What can be learned from measuring chanters ?

[billh]

I am in fact much more struck by the similarities between different pitches from the same 19th century maker, in those cases that I've been fortunate enough to investigate.

Bill

Would that suggest that the same set of reamers were used to make all the pitchs?

David

In the general case I'm not convinced this was true - but "the same set of reamers" can encompass a lot of different possibilities. I don't feel ready to publicly speculate as to whether the same long finishing reamers were used in specific cases or not, but I've seen some data that would support that conclusion. If you include the idea that makers may have used a combination of long reamers and short "touch up" or "tuning" spade reamers, then the answer is logically "yes" in the same way that a maker uses the same set of chisels and gouges on the lathe.

IMO some of the data that has been published in support of the "same reamer(s)" hypothesis in the past looks a bit equivocal. However even without the "spade reamer" approach, it is certainly possible to make reasonable approximations of historic bores in multiple pitches from the same basic reamer set. In other words a given pitch may use one or two "specialized" short reamer sections plus a several "shared" reamers that are also useful for other pitches. It's my understanding that some modern makers have do this sort of thing successfully, and in any case it's a useful prototyping technique.

In an article in the Sean Reid Society Journal (vol. 1?) Geoff Wooff says something to this effect:

"... I discovered that I could make several pitches with the same reamer. (I now know that I really cannot)"

which I take to mean that the bores for several of his pitches can _almost_, but not quite, be made with the same bore profile.

Bill

[Rick]

From what i know...

You measure a chanter, get a reamer made to specifications, drill and ream a piece of wood and THEN start making the chanter.
When you are finished and have a chanter that looks/sounds and behaves like you want, you now know what to do to get the same result with the next one. (or at least know what to look for with the next one)

Blatant measuring and reaming with a reamer made from those measurements AND getting a chanter that is perfectly the same as the one measured..., not likely!

Am i an expert? no!
That's why this is my last structural post on anything pipes, only chit chat from now on, much safer...

[Jim McGuire]

The ah-ha moment was that one reed worked in three chanters - all of narrow bore design - of different pitches from one maker - Egan, I think.

[billh]

The ah-ha moment was that one reed worked in three chanters - all of narrow bore design - of different pitches from one maker - Egan, I think.

Craig Fischer has a reed reputed to work well in just about everything Coyne-Kenna-esque (possible some Egans would need too big a staple). He described it in SRS v1.

Those general dimensions do seem to work in a variety of chanters from C# down to B, and in fact it worked pretty well in a narrow bore D when tested this summer.

Other people have suggested that the Coynes may have used the same basic reed design for all pitches as well. However, that's not the same thing as suggesting that the chanters themselves share large sections of their bore profiles. In some cases it seems to be true, but there is enough variation between the relatively small number of surviving pristine chanters that it's hard to say. I am pretty sure that one or more of the Coynes (for example) went through several different chanter designs over their careers.

Bill

[David Lim]

short "touch up" or "tuning" spade reamers, Bill

Was just wondering how these worked?

I assume they are used to widen the bore at a localised point. How does that affect the chanter, tonally and tuning wise?

Also do modern makers still use them?

David

[billh]

short "touch up" or "tuning" spade reamers, Bill

Was just wondering how these worked?

Nobody really knows exactly how they were used by 19th c pipemakers, as far as I know. Not sure it's been proven that they were used by union pipe makers (though they were, I understand, used by other instrument makers, for instance oboe makers etc.)

I assume they are used to widen the bore at a localised point. How does that affect the chanter, tonally and tuning wise?

Effects can be complex. Enlarging the bore at certain points can affect the tuning of one or many notes (generally, many), and affect tone color and response. The general goal seems to be to bring the resonance peaks of multiple harmonics of notes in the chanter scale into alignment. Moving toneholes and changing tonehole sizes can help with relative octave tuning, etc. but actually modifying the bore can be a more powerful tool. However the detailed method(s) for doing so seem to have been lost.

Also do modern makers still use them?

