I went off in this direction after reading the thread on flat sets and chanter lengths but this seems a bit iff topic for that thread.
Anyhoo I’m developing my reedmaking skills and tryiing to make sense of what I’ve learned from the main UP sources and the theoretical stuff I know. Thoughts from the sages here are humbly solicited.
My understanding gleaned from reading Nederveen’s book on woodwind acoustics and from studies of the bassoon is that the fundamental frequency for a conical bore is based on the length of the complete cone, the actual chanter bore being only a part of that length. That is, you can’t look at the bore length in isolation without considering the taper which will determine the overall length of the cone.
Of course when you add the reed, everything is up for grabs again. Nederveen’s calculations indicate that for the double reed instruments including oboe, which is similar to the UPs, the reed / staple voume is very small compared to the volume of the missing portion of the cone and states that the reed motion is will have the most significant influence on tone and pitch.
This seems at odds with reality in that staple / reed volume clearly has a significant affect on overall and relative tuning. Does this imply that the staple volume affects the reed acoustics / vibration more than the the overall fundamental frequency of the bore?
Of course when you add the reed, everything is up for grabs again. Nederveen’s calculations indicate that for the double reed instruments including oboe, which is similar to the UPs, the reed / staple voume is very small compared to the volume of the missing portion of the cone
Not sure Nederveen really says that… In fact the amount of “truncation” in union and uiilleann pipes is fairly large, I think Fletcher and Rossing point this out in their book on musical acoustics.
I think that the reed/staple volume is very close to that of the missing portion of the cone, and in fact needs to be for good harmonic alignment.
Can you provide a page number in Nederveen so I can see what quotation you’re thinking of?
and states that the reed motion is will have the most significant influence on tone and pitch.
Not sure what you mean by this. It does seem to be the case that the vibratory frequency of the reed blades is not very important, perhaps this is what you are thinking of? In other words the reed is mostly just a ‘valve’, not an input oscillator, but this doesn’t imply that the staple volume isn’t a key factor.
This seems at odds with reality in that staple / reed volume clearly has a significant affect on overall and relative tuning. Does this imply that the staple volume affects the reed acoustics / vibration more than the the overall fundamental frequency of the bore?
The staple volume is critical to the alignment of the harmonics, which implies the relative alignment/tuning of the octaves. If, for instance, the second harmonic is flat, then the second octave almost certainly will be flat as well. I say “almost”, because a sharp third or fourth harmonic could conceivable pull the second octave note back into line, as it were, but probably at the expense of tone or stability.
Now, all that said, the ideal equivalent volume of a u-pipe staple is not neccessarily that of the ‘missing cone’. There are several reasons:
the effective ‘acoustic’ volume is usually larger than the physical volume, because the reed walls are compliant.
the chanter, unless it’s a very modern one, is not a perfect cone, thus the ideal staple volume to align the harmonics is not exactly the same as the ‘missing apex’ of a perfect cone of the same volume.
Now, about #2 above, it’s not clear, in this chicken-and-egg situation, which came first - does the staple differ from the ideal replacement volume in order to correct for the non-conical bore, or is the bore non-conical in order to correct for the fact that the reed+staple isn’t a perfect cone ending in a point?
In any case many of the historic flat chanters (i.e. pre 1870) seem to require approximately the same reed, and flat chanters by, say, Coyne, in several keys will often work well with the same reed design. In other words it seems that the old makers used the same reed design for more than one pitch.
It’s on page 41 but I’m also relying on some other comments. Your explanation clarifies this significantly.
Not sure what you mean by this. It does seem to be the case that the vibratory frequency of the reed blades is not very important, perhaps this is what you are thinking of? In other words the reed is mostly just a ‘valve’, not an input oscillator, but this doesn’t imply that the staple volume isn’t a key factor.
Again this a quote from P 41 which I think you have clarified
The staple volume is critical to the alignment of the harmonics, which implies the relative alignment/tuning of the octaves. If, for instance, the second harmonic is flat, then the second octave almost certainly will be flat as well. I say “almost”, because a sharp third or fourth harmonic could conceivable pull the second octave note back into line, as it were, but probably at the expense of tone or stability.
Now, all that said, the ideal equivalent volume of a u-pipe staple is not neccessarily that of the ‘missing cone’. There are several reasons:
the effective ‘acoustic’ volume is usually larger than the physical volume, because the reed walls are compliant.
the chanter, unless it’s a very modern one, is not a perfect cone, thus the ideal staple volume to align the harmonics is not exactly the same as the ‘missing apex’ of a perfect cone of the same volume.
Now, about #2 above, it’s not clear, in this chicken-and-egg situation, which came first - does the staple differ from the ideal replacement volume in order to correct for the non-conical bore, or is the bore non-conical in order to correct for the fact that the reed+staple isn’t a perfect cone ending in a point?
