I’ve just been reading a post where the writer expresses a preference for scalloped holes. I’ve seen other low whistle holes described as chamfered. I like the holes on my Goldie Low D’s which I would describe as rounded. Are these all different terms for the same thing? Or are there different ways of finishing holes. And are there different degrees to which any finishing may be applied. An old review of the Chieftain Songbird describes Phil’s holes as chamfered and polished but they look (see below) far more processed, for want of a better word, than the holes on my Goldie.
And, apart from the different slightly indented feel of a rounded/chamfered/scalloped hole, does such finishing alter the tonal properties of the whistle. Thoughts please.
Excellent question that will produce many opinions. With any thick walled whistle I find it very beneficial to the tone and ease of playing to radius the inside edge/bottom of the tone holes. I prefer to use a small round prepared file that has the handle end cut off. This allows me to cut by pulling the file out of the hole without leaving any chaff. However when using a file by pushing the chaff left on the inside can be removed with a stick through the end.
All fingers are not the same so the amount removed from the top of the tone hole could be a different preference for players. I find a freshly drilled tone hole with the slightly sharp edge very easy to seal but irritating to the skin. So my preference is a minimum radius/rounded edge for ease in sealing the hole. Look at the surface shape of a tone hole with some thickness. Two low sides and two raised sides. The more radius/rounded/scalloped it is the larger the top of the tone hole becomes, and needs more skin to seal it. However another player may find that type of hole very nice.
Thanks for your input, Tommy. I get the impression from what you say that names such as scalloping, chamfering and rounding are all fairly interchangeable and describe much the same thing. And when you use the term “minimum radius” I presume you are meaning that the rounding is not spread further from the hole than is absolutely necessary. I don’t know how thick the walls of the pictured Songbird were but the scalloping looks somewhat more generous than minimum radius. I much prefer rounded holes because of their comfort, because I find they facilitate smoother sliding up to a note . . . and because I actually find it easier to seal them.
Yes that is my opinion in a nut shell. Coming from a machine shop background I find it more accurate to add a number to the term radius. Minimum radius to me means a number so small it would be difficult to find a radius gauge to check it. Remove the sharp edge is enough. After that we could also talk about beveling the radius in that more material is removed from either the inside or outside of the hole. I have experimented with removing/scalloping/beveling the outside finger side of the hole to where it cradled the finger. Functional but not very attractive. Practice develops muscle memory then the finger cradle is not needed.
Beveling the inside of the tone hole will affect the pitch of that hole.
I think Mike has it right. Rounded tone holes are more comfortable and easier to seal. As such, they provide a better separation of notes, because it’s easier to hit the note fully straight away. They’re bound to help with sliding between notes as well, just from a comfort point of view.
I should point out the distinction between undercutting tone holes, which is (more or less) knocking off the sharp edge where the chimney meets the bore, and knocking off the sharp edge where the chimney meets the outside world.
Undercutting is SOP in many sorts of woodwinds. Baroque flutemakers had a special tool, a round file-like thing with a threaded hole in the middle. You’d put it inside the bore near a hole, then pass a threaded handle through the hole, screw on the device, then start taking away wood. This gave a nice even undercut all around.
Undercutting makes the notes blow more freely, helps the volume and tone-quality, and helps the octaves in some cases I’m told.
About the smoothing out of the edge on the outside of the tube, I think it’s mostly about the feel. I doubt it has much effect on the tone.
To me it’s not a big deal. If a whistle or bagpipe chanter has fingerholes with uncomfortable sharp edges I file them down a bit and finish it with sandpaper. Only takes a few minutes.
Scalloping out the area around the fingerholes is SOP in some traditions, for example this Bulgarian chanter (gaidunitsa). The toneholes are also heavily undercut. Yes, on the Gaida when you drill the holes they’re nowhere close to being done!
I largely agree with the above. But I think smoothing of the outer edges of tone holes may also improve a note’s tone and volume. Both smoothing of inner and outer tone hole edges will reduce turbulence of the airflow in and out of the hole, and any reduction in turbulence will result in a purer tone (less airflow noise) and thereby enable the player to push the note harder and play it louder. All this is of course only relevant if the window size and smoothness of window edges allow this.
