Upper second octave!!

Whistle
1

I have been playing low whistle for about two years now . . . so I’m still what I consider to be a beginner, though I know a little more about whistles and what I like. The low whistle is obviously mainly associated with ITM and, understandably, most people want a low D with a strong fundamental and first octave that can play comfortably up to second octave A or B since most ITM doesn’t go any higher. Going beyond that second B doesn’t seem to matter to most players, again understandably, and quoting stanton135’s comparison of the Bracker & MK low Ds during the Hans Bracker tour:

On the MK, the second octave feels comfortable until high A and above, where I need to push (as in backpressure) harder than I’d like to to keep the notes in the second octave. On the Bracker, the second octave feels comfortable until the high B, where I have to expend a greater volume of air (as in air requirement) than I’d like to to keep the notes in the second octave.

Most low Ds I’ve played require usually too much pressure or too much air to be playing in the upper second octave and start of the third octave.

But my interest is not just in ITM and I would like a low D that will play up to maybe third octave E without breaking into a sweat to maintain pressure or volume of air. Obviously that means losing out at the bottom end and maybe on volume but I’m not overly concerned about having a strong bottom D and first octave notes that can be “leaned into,” so long as first octave notes are not overly sensitive either. So my question is, are there any makers out there making such low D whistles?

2



I’ve probably said this here before but I’ll repeat it again. I think what you are looking for in a low D has merit. Mike Burke voiced his low D differently before the black-tipped Viper model came along. I’d observe that his earlier whistles were all voiced somewhat more towards the smooth upper register. I have owned quite a few Burke low D’s (as well as many other maker’s low D’s over the years). I have kept an aluminum Burke low D made in late 2001 just because it has the sweetest upper end of any low D I have played. At one point I had two of these. Both played very much the same. So I assume most of the 2001-ish vintage were similarly voiced. I eventually sold the second one. I had bought it as a spare anyway and it was just plain overkill. I bought a spare Viper with the proceeds -overkill again. As my playing days seem to be coming to an end it all seems like overkill these days.

The downside of that 2001 voicing is what you would expect. The bottom D is weaker than on the Viper and you have to be aware so as to not play sharp in the first octave.

Most makers are looking to provide a balance between the top register and the lower register IMO. Many do a fairly good job at providing this too. I would not be surprised if quite a few makers started out by providing a nice, easy top end. And I think makers revise their tuning and voicing as they receive feedback from well respected players. Many of the respected players I have discussed voicing and tuning with favor the strong unshakable bottom end. After all it is the first octave that makes the low D unique from the high D. They also have no fear for pushing at the top end as it is part of the expected dynamics of the low D. So a good balance between the two is what wins out. That’s probably reasonable to expect.

I do find the current Burke offering to be a better balance for the majority of my playing needs. Still sometimes I would find myself working on a piece of music that lives up above the second octave G yet still goes down to the first octave D a bit. That’s when I pull the older Burke out of the case. While I have no big issues playing the Viper up high the older Burke is just a lot easier to play up there and the sound is very, very sweet and smooth in comparison to my Viper.

And remember, breath pressure and air use are all relative to our own experiences. So our observations may be akimbo from each other regarding the same whistle.

Anyway those whistles are out there. I am sure other makers have produced similarly voiced whistle in the past as well.

Feadoggie

3

Why obviously? AFAIC my Bracker does all that with good volume and one of the beefiest bottom ends you’ll find on a low D. For sure, it takes more air than some (and more than any of its smaller siblings), but less than others… and has never come near to inducing ‘a sweat’ in me. Perhaps not what you’re looking for, Mike, but I simply won’t touch (or keep) a whistle that won’t go cleanly and easily to ‘the top’ (= at least good third E and preferably beyond).

Debatable. You could equally well argue that it’s the second octave that distinguishes the high D from the low, but IMHO it’s the whole (octave-apart) compass when most tunes cross the break and you’re never going to fold them to one octave or the other to keep them out of the overlapping territory!

And remember, breath pressure and air use are all relative to our own experiences. So our observations may be akimbo from each other regarding the same whistle.

Yep, this. Absolutely!

4

It sounds as though an early Burke might have worked for me.