David

Not as far as I know. Craig Fischer may have experimented with them. He certainly did some interesting work illustrating the effect of localized bore perturbations on admittance/impedance curves, which would directly relate to alignment of harmonics. (I should clarify that for a steady state tone, the harmonics are always exactly aligned by physical necessity, so what we really mean here is the alignment of the "natural response peaks" of the bore; when the natural response peaks of the bore are well aligned, then the harmonics are stronger and easier to product, resulting in a richer tone quality and better responsiveness, or so acoustic theory and experiment demonstrate).

I have heard anecdotally that some texts on the use of such reamers in the making of recorders and oboes may have survived (from the 18th century or earlier) in German and Czech, but it has not been translated into English. I don't know the sources or have any of the relevant authors' names, I'm afraid.

Bill

[David Lim]

Thanks Bill. I think I follow most of that, very helpful information.

The general goal seems to be to bring the resonance peaks of multiple harmonics of notes in the chanter scale into alignment.

.....when the natural response peaks of the bore are well aligned, then the harmonics are stronger and easier to product, resulting in a richer tone quality and better responsiveness, or so acoustic theory and experiment demonstrate
Bill

I recall a respected flute maker telling me how he opens out the bore in an area above the toneholes until the tone comes together.

He must have been aligning his response peaks as you describe.

Would the size of any surviving touch up reamers give an indication of the area of the bore in which they might have been used?

Also does any historic measurement evidence show any consistency in terms of localised bore modifications? (If used was it part of the original design or as a post production correction technique or....?)

David

[billh]

Thanks Bill. I think I follow most of that, very helpful information. ...
I recall a respected flute maker telling me how he opens out the bore in an area above the toneholes until the tone comes together.

He must have been aligning his response peaks as you describe.

Would the size of any surviving touch up reamers give an indication of the area of the bore in which they might have been used?

There aren't many that have survived as far as I know, and I don't know of any which are definitely associated with one of the classic makers. It's possible that one could infer their use from examining bores (as you suggest below). There were a couple in the Busby/Carney tool set
and their size suggests that they would have been used in the upper part of the bore, somewhere between throat and back d.

Also does any historic measurement evidence show any consistency in terms of localised bore modifications? (If used was it part of the original design or as a post production correction technique or....?)

David

OK, in the interest of saving DMQ and others some keystrokes, I'll take a stab at this; however realize that until recently I've been a maker of the "armchair" variety whereas David has the experience to back up his opinions, which I look forward to reading here .

Basically I don't think anyone knows whether the localized bore modifications in historic chanters were part of the initial reamer profiles or added in "post production" as you say, possibly via small touchup reamers like the ones we've been describing. There are written accounts of small reamers being used in other sorts of woodwind making, so it's not unreasonable to assume that the union pipe makers were aware of their use at least.

Craig Fischer has written before that for Rowsome type bores there are roughly two areas where the bore is enlarged; one between the throat and the back d/C# area, and one above the higher of the two E holes. He talks about it a little on David Daye's "squinter" page: http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/~bda ... uint1.html

I'm reluctant to make any specific suggestions about their size or location based on my own limited collection of Rowesome measurements but they seem roughly consistent with Craig's assertion. ( I would be very cautious about using this diagram as a schematic of a Rowesome bore, however, as opposed to a schematic of a particular Rowesome-inspired bore. )

For narrow bore chanters the modifications seem a little more consistent (at least within the work of one maker) and may possibly be even more important - in any case the deviation from a straight cone tends to be greater than for wide-bore. One important difference I've heard and would agree with is that narrow bore chanters seem to be "convex" overall, that is they balloon out from a straight cone most of the way down their profile, and become a little steeper in the bottom hand. Many chanters bell out a little in the last 60-80 mm but not all of them do, some continue to be smaller than a straight cone all the way to the bell.

There isn't much in the way of bore plots available on the web. The "possible Harrington" C# chanter owned by Kevin Rowsome and posted by David Daye is the only one I am aware of. However it is unusually 'straight' for a narrow bore chanter (which may be a characteristic of Harrington chanters in general):
http://polarmet.mps.ohio-state.edu/~bda ... arring.gif
Aside from some obvious discontinuities which are probably due to the tone holes, you can see that the deviations are rather subtle (possibly almost too subtle to capture with the available probe set). Most flat chanter data which I've seen or collected deviates a bit more from a straight cone. If you were to plot a straight line through the data however I think you'd still notice a distinct convexity.