The photo of the Gaida chanter shows heavy scalloping very well, and I would associate scalloping of tone holes with such deeper indentations, and not just smoothing or rounding the edges. So I guess I disagree with Phil Hardy’s use of the word in this context.
Regards undercut tone holes: I think undercutting goes beyond smoothing or rounding of inner tone hole edges. A lot more material gets removed, so the bore is altered at that point. The point of this is not just to achieve a smoother airflow, but to influence the intonation of a note, especially to help balance of the first and second octave.
For sure on some bagpipes the toneholes are heavily undercut above and below. Makers tell me that undercutting above raises the pitch, and undercutting below makes the note speak more freely.
As you say a load of wood is removed and the bore ends up with several perturbations.
On uilleann pipes and Baroque flutes clever undercutting can help correct the octave relationships, I’ve been told by some makers, due to non-undercut and undercut holes overblowing differently.
Metal whistles usually have such thin walls that there must be very little chimney effect, same is true of modern Highland pipe chanters. (It’s why undercutting has been abandoned by modern GHB makers, though customers commonly do it, on the upper edge, to raise pitch.) On very thin-walled instruments rounding the surface edges is probably mostly ergonomic.
Being the photographer in question, I can say that I personally use scalloped and chamfered fairly interchangeably. Depending on how it’s done, I often find it more comfortable and easier to seal the holes. I don’t think about it much these days, but I recall a time where having a little tactile feedback guiding me to the proper place on the hole was of a big benefit.
As far as the use of the word " scalloped " goes, I was repeating what Phil Hardy said about his V4 in my post that Mikethebook picked up on, so there was I, innocently thinking I was making a Technical Reference to something which, at the moment at least, in my learning curve, I found to be more comfortable and tactilely ( if that word exists) pleasant…
Actually, Phil reckoned it was a great aid in achieving half notes…but I’m quitting while I’m sort of ahead…
Well, I think scalloped is a pretty good word to describe what Phil did on his Chieftain V4, whether or not it is a technical term. The soft edges seem to guide your fingers to the hole, are very comfortable, and may help with half-holing and the sliding of notes too, from my experience. But what attributes it has as far as tone is concerned is up for grabs or interpretation, and way beyond my pay grade.
Though I do love the expressive tone of the V4 in intimate surroundings, and the accompanying wind noise of his design has all to do with that for me. I don’t know how Phil did it, but it’s one of my favorite low whistles to be sure, for quieter solo playing.
And possibly, if some of the larger stretches to the holes in some low whistles had this scalloping treatment, it might be easier to finger for many of us, to guide those searching fingers to the holes a little better, when they don’t just fall under your fingers naturally, even with lots of practice. Sharp edges on holes may help locate them, but maybe the scalloped holes would better guide them? Just a thought-not sure how it actually works out, but it seems logical to me from my playing.
I like the feel of the scalloped surface around the holes. I kind of wish all makers would do it. But as I said I’ve done it myself to whistles and pipe chanters with uncomfortable sharp holes.
I can’t say it has ever made a big difference to me whether the holes were scalloped or not. I think that it shouldn’t take very long to be able to automatically “find” the holes and be able to seal them well after a little bit of time has been given to adjust to the whistle in question.
However, I do think that holes where you can feel noticeable edges might be a bit better for half holing, as it is easier to gauge how much of the hole you have left covered or uncovered. This allows one to get used to what it feels like when you have it uncovered to the correct pitch, and to automatically uncover it to the same amount according to how it feels when it is uncovered to the appropriate degree. That being said, smooth edges might be better for bending, where the pitch isn’t stable and it doesn’t require the precision necessary to uncover the hole by an exact amount. In any case, I don’t think the difference between sharp or scalloped hole edges makes much more than a very minor difference in regards to either of these techniques.
I might consider smooth holes a tiny bit more comfortable, but I think the effect it has on comfort is quite negligible in comparison to that exerted by weight, holes size, hole spacing, bore width, and whether it has a conical or cylindrical bore shape.
