Let’s talk about the materials we use. Just heard about titanium (!) on Tech Talk #1 and requested we go here for it.
Let’s go! 
Bill Whedon
(edit 1 to change subject)
[ This Message was edited by: serpent on 2002-10-29 19:54 ]
Just learning about whistle physics, but I wonder if one of the main things contributing to whistle sound is the smoothness of the interior walls of the whistle. Seems like the smoother the walls, the less disturbance of the sound waves, and the purer the sound?
John Mac
John Mac,
Yes, no, and maybe.
The sonic reflectivity of an instrument’s bore does indeed impact the final sound. However in order to accurately answer all of your questions, we’d need a PhD level Acoustical Engineer and or a highly experienced maker like Michael Copeland, who has worked with both wooden flutes and whistles and organ pipes and…Well, you get the idea
Otherwise it’s the one eyed leading the blind.
Loren
Yep, titanium. Actually still in progress. Drilling has to be done with carbide. It goes through those Dremel cutting disks like crazy. Forming is not so bad. But the cool thing is that Titanium can be given an iridescent finish by applying a low (12-50) volt DC charge to it in a conductive solution. This deposits a titanium oxide coating that sets up iterference with light to give you brilliant colors. The color depends on the voltage.
Using a single whistle head run by compressed air, and an audio spectrum analyzer on a computer, it should not be too difficult to test various materials empirically. While I agree that it would take an acoustics engineer to voice the meanings of all the waveforms, one could probably come up with classifications based on subjective impressions that would be valid for discussion on a forum.
For example, you could compare identical bores with polished interior, light- and heavily-distressed surfaces, radial and longitudinal distresses, etc., all within the purview of one material, then compare similarities and differences with other materials, same tests.
True, a computer monitor is but “one eye”, but that eye can aid one to “see” nuances outside the ken of the normal human ear.
To me, categorization of whistle sounds is a very subjective thing, in any event. This would just put some science behind it, without the need for a lot of scientific jargon that may or may not be useful for we denizens of The Valley…
Cheers,
Bill Whedon
On 2002-10-24 16:00, dkehoe wrote:
Yep, titanium. Actually still in progress. Drilling has to be done with carbide. It goes through those Dremel cutting disks like crazy. Forming is not so bad. But the cool thing is that Titanium can be given an iridescent finish by applying a low (12-50) volt DC charge to it in a conductive solution. This deposits a titanium oxide coating that sets up iterference with light to give you brilliant colors. The color depends on the voltage.
Eeeeeek!! Way cool!! Can you get Ti in a tube form? WHERE??? I got da carbide drills and mills!
Bill Whedon
Yes. I got the tubes from a guy on Ebay. Titanium tubing is commonly used in sea water condensers because it is extremely corrosion resistant.
They sell titanium tubing at Small Parts: http://www.smallparts.com/
John Mac
Geeze, I thought that titanium rainbow coloring went out of style like 10 years ago…remember all that anodized titanium jewelry? Yuck.
Bill,
You’re missing my point: That statistical analysis stuff has already been done - what we need is someone with practical experience in the real world. Anyone got friends at Bose Acoustics? Or someone could try to pry Michael Grinter out of seclusion for a little discussion…
Loren
Would anyone care to comment on pewter as a whistlemaking material?I know someone with a Clarkes made from pewter and it has a nice sound and a great look. Mike
On 2002-10-24 17:09, mike.r wrote:
Would anyone care to comment on pewter as a whistlemaking material?I know someone with a Clarkes made from pewter and it has a nice sound and a great look. Mike
Pewter?!? Wow, we really are going retro in this thread! 
On 2002-10-24 16:26, Loren wrote:
Geeze, I thought that titanium rainbow coloring went out of style like 10 years ago…remember all that anodized titanium jewelry? Yuck.Bill,
You’re missing my point: That statistical analysis stuff has already been done - what we need is someone with practical experience in the real world. Anyone got friends at Bose Acoustics? Or someone could try to pry Michael Grinter out of seclusion for a little discussion…
Loren
Nope, Loren, I didn’t miss the point - and I’m just trying a different tack, not to start an argument. I agree with your idea - I’d love to see the issues tackled by somebody from Bose, or Michael Grinter, but in the absence of same, the waveform capture is relatively easy to do, and can help us put some subjective nomenclature on behaviours of the different surfaces. Then, when and if the audio experts get into the picture, we’ll already have a point of reference. This is something we can do now, with available equipment, and in the absence of higher knowledge, but in a controlled and scientific manner that will mean something to that higher knowledge.