And remember, breath pressure and air use are all relative to our own experiences. So our observations may be akimbo from each other regarding the same whistle.

I can understand that too. I know for example that I tend to blow softer rather than harder, the more so now that I’ve now been diagnosed with asthma. Neither my lung capacity and ability to sustain a note nor my ability to blow hard is particularly great. I love my Goldie Low D and its tone but Colin blows hard and tunes accordingly and I found with my previous non-tuneable Goldie that I played slightly flatter than concert pitch. Add to that what he calls a soft blower (and is to him) is certainly not to me and I’m barely able to get second octave B comfortably. And I hear what you’re saying Peter but I also recall you saying you didn’t think the Bracker’s air requirements were high when others testing it, like stanton135, were struggling. So maybe you have better lungs than most. Would you care to compare it for air requirements, low and high octaves, with other Low Ds you’ve played? A Bracker is a whistle I would like to try though especially if Colin can’t make me anything softer, maybe with a higher windway or slightly shortened window length.

Hans says he can shorten the windway width by 0.5mm to produce a quieter whistle using less breath but in doing so, won’t that increase backpressure and make the upper second equally as difficult to get as it was before. I wonder if he could also shorten the window length?

Thanks for your thoughts guys. What other possible makers do you know of?

5

The Burke (any vintage) is still a free blower and you may not be happy with the air requirements.

The Lambe is one whistle I would think of given your descriptions but I have no idea how they are voiced these days. I have not handled one in years. You’ve had an early one to play with so …

I like the whistles Hans is making (based on the tour models). The Bracker low D I played during the tour was a fine low D. I’d recommend one to most whistlers. I don’t think it is what you are looking for. I think you and I discussed that around the time I had the Brackers here. The tour low D did use more air than a lot of whistles - a bit more than a Burke IMO. The whistle was well balanced from low to high but the top end was not at all comparable in ease (push and volume of air) to the 2001 Burke I have. Of course the bottom end was much better than the 2001 Burke. So there you have it.

If I were to try to make a low D for you I would start with a narrower bore than would be typical for a low D. It would, as a result, be quieter overall. The air requirements would be less overall. The low end might be a little sketchy however as stable as possible given the bore. But the high end would be easier to reach and hold.

Feadoggie

6

No, I didn’t, but did find myself reconsidering my evaluation after the tour thread. Still don’t think it’s ‘air-hungry’ but, yes, it does take some (noticeably more than any of the even slightly smaller Brackers, which I’d describe as pretty frugal) and certainly isn’t optimised for the kind of endless long phrases I’d imagine you might aspire to. But my aim in bringing it up here wasn’t to promote the Bracker per se but rather to suggest that your requirements may not be as incompatible as you think.

So maybe you have better lungs than most.

Quite possible!

Would you care to compare it for air requirements, low and high octaves, with other Low Ds you’ve played?

Takes more air than a Bernard Overton and less than a (first generation) Chieftain V3, but IMHO very well balanced with as modest an increase towards the top as you can expect.

[Edited for typo: ‘requrements’!]

7

I’d just like to clarify that I didn’t feel like I was struggling with the Bracker low D, exactly. I did have to make a conscious adjustment to my air management, but it was something that I quickly got used to. I think that Hans makes great whistles, some of the best I’ve tried.

Regarding the OP’s question, here’s a quote from Guido Gonzato’s low-tech whistle DIY guide (http://www.ggwhistles.com/howto/):

Maybe a custom maker would be willing to make you a whistle with a slightly shorter window?

8

Yeah I was thinking in those directions as well. Guido Gonzato’s suggestions are right on the mark. Those measurements appear to be concerning a high D whistle. A low D window might be 5 mm at the small end. There are other dimensions at play as well. But really the window size might not actually need to be messed with. A movement of the plug of a half millimeter forward or back can have a similar result. It depends some on the head design and the plug geometry.

Before Stanton’s reference to GG’s whistles I was also thinking about GG’s low-tech design because it is so easy to experiment with. If you do not glue the parts in place you can change the window dimensions fore and aft and play with the placement and shape of the plug until the cows come home to roost, so to speak, to provide the playing characteristics that you prefer. But remember there will always be practical limits determined by the physics. It would be a fun project to play around with, Mike, if you could get into the whole DIY thing I’d still suggest a narrower bore to start with as well. That would limit the strength of the low notes but it would also favor the higher notes. Big holes or holes with very well finished walls help the high notes speak too.

