I have read many interesting posts about whistle design on this forum, but I cannot put what I have read into a simple answer to one question. Perhaps someone out there can help.
The question is How does having a conical/tapered bore affect whistle hole size/placement compared to a cylindrical/non-tapered bore? I have tapered and non-tapered bore whistles and their hole spacing is pretty similar. Of my three tapered whistles two have small holes, whereas the third has quite large holes. Both of my non-tapered bore whistles have large holes (but then they evolved from the same design).
The tapered whistles with small holes have a non-constant taper, the one with large holes has a constant taper.
Is there a relationship?
Thanks in advance for answers (or reasons why I am asking the wrong question!).
Good question. I’ve been studying Doug’s Tipple-Farjado wedge, after Daniel Bingamon pointed out it could be applied to whistles. I’d like to hear the answers too.
The tapered bore will lead to smaller holes further down the flute. Basically, where the air is vibrating in a smaller column, a smaller vent is needed to shorten the effective column length. As for position, that’s based more on what’s comfortable for the hand, less on acoustics.
I understand what you say. Indeed I had picked up that impression of thing. So why are the holes on the tapered bore whistles in almost exactly the same places as on the non-tapered bore flutes?
Surely there are some constraints on the positions of the holes, other than ergonomics? I have seen several opinions to the contrary, for example a recent post(ish) by pancelticpiper.
Apologies to pancelticpiper for (maybe) quoting out of context. His was the first such quote the search turned up, but I am sure I would find others were the search easier to define.
So if the placement of one of the holes is a compromise then it seems as if the whistle makers have decided on approximately the best (relative) positions of the holes and modified either the bore taper, the holes size, or both to compensate for non-ideal placement.
Is that statement essentially correct?
If so would it help explain why the non-constant tapered bore whistles have smaller holes than the constant-tape bore whistle. The non-constant taper has been tuned more exactly to place the holes more accurately, requiring less adjustment using hole size?
I would appreciate feedback on these statements - to me they are only hypotheses. I may be talking complete blocks.
I assume you are talking about low whistles perhaps low Ds in particular where ergonomics take an important role.
A book could be written about this topic but to my knowledge it has not so I will hopefully not muddy the waters a too much with a couple observations…
the equation for calculating distance/hole size is the same for cylindrical and conical flutes/whistles - but the results do depend on the bore where the hole is and so the results will be different for the two bore shapes
if the bore is not a pure cylinder or conical shape then things change - all notes ‘below’ the perturbation will be effected, possibly in different directions. It gets complicated!
I have not played with conical bores yet so I have no practical experience to share.
I am working on a low D and so I’m in the middle of the F#/E hole compromise myself.