In any case many of the historic flat chanters (i.e. pre 1870) seem to require approximately the same reed, and flat chanters by, say, Coyne, in several keys will often work well with the same reed design. In other words it seems that the old makers used the same reed design for more than one pitch.
regards,
Bill
To segue to a practical application, I have been reeding a SIMACK C chanter with moderate success. I started with the generic Coyne dimensions found on page 108 of Hegarty and ended up on a staple length of 2", an overall reed length around 79mm and a staple intenal diameter of 3.4mm
The hard D is around +10-15 cents, bottom E in tune but a bit weak, everything else on bottom octave good to a little sharp when warmed up at what seems to be optimal lip opening. Back D is reasonably strong.
2nd 8ve E is a bit flat but blows up to within -10 cents, 2nd 8ve A, B and C are very good and responded predictably to adjusting staple diameter. 2nd 8ve G is the problem note with this reed and all others. Needs some pressure to get within -10 cents.
A couple of questions.
Firstly. If I lengthen the staple, will that bring down the bottom D? And if I reduce staple diameter to maintain staple volume, keep the top A, B and C good?
Secondly, any ideas on flat 2nd 8ve Gs. This reed is the best of the bunch - natural tendency seems to be -40 cents or more.
Thirdly. The chanter seems to have more projection and tone potential, but tuning becomes unstable with more lip opening. Is there any dimensional characteristic that would allow me to open up more?
That’s the one that I have difficulty getting my tiny head around. It suggests that the extension of, say, D to C to B, is one constant extention of a perfect bore, and that the internal volume of the staple is matched every time to the intended pitch by simple extension of the chanter.
I’ve studied reeds from many different bagpipes, from around the world, and my conclusion:"ALL REEDS ARE A PAIN IN THE (glutius maximus).
Now that I got that out of the way, I have noticed that most reeds fall in the one seventh (1/7th) the total length of the chanter when measured against the total length of the reed. Is it some kind of (secret “Holy Blood, ,Holy Grail”… by Baigent and Lee) Pythagorean minimum/maximum length? There are lots of other factors of course, but I coundn’t help noticing this re-occuring measure. Now on to UPs…the 18th century Pastoral AND the Union pipe chanters I have, use much smaller chanter reeds, in line with this 1/7th bit, and then there’s this steady, 19th century, march to the BIG BORES, that developed a larger part of the chanter bore devoted(or filled out) to the reed and staple, as if SOMEBODY(BODIES?) decided to… CUT OFF MORE of THE CHANTER!
If you compare the reeds in the 3, 3 1/8th, 3 1/4, inch total lengths against the 14, 14 1/8th, 14 1/4, 14 3/8s etc. chanters these reeds are plugged into… 1/7th = 2/14ths so we have this extra fraction of 1/14th (more or less) just THERE. What does it all mean grasshopper? (rhetoric from the 1970s TV show “KUNG FU”). Well as a PIPER/ engineer (Bill Heaton) told me once, we are talking about an “elastic” coupling here.
That means (I think) that this extra space is there to compensate for the
EX-tra factors inherent in any reed, and why, at the very least, you move the reed in and out of the tapered reed seat with fine thread wrapping to tune the “high hand” notes (except those chanters that use the Tim Britton Tubing Telescope). Some Factors are: 1. the areas of flexible cane and their size, shape, and distribution? 2. The staple size, diameter, degree of taper, internal parallel sections, etc., is it a good match to the bore? What about the match up with the "throat’of the chanter? (the parallel section of the bore below the reed seat) Its diameter and length? 3. ALMOST TO OBVIOUS TO STATE:This bellows blown, bagged, and capped, reed instrument, is operating at the outer limits of what is technicaly possible, given the constraints of A. no direct action on the reed itself, with the player’s embrochure (mouth /lip formation) and B.no vent keys that facilitate quick wave division inside the bore to upper harmonics. Sax, Oboe, Clarinet, Bassoon, all have these niceties…So all you makers get cracking and splitting (HUH?)
An imperfect bagpipe, with imperfect reeds in a world of imperfect (repeating) fractions…Imperfectly yours… EMPIRICAL Sean Folsom
There does seem to be evidence that at least some of the early makers were thinking in this general way. However the “perfect bore” they were extending wasn’t a perfect cone. Otherwise your statement is pretty much in keeping with my observations. It appears that some makers may have been “adding on” a (much smaller) small amount to the top of the “ideal bore” as well as the bottom, but perhaps they did that as an empirical adjustment to the basic “extend the short bore to make a long one” notion.
Interestingly, I haven’t seen any evidence that the old makers were “stretching” or “compressing” bores in the long direction to make them longer or shorter, which is the sort of “rescaling” approach which seems common among modern makers.
I can’t give too many specifics without sharing unpublished data about chanters that I don’t own, but I’d be interested in publishing some details in the future.
Yes, I can imagine some old-time pipemaker diddling with a new chanter length muttering “Oh shit! Oh shit!” to himself when he realizes all his bore modifications don’t translate from one length to another and having to re-invent them all over again.
Interestingly, they mostly seem to have gotten away with it, if anything there is just a little extra length added to the throat/reed-seat in many cases. For the most part the bore modifications do seem to have worked at different lengths, for some of these makers, which is what I find most remarkable of all.