Just stuff to think about.

Feadoggie

9

I agree with Feadoggie as far as trying the Gonzato design and with his comments about the Burke. Although I have a Burke composite that is very close to what Mike is talking about IMHO. Of course it is older, having been made in 2002. If you’re not into the diy you can also ask Guido to make a low D for you without gluing the parts together so you can experiment for yourself. It’s certainly the best value option of all.

I’d have to say that the Reviol low D is as close as I have seen to meeting the out of the box concepts being discussed here. I have both a Lambe and a Reviol. Both have extremely sweet and easy to reach high-ends and will happily go up to the third G without extraordinary push. But the Lambe has a very delicate bell note while the Reviol bell note is just solid enough that it can be maintained and even pushed a little if one has good breath control. And if you keep playing low whistles much you will definitely develop good enough breath control.

my two cents,
ecohawk

10

Lambe and Reviol are what I’d suggest in this case, too. That being said , I have had no problems playing any note up to high b or c on my Burke viper. I’ve never needed a note higher than that c, so I have no idea how it would fare above that, but, it plays with ease as high as I’ve needed it to go, so far.


I think this might be a case where perhaps you’ve already played one of the whistles that does as well as a whistle might be able to currently do, regarding your preferences. It might just be a case of needing to get used to how those whistles play up there. Perhaps not, though.

11

Wow! Lot of good feedback guys. Thanks very much.

Where to start. All in all I think probably the Bracker isn’t the whistle for me especially if its air requirements are more than a Burke. Unfortunately, Peter, I can’t draw any help from your comparisons. I’ve never played a V3 and Overtons are so varied. Though since Hans is only 3 hrs away I would still like to visit his workshop sometime. And I find also the tone of the Bracker, like that of the Burke, to be a little pure for my liking.

If I were to try to make a low D for you I would start with a narrower bore than would be typical for a low D. It would, as a result, be quieter overall. The air requirements would be less overall. The low end might be a little sketchy however as stable as possible given the bore. But the high end would be easier to reach and hold.



Big holes or holes with very well finished walls help the high notes speak too.

A movement of the plug of a half millimeter forward or back can have a similar result.

Some great thoughts here Feadoggie. The third one is beyond my understanding but I would be curious to understand the second one better if you have the time to explain. Getting technical for a while and going back to Colin Goldie’s whistles, obviously each individual maker has limits to the parameters he can change. By virtue of the design of the Bracker, Hans can’t change the windway height for example. Colin prefers to work on windway height and he has a spent a lot of time trying to make the head air efficient. My Low D with a height of 1.00mm is at the softness limit for maintaining that efficiency and he is reluctant to make a 1.1 or 1.2mm Low D because of the air it would use. Unfortunately there is no way of quantifying how much it would use, or whether the increase would be enough to get the top end I want. I just bought (or tested) a Low F from him, a 1.1mm (1.2mm being the Low F’s limit) partly because I’ve wanted to try a Low F anyway, partly to see if the narrower bore would make the top end easier to get. I’m confused because though it has a narrower bore and a higher windway, it is a harder blower and the second A & B are more difficult to get than on my Low D.

The Low F is going back which is a shame. I loved it apart from that. Going back to your thoughts and quotes, I wonder if I should discuss with Colin the possibilities of a narrow bore Low D and also shortening the window. I love Colin’s whistles and their drainpipe tone . . . . which makes me wonder what making a narrow bore Low D would do to the tone.

Thanks stanton135 by the way for your quote which I’m well familiar with. I’ve often referred to those design parameters of Guido’s. I did try one of his high whistles but found great problems with the fipple, my lips getting in the way of the windway, plus I much prefer the tone of an aluminium whistle. So I don’t want to buy another of his otherwise excellent whistles. DIY is not a strong point for me either. How are your whistles coming on, Feadoggie?

Which leads me on to the last two points advocating the Lambe & Reviol. I’m not absolutely sure that the mystery whistle I had was an early Lambe. But what you say, ecohawk, confirms what I’ve heard elsewhere, that the bell tone is very sensitive. I tried a Reviol and it was great as far as the second octave was concerned, the bell note wasn’t overly sensitive and air requirements were very manageable (does it have a narrower bore than say a Goldie?), an amazing combination. My difficult was two-fold. Clogging for which the toothpaste treatment wasn’t ideal with the coating. And I struggled to seal the holes properly and wondered about the coating again. But looking back I regret not giving it more time and wonder if I would get used to it given a little patience. Big Whistle may be getting them in again soon. I wonder . . .

Finally Marc Lofgren has suggested he can shorten the window to make a Low D (or maybe Low F) favouring the upper octave which is perhaps another possibility.

Thanks for your helpful thoughts. I’m very conscious of the limited funds I have available and don’t wish to lose money experimenting to find the right whistle so making a decision isn’t easy. But you have given me helpful ideas especially with regard to the possibility of a narrower bore Low D (the Reviol does look a little narrower than the norm!)

12

Assuming you’re aware that narrower bore brings wider hole spacing? On which note I’d discussed the possibility of a ‘narrow bore’ low Eb with Hans before opting to match the Eb body to the D head rather the E.

13

I didn’t know that. My Goldie Low D from a fingering point of view is effortless for me. No stretch is involved at all so there’s room. But any idea how much we’re talking about? Now that I think about it the Lofgren Low D looks thinner than the Goldie and its holes are slightly wider apart but only marginally. I don’t recall the Reviol’s holes being wider apart but I’m not certain that it had a narrower bore. The other advantage of the narrower bore is obviously holding less in the hands which is likely to make it a faster whistle to play . . . well maybe!

14

BTW when you guys talk about a window length, where am I measuring? From the exit of the windway to the sharp edge of the blade, or from the bottom of the windway ramp to the sharp edge of the blade or what?

15

The Löfgren low D is slightly narrower bore than Overton
And i still feel you’re asking for features not built in to the basic design of the instrument :slight_smile:

16

Thanks Lars. That’s true but Marc says he can tailor his instruments to individual needs.

17

Play with a whistle hole calculating program. There are at least three around that should answer that question in approximate terms. Only the maker could answer with any real certainty.

Set the calculator up to approximate the starting whistle dimensions, then modify the bore and hole sizes and see how much the holes move. My guess is that the differences will not be significant unless you are at the limit of your stretch.

18

I measure window length from blade edge to exit of windway, not to the end of the block, which protrudes a bit (ca 1mm on a low D) into the window. The reason is that the length and width define the area where the vibrating air goes in and out. And it is an important figure for setting the window when assembling the various pieces for the head.

When I make a whistle with reduced window width (for a slightly quieter and less air demanding whistle) I would also reduce the window length proportionally. I try to stick with a width to length ratio of 2:1 for all my whistles. This ratio varies a lot amongst whistle makers, and will have a significant influence on the tone and breathiness. If I would keep the same window width, but reduce the length significantly, I would get a whistle which is more recorder-like, easier to play in the upper second octave and difficult to play in the bottom end. If I opt for a greater length the whistle would play louder, use a lot more air, likely to be more breathy, and difficult to play in the upper second octave. It would be a significant tonal change too, and that is the main reason not to do it. Each maker has his own preferences, and that is good.

Mike, I think apart from windway and window dimensions there is one significant general factor for the tone, which is if the whistle has a curved or a straight windway and blade. I think this accounts for a lot of the tonal difference between straight-edged whistles like the Overton design (old Overtons, Goldies and Kerry Pros) and the Reviol and Chieftain design, and curved-edged whistles like Burke, MK, Rayburn and many others including my own design. If you love the tone of the Overtons (“cosmic drainpipe”) then you probably should look for a whistle with a straight-edge design. People commenting on my whistles with words like “full, round sound” and not the “drainpipe” attribute.

19

Thanks Hans. Very helpful reply for me. Thanks also DrPhill. I’ve actually been looking at Hans’s calculator. I don’t understand it all but it proved useful.

20

Perhaps I should qualify that last paragraph I posted above, about straight and curved windways and blades:
this is a guess of mine, and I am not sure if it is true. I would like to verify or disprove it, at least for myself, one day, by creating a head similar to my curved windway heads, but with a straight windway, for tonal comparison.