[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
I was under the impression that if cavities get carved inside a bore (not just pin-pricks of drill points) with the cavity around the sound hole area, it will reduce the pitch of that particular note to a slight extent in the bottom octave (and more so in the second octave, which is out of scope for NSP), so it may save a chanter fill and re-drill operation by spooning in the bore around the hole (let's say a bottom E that is too high). In an Irish chanter bore if you enlarge the bore round a tone hole, the first octave sharpens and the second octave flattens. Getting the right balance in the octaves is one of the great pleasures of making Irish chanters. I find the right balance when the second octave is a few cycles sharp of the first, so it will be in tune with the drones at the slighly higher pressure. Reids Irish chanters mostly seem made to a pitch about 7mm short of modern concert D at 582mm (approx),(15-20 cents sharp) but I have measured several made at an apparent pitch length 7mm longer than modern concert. So that would be 15-20cents flat of modern pitch. I don't think I' measured two the same. Hole positions, body lengths and bores are all different. John Dunns Irish chanters seem to show much more assured work. I think Reid must have had considerable hands on reed fudging skills and may have been able to reed his pipes, of both kinds, over an adequate range for his customers requirements. Just remember that concertinas were available from Wheatstones, right up to the 1950s, in five different pitches. Cheers Dave Dave Shaw, Northumbrian and Scottish Smallpipes, Irish Pipes and SHAW Whistles www.daveshaw.co.uk To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
And just to throw another q out therewhat is the effect, if any, of minor warping of wooden chanter/drones? Paul Dublin On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:32 AM, Dave Shaw [1]d...@daveshaw.co.uk wrote: I was under the impression that if cavities get carved inside a bore (not just pin-pricks of drill points) with the cavity around the sound hole area, it will reduce the pitch of that particular note to a slight extent in the bottom octave (and more so in the second octave, which is out of scope for NSP), so it may save a chanter fill and re-drill operation by spooning in the bore around the hole (let's say a bottom E that is too high). In an Irish chanter bore if you enlarge the bore round a tone hole, the first octave sharpens and the second octave flattens. Getting the right balance in the octaves is one of the great pleasures of making Irish chanters. I find the right balance when the second octave is a few cycles sharp of the first, so it will be in tune with the drones at the slighly higher pressure. Reids Irish chanters mostly seem made to a pitch about 7mm short of modern concert D at 582mm (approx),(15-20 cents sharp) but I have measured several made at an apparent pitch length 7mm longer than modern concert. So that would be 15-20cents flat of modern pitch. I don't think I' measured two the same. Hole positions, body lengths and bores are all different. John Dunns Irish chanters seem to show much more assured work. I think Reid must have had considerable hands on reed fudging skills and may have been able to reed his pipes, of both kinds, over an adequate range for his customers requirements. Just remember that concertinas were available from Wheatstones, right up to the 1950s, in five different pitches. Cheers Dave Dave Shaw, Northumbrian and Scottish Smallpipes, Irish Pipes and SHAW Whistles [2]www.daveshaw.co.uk To get on or off this list see list information at [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. mailto:d...@daveshaw.co.uk 2. http://www.daveshaw.co.uk/ 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
Paul, if you mean acoustic effects . . . probably nothing audibly detectable resulting from minor warping. If the warping has resulted in a mismatch between the tenon and socket, permitting a small leak, that's another matter. It would probably be true to say that all wooden artefacts warp, as well as changing shape throughout the seasonal year. The question is really in the degree of change. Francis On 11 Feb 2011, at 11:26, Paul Scott wrote: And just to throw another q out therewhat is the effect, if any, of minor warping of wooden chanter/drones? To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
Francis, Thanks for the ref to Arthur Benade's book. I've just bought it, and first indications are that it is excellent! Bob - Original Message - From: Francis Wood oatenp...@googlemail.com To: julia@nspipes.co.uk Cc: Dartmouth NPS nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:38 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch On 10 Feb 2011, at 13:43, Julia Say wrote: a small depression could surely catch a sound wave at a funny angle and cause it to behave in a less than theoretically perfect manner It's really much more like the effect caused by a tiny irregularity in a tooth. It seems massively more important than it actually is. There's absolutely no possibility of theoretically perfect behaviour in a woodwind bore, so consequently these insignificant irregularities cannot possibly disturb such perfection. Practically speaking (unless one is unbelievably expert) the factors influencing sound waves in an NSP bore are a good mixture of the laws of Physics and Sod's Law. In varying proportions, obviously. I don't think I've seen Arthur Benade's Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics mentioned in this forum. I certainly can't claim to know it well, or to understand most of it. But I think it is one of the best regarded textbooks on musical acoustics written by a first class scientist who also enjoyed making musical instruments (especially wind) when he wasn't busy with the day job. I'm mentioning this here because it's a book I turn to in curiosity when the behaviour of woodwinds is in question. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
Glad you also think it's good, Bob. A little background on Benade here: http://acousticalsociety.org/about/awards/gold/12_10_10_benade https://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Benade/BenadeHome.html What I like is that the material links the theoretical aspects of acoustics to the practical ways in which instruments actually behave - as well as the modifications which players like to undertake. His other excellent book is 'Horns, Strings and Harmony', a rather more populist work. Despite the title, there's a good bit about woodwind, including his design for a multi-keyed flute made out of tubing and bits of tin can. A keen maker, though not a craftsman; he wanted to see how things could be made to work and how they could be modified to work better. Francis On 11 Feb 2011, at 13:44, BobG wrote: Francis, Thanks for the ref to Arthur Benade's book. I've just bought it, and first indications are that it is excellent! Bob - Original Message - From: Francis Wood oatenp...@googlemail.com To: julia@nspipes.co.uk Cc: Dartmouth NPS nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2011 2:38 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch On 10 Feb 2011, at 13:43, Julia Say wrote: a small depression could surely catch a sound wave at a funny angle and cause it to behave in a less than theoretically perfect manner It's really much more like the effect caused by a tiny irregularity in a tooth. It seems massively more important than it actually is. There's absolutely no possibility of theoretically perfect behaviour in a woodwind bore, so consequently these insignificant irregularities cannot possibly disturb such perfection. Practically speaking (unless one is unbelievably expert) the factors influencing sound waves in an NSP bore are a good mixture of the laws of Physics and Sod's Law. In varying proportions, obviously. I don't think I've seen Arthur Benade's Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics mentioned in this forum. I certainly can't claim to know it well, or to understand most of it. But I think it is one of the best regarded textbooks on musical acoustics written by a first class scientist who also enjoyed making musical instruments (especially wind) when he wasn't busy with the day job. I'm mentioning this here because it's a book I turn to in curiosity when the behaviour of woodwinds is in question. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
As establishing frequencies was yet to come, I think establishing frequencies goes back at least as far as Mersenne's time but I've no idea how they did it. I can't think of any other explanation for the figures accompanying his illustration of the various sizes in the violin family, which appear to suggest that the strings went up in fifths starting from what would be something like a low Bb in modern terms. i.e. the bass would be tuned Bb-F-C-C, the next one up F-C-G-D and so on. This may be totally incorrect, so if anyone with in-depth musicological knowledge can explain these figures (what they indicate and how they were arrived at?) I would be eternally grateful. I can (illegally, probably) send you a scan of the pages in question. (I haven't got the complete work - just an extract in a Fuzeau facsimile of historical viola and pardessus methods). CB To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