Though I'd really love to have gleaned some "general principle" from these bores, I can't say that I have so far. Both experience and theory suggest that quite small deviations can be very important, but because the bore functions so much as an inter-related "whole", and because makers seem to have very much been experimenting throughout the "classic" pipemaking period, just lumping all the bores together on a chart doesn't allow one to extract some sort of idealized profile.

So, while I think the deviations are very important, at this point in time I think that exactingly copying existing good chanters is about the best starting point, and may be the best we can currentlydo (other than making very small tweaks around the edges of a bore design copied more-or-less verbatim from Coyne, Harrington, Kenna, etc.). In some cases applying some minor sorts of rescalings to bring pitches up or down may work, but even then it's unclear exactly what the most acoustically 'correct' rescaling technique should be, and reports of success in such endeavours seem to be mixed.

For anyone starting out, you might try out some of the data in the Sean Reid Society discs; unfortunately even there not every set of data has been proved to be a good basis for modern copies. I don't know if any of the chanters detailed there are being played on a daily basis, with the possible exception of Ken's Kenna C. Unfortunately that one has some uncertainty about the toneholes since it was messed about with rather severely in a previous life. I hope to try the B Coyne data which John Hughes presents in volume 1, as that chanter is reportedly rather nice and the measurements are quite precise.

Bill

[David Lim]

Bill,

Thanks for that reply and the links to the Craig Fischer square chanter page, it's full of useful information.

Craig mention the importance of the "upper bore" for octave tuning, which links to the position you thought the tuning reamers pictured might cut in to.

It will take a while to pull this together but I think I'm starting to get some basic understanding of how the bore and holes affect tuning. I'll read it through again tomorrow and see if it still makes sense.

It's unfortunate that so little bore and hole information is available. A basic working set of measurements for each pitch would be a great resource and starting point for hobby makers and learners like me. I'm sure it would also encourage more people to have a go as well.

David

[David Lim]

[Joseph E. Smith]

[quote="David Lim"][/quote]


This is an interesting point... I must say I am at a loss for words... looks like you were too.

[David Lim]

.. I must say I am at a loss for words...

4743 posts and only now are you lost for words.......

David

[Joseph E. Smith]

.. I must say I am at a loss for words...

4743 posts and only now are you lost for words.......

David

[billh]

Bill,

Thanks for that reply and the links to the Craig Fischer square chanter page, it's full of useful information.

You're welcome.

Craig mention the importance of the "upper bore" for octave tuning, which links to the position you thought the tuning reamers pictured might cut in to.

It will take a while to pull this together but I think I'm starting to get some basic understanding of how the bore and holes affect tuning. I'll read it through again tomorrow and see if it still makes sense.

I'd caution you against thinking there are some simple principles that will emerge that would be of practical use in bore tuning. While I think one can reach a theoretical understanding, it's not likely to end up in a simple form that can be used directly on the bore - and I expect that re-creating the operating principles of the old makers in this regard is not something that can be accomplished in weeks or months, perhaps even years. Every change to the upper bore (any part of the bore, really) will affect everything else about the chanter's behavior to some extent. In theory working out the tuning aspects mathematically can be done (and has been done, for a 'generic Rowsome bore' by Craig Fischer), but it requires somewhat sophisticated mathematics and also some computing power.

It's unfortunate that so little bore and hole information is available. A basic working set of measurements for each pitch would be a great resource and starting point for hobby makers and learners like me. I'm sure it would also encourage more people to have a go as well.

David

I agree with this. The situation is beginning to change, and I hope it continues to improve.

Bill

[Jim McGuire]

We don't have a standard for measuring. Many have measured many things but is mostly information held privately. The pipes at the National Museum are being measured but being published is another thing. Measuring only gets one so far as it is mapping the measurements to reeds (and their characteristics) and the resultant sounds.

What's the streamlined approach? Measure a few great working sets, including sets recently made. Using that as a baseline, tweak from there.