In the recent history of modern woodwind (and brass) instruments there was the STRECHING that all of the companies (Selmer,C.G. Conn, Martin, King,etc.) did to accomodate the the New Standard Pitch of A= 440, back in the 1930s. Most of their findings, research, and so on, remain proprietary “secrets” to this day. Before the A=440 Warsaw convention, instruments were marked “low pitch” (lp) and “high pitch”(hp). To my knowledge (hp) was the A=452 hz. and (lp) was A=435 v.p.s. (vibrations per second) as they used to call it, pre-hertz. Some older musicians complained that they could no longer play in tune as well as they had with the old length instruments. As to the same size reed playing the different lengths of chanter, that was in keeping with alot of Renaisance practice with wind instruments in a plethora of sizes, in every key, that town waits and musicians of that era carried around with them, to suit every concievable indoor and outdoor venue. The rumor ( and I’ve heard this for years) of the narrow bore chanters being made by 18th century French bayonets, used as reamers, remains unconfirmed, but possible (anybody care to comment?). Spreading the tone holes to different positions, to tune the scale for the longer lengths, is fairly simple matter of following the spacing ratios, using the same bore and reed size. I dispute the idea that you can use the exact same reed to play to any of the different sizes of chanter, in quick sucession, as the different areas on this particular reed and the change in length of bore at the different tone holes, interact with different, subtle changes in pressure, with the size, shape, and flexibiliy of areas on the reed head. I know this from my direct observations and experiments. I have also found that the lowest note on any chanter is the most changeable, and in order to play a scale in tune, the reed is always just at the cusp of NOT vibrating the lowest note, or playing it sharp, and to “get away” from a harsh( louder) bell note, most of the old makers cut off the bottom of the chanter slightly, and used a “Rush” to narrow the bore at that locality. In the 1970s,the new UP makers would extend the bottom of the chanter to make the bottom D in tune without a Rush, and discovered its (flat) tuning effects on the second octave E and F# (on narrow bore chanters in C and B the effect of F# on the knee, and F natural, off the knee, was wanted, and a direct result of the longer length coming into play). Thus, for the low D on the Simack chanter being too sharp, a longer reed won’t make any difference, as the longer length effects the notes at the top of the scale first, long before it would effect the low D. Please try a “U” shaped (you bend it) tobacco pipe cleaner (the material used to BE river Rush, the plant) and place it, as a “Rush”, in the open end of the chanter, move it up or down and/or cut the "U’ down to the right size, to bring that low D in tune.
Good Luck With It! Sean Folsom
Seems quite unlikely, as bayonets are made to bend instead of break; not a particularly suitable metal composition for a sharp reamer, unless you case-harden the bayonet afterwards.
Those bayonets were pretty odd-shaped, if they matched classic chanter bores! I personally think this rumor is purely fanciful. It may be that some makers somewhere tried making bores from bayonets, but the best makers certainly reground them if so, and for the above reasons it seems like a bad idea. These fellows weren’t just picking up any ole’ bit of rubbish and grinding an edge on it!
The shape of Egan bores is vaguely “bayonet-like”, but that’s as far as I would go.
One of the reamers in the “Michael Carney’s tools for Making Pipes by hand” box also looks rather bayonet-like, but I wouldn’t attach too much significance to that. Its waay too big for any kind of flat chanter in any case.
Spreading the tone holes to different positions, to tune the scale for the longer lengths, is fairly simple matter of following the spacing ratios, using the same bore and reed size.
But this gives you wider and wider hand spacing as the pitch goes down, which is not what one sees in the work of Kenna and Coyne; neither is Harrington’s or Egan’s work particularly wide spaced when pitched in B. Coyne in particular was using virtually the same tonehole pattern for all pitches (there are a couple of “oddball” exceptions, for instance the Ennis Coyne and Clancy’s Coyne reportedly have “unusual” spacings) - only the distance between the hands got longer with pitch. It seems that this was a goal of some makers, to keep the tonehole spacing pretty uniform across pitches. Nice.
I dispute the idea that you can use the exact same reed to play to any of the different sizes of chanter, in quick sucession, as the different areas on this particular reed and the change in length of bore at the different tone holes, interact with different, subtle changes in pressure, with the size, shape, and flexibiliy of areas on the reed head. I know this from my direct observations and experiments.
DIspute if you like, everybody’s experiences are their own. Your explanation sounds great on the surface, but my own direct experience and the experience of some other makers seems to contradict yours. For instance Craig Fischer has reported a similar thing (an old reed that plays quite happily in a number of different classic chanters), and I have found it to be true as well, at least of some chanters in quite different pitch. I have seen and heard the reed in question, and a reed I made using those dimensions does indeed seem to work in a wide range of pitches - often interchangeably, with no adjustment.
I am specifically talking of the work of Kenna and Coyne. I haven’t got enough reed-swapping experience with Egan and Harrington to generalize to those makers. But I’m far from the only person to believe that the Coynes used the same reed design for all pitches.
I have also found that the lowest note on any chanter is the most changeable, and in order to play a scale in tune, the reed is always just at the cusp of NOT vibrating the lowest note, or playing it sharp, and to “get away” from a harsh( louder) bell note, most of the old makers cut off the bottom of the chanter slightly,
Well. a lot of the old makers’ chanters have BEEN cut off at the bottom, but not by them.