On 9 Feb 2011, Philip Gruar wrote: I'll just say that with care, a flat-ended drill and delicacy of touch, there should be no need for rods down the bore. You just stop the drill before it goes too deep! Well, quite. One can both hear and feel the drill reaching the bore. Nevertheless it was something I was warned about, and was checked up on. Now I'm wondering about the acoustic effect of all those dimples that do occur in various makes of pipes (historical and otherwise) on what I believe is supposed to be a smooth shiny bore. (Not to mention all the agricultural standard bores that are about - this a phrase which makers fettlers sometimes use!) My ivory chanter is jointed near the low E and when I got it, squeaked on that key at the least provocation. Adrian had a look at it and suggested there was possible unevenness in the jointing. We had a bit of a go at sorting it and the matter improved (so did my playing, which probably helped too). The point being that I'm wondering whether the uneveness caused by drill marks in the bore would be sufficient in some cases to upset or affect the standing waves and therefore tuning / tone / stability / reed / whatever. Since that's physics, which frightens me rigid due to some very poor teaching in my yoof, I'm going to tiptoe away now and let the heavy duty theorists get to work on the suggestion. Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
Interesting speculation there, Julia. One notable thought is the difference between modern and earlier-centuries perception of this matter of the work marks in the bore. They are very common in Reid instruments which all show an extraordinary degree of craftsmanship. I've just had a look inside an exquisite ivory musette bore, and yes, the point of the drill is very visible. It clearly wasn't thought very important in the 18th and 19th century when instrument design developed as a result of enormous quantities of experimentation and experience in certain families. Personally, I'd avoid leaving those marks. But I'm grateful to those early makers who did, because it leaves unequivocal evidence of the intended position of those tone-holes, no matter how much they have been altered. In response to your question about unevenness at those drill points and the effect on standing waves, I strongly doubt (and this is just a guess) that it would have any effect on standing waves. Consider that the volume of the cavity caused by a tiny drill point is virtually nothing compared with the volume of the huge cavity that lies immediately opposite; the tone-hole itself. The other thing to consider here is the nature of the cylindrical bore. We expect cylindrical bores to behave in predictable ways because that's what acousticians tell us. To a large extent thats reliable wisdom, but what applies to a clarinet is certainly not true of a small-pipe bore which may be anything from 4mm (very early) to 5+mm (some recent examples). A small pipe-bore cannot function as a theoretical cylindrical bore because of the relatively huge tone-hole cavities. The same is true of a clarinet but the relative disturbance is proportionally much less. It would be nice to think of a well made small-pipe bore as analagous to a long regular and smooth surfaced walking stick. In practice, its effective shape is closer to some knobbly stick pulled out of a hedge. Even if you have sanded it and varnished it afterwards! Even with such an irregular effective bore-profile, it still works best when coated with oil. I wonder what is the best kind of oil to use? Does anyone have any ideas on that? Yours mischievously, Francis On 10 Feb 2011, at 10:38, Julia Say wrote: On 9 Feb 2011, Philip Gruar wrote: I'll just say that with care, a flat-ended drill and delicacy of touch, there should be no need for rods down the bore. You just stop the drill before it goes too deep! Well, quite. One can both hear and feel the drill reaching the bore. Nevertheless it was something I was warned about, and was checked up on. Now I'm wondering about the acoustic effect of all those dimples that do occur in various makes of pipes (historical and otherwise) on what I believe is supposed to be a smooth shiny bore. (Not to mention all the agricultural standard bores that are about - this a phrase which makers fettlers sometimes use!) My ivory chanter is jointed near the low E and when I got it, squeaked on that key at the least provocation. Adrian had a look at it and suggested there was possible unevenness in the jointing. We had a bit of a go at sorting it and the matter improved (so did my playing, which probably helped too). The point being that I'm wondering whether the uneveness caused by drill marks in the bore would be sufficient in some cases to upset or affect the standing waves and therefore tuning / tone / stability / reed / whatever. Since that's physics, which frightens me rigid due to some very poor teaching in my yoof, I'm going to tiptoe away now and let the heavy duty theorists get to work on the suggestion. Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
Quoting Francis Wood oatenp...@googlemail.com: In response to your question about unevenness at those drill points and the effect on standing waves, I strongly doubt (and this is just a guess) that it would have any effect on standing waves. Consider that the volume of the cavity caused by a tiny drill point is virtually nothing compared with the volume of the huge cavity that lies immediately opposite; the tone-hole itself. That would be my understanding also. It is a matter of scale. Barry To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
Irregularities in the bore will affect the boundary layer, if not the wave impedance of the bore. So alteration to the tone rather than the pitch? John -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Francis Wood Sent: 10 February 2011 11:55 To: julia@nspipes.co.uk Cc: Dartmouth NPS Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch Interesting speculation there, Julia. One notable thought is the difference between modern and earlier-centuries perception of this matter of the work marks in the bore. They are very common in Reid instruments which all show an extraordinary degree of craftsmanship. I've just had a look inside an exquisite ivory musette bore, and yes, the point of the drill is very visible. It clearly wasn't thought very important in the 18th and 19th century when instrument design developed as a result of enormous quantities of experimentation and experience in certain families. Personally, I'd avoid leaving those marks. But I'm grateful to those early makers who did, because it leaves unequivocal evidence of the intended position of those tone-holes, no matter how much they have been altered. In response to your question about unevenness at those drill points and the effect on standing waves, I strongly doubt (and this is just a guess) that it would have any effect on standing waves. Consider that the volume of the cavity caused by a tiny drill point is virtually nothing compared with the volume of the huge cavity that lies immediately opposite; the tone-hole itself. The other thing to consider here is the nature of the cylindrical bore. We expect cylindrical bores to behave in predictable ways because that's what acousticians tell us. To a large extent thats reliable wisdom, but what applies to a clarinet is certainly not true of a small-pipe bore which may be anything from 4mm (very early) to 5+mm (some recent examples). A small pipe-bore cannot function as a theoretical cylindrical bore because of the relatively huge tone-hole cavities. The same is true of a clarinet but the relative disturbance is proportionally much less. It would be nice to think of a well made small-pipe bore as analagous to a long regular and smooth surfaced walking stick. In practice, its effective shape is closer to some knobbly stick pulled out of a hedge. Even if you have sanded it and varnished it afterwards! Even with such an irregular effective bore-profile, it still works best when coated with oil. I wonder what is the best kind of oil to use? Does anyone have any ideas on that? Yours mischievously, Francis On 10 Feb 2011, at 10:38, Julia Say wrote: On 9 Feb 2011, Philip Gruar wrote: I'll just say that with care, a flat-ended drill and delicacy of touch, there should be no need for rods down the bore. You just stop the drill before it goes too deep! Well, quite. One can both hear and feel the drill reaching the bore. Nevertheless it was something I was warned about, and was checked up on. Now I'm wondering about the acoustic effect of all those dimples that do occur in various makes of pipes (historical and otherwise) on what I believe is supposed to be a smooth shiny bore. (Not to mention all the agricultural standard bores that are about - this a phrase which makers fettlers sometimes use!) My ivory chanter is jointed near the low E and when I got it, squeaked on that key at the least provocation. Adrian had a look at it and suggested there was possible unevenness in the jointing. We had a bit of a go at sorting it and the matter improved (so did my playing, which probably helped too). The point being that I'm wondering whether the uneveness caused by drill marks in the bore would be sufficient in some cases to upset or affect the standing waves and therefore tuning / tone / stability / reed / whatever. Since that's physics, which frightens me rigid due to some very poor teaching in my yoof, I'm going to tiptoe away now and let the heavy duty theorists get to work on the suggestion. Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
On 10 Feb 2011, at 13:43, Julia Say wrote: a small depression could surely catch a sound wave at a funny angle and cause it to behave in a less than theoretically perfect manner It's really much more like the effect caused by a tiny irregularity in a tooth. It seems massively more important than it actually is. There's absolutely no possibility of theoretically perfect behaviour in a woodwind bore, so consequently these insignificant irregularities cannot possibly disturb such perfection. Practically speaking (unless one is unbelievably expert) the factors influencing sound waves in an NSP bore are a good mixture of the laