at face value and that we have to ‘learn peoples perspectives’ and figure out their personality quirks just to understand how whistle ‘B’ plays?
Hmm. Are YOU saying that if someone who doesn’t know whistles fills out a form, we can all trust what he or she says because it’s written in standardized language?
Geez. You all can do what you want, but I know whistles very well, I love to write reviews seriously and creatively, I have hooked up more people than I can remember with their ideal instruments, and I am NOT going to fill out a form for a whistle review.
~J
Edited to fix BB code.
[ This Message was edited by: JessieK on 2002-12-28 11:39 ]
Jessie, the standard whistle could be anything at any time. For variances it’s thought best to have a production model rather than a custom product.
Comparing loudness from one whistle to another isn’t brain surgery nor does it have to be exact. Just relationships of which are lower or higher than whistle ‘A’ should suffice. Is a Weasel louder than a Susato VSB?
The whistle reviews will still be conducted by anyone who wants to offer one (nothing has changed) all I’m saying is if it’s done more methodically (possibly by way of a form) that the review comments can be placed into a grid that can be easily digested by someone wanting information on a group of whistles and not having the time (or finances) to buy several.
“…You all can do what you want, but I know whistles very well, I love to write reviews seriously and creatively, I have hooked up more people than I can remember with their ideal instruments…”
Right, so why are you so against answering a few questions at the bottom of your review?
On 2002-12-28 12:03, Tony wrote:
Is a Weasel louder than a Susato VSB?
One Weasel may be louder than one Susato VSB, and a different Weasel might be quieter than the same Susato VSB.
why are you so against answering a few questions at the bottom of your review?
Well, I am not opposed to answering questions at the bottom of an already creative and detailed review, but when putting qualitative comments into quantitative grids, something is lost. And I do think it would encourage someone who has picked up one whistle to do a review that sounds educated even when comparisons haven’t been done. That review may or may not be accurate. I always find it funny when someone does a lengthy review of a given whistle and mentions that he or she has played only one other whistle. Your form would make it easy for people without any experience to talk as if they had tons, therefore giving possibly bad advice to newbies who, as you say, might not be able to afford lots of whistles.
I think there is a better solution. I saw it on another site - a collection of reviews of the same make of whistle, listed in one place. So it would let people read all the reviews of a given whistle and make up their minds without the reviewers having to fill out a form and, more importantly, without the readers having to figure out how one revewier’s “3” differs from another reviewer’s “3.”