You, and certainly I, may not know what all them overtones and curliques may mean to that audio expert, but s/he can certainly explain them for us, and we’ll both become more knowledgeable. Also, when we get a whistle and play it through our equipment, we’ll have a cool and easy way to categorize it’s sound!
I say, let’s do both!
Cheers,
Bill
On 2002-10-24 17:42, Loren wrote:
On 2002-10-24 17:09, mike.r wrote:
Would anyone care to comment on pewter as a whistlemaking material?I know someone with a Clarkes made from pewter and it has a nice sound and a great look. MikePewter?!? Wow, we really are going retro in this thread! >
Yeah,well you just cant beat that old lead taste.
Mike
Actually Bill, my real point is that I happen to think the time would be better spent making instruments and then using one’s ear, rather than compiling more data.
The stuff you’re talking about doing has already been done, and there are books out there that will answer virtually every question you’ve posed on the message board so far. I’m not trying to start an argument, but I honestly don’t understand why you, as someone who wants to be a professional whistle maker, won’t go educate yourself more on this stuff - the information is all out there - but for the most part it isn’t going to be found here on this message board, for a variety of reasons.
Shocking as it is, I totally agree with Kelhorn Mike on the subject.
Loren
Loren, believe it or not, I am reading, but most of it is WRT machining the metals I’m working, setup tips for the mill and lathe, which are both quite different from the wonderfully automated ones I was used to at General Motors, and building things like special boring bars for the tuning slide that’s going into the new brass line. I’ve ordered a couple of books on general musical instrument making (already own a couple), and on acoustics, but Amazon is surprisingly slow sometimes. Frankly, I’ve more reading matter than I have time for, which is why I look for encapsulated knowledge on certain specifics here. Which is also why I began trying to get a slightly-specialized forum going, and why, in the absence of response from Dale or Rich, started the original “Whistle Tech Talk” thread.
Also, I enjoy talking to people, including yourself, about things I’m not necessarily the Ultimate Expert on, which would include most subjects, and just kicking ideas around. Between times, I still program in Java for a big company, make whistles for people, and will probably be building some specialized tools for a couple of other whistlesmiths in the near future. And when I’m not doing those things, eating, eliminating, or sleeping, well, I’m trying to improve my skills at actually playing the whistle!
Now you have much of the story. If there are other questions about the way I conduct my life that I haven’t detailed, please feel free to ask, and I’ll try to fill in the blanks as best I can. I have no secrets, and I’m a pretty open and gregarious person, with no axes to grind with anyone. I like, in one way or another, everyone I’ve met on C&F, yourself included. I’m very, very difficult to piss off, and I’m not going away, so what say let’s have fun, huh?
Cheers,
Bill
I heard about an experiment done with flutes, using the same head, but different materials for the bodies. Wood, metal and even concrete (!) ws used. The blind test used to see if people could hear diffrences between the different bodies made clear that it was not so. Now, I don’t know so much about the experiment to draw any definite conclusions from it, but it seems like the material of the body plays a very little role in the sound output of blown instruments.
On 2002-10-25 04:46, Andreas wrote:
I heard about an experiment done with flutes, using the same head, but different materials for the bodies. Wood, metal and even concrete (!) ws used. The blind test used to see if people could hear diffrences between the different bodies made clear that it was not so. Now, I don’t know so much about the experiment to draw any definite conclusions from it, but it seems like the material of the body plays a very little role in the sound output of blown instruments.
Yes,you heard it on the Whistle tech talk #2 thread…check it out.A bunch of scientists have actual proof that a flute vibrates:roll: Mike
[ This Message was edited by: mike.r on 2002-10-25 05:11 ]
This is funny, just a few weeks ago I picked up some Titanium tubing to try out. I slapped a Susato mouthpiece on the end and just sounded the bell note, before even drilling any holes, it had a very ‘silky’ tone. The biggest tube I had was about 12" long, and sounded between Low A# and Low B. What I like most about the material is it doesn’t seem to get as cold as Aluminum, thus it warms up quicker when you blow through it.
That cold feeling is because aluminum has a VERY high thermal conductivity, so it feels cold because it draws the heat away from your fingers. The TC of titanium is not nearly as high, so it doesn’t feel as cold.
Titanium does warm up faster than aluminum (about twice as fast) becasue of the difference in the heat capacities.
Coldness, is in fact an easier way to say the (more likely) more correct term of “lack of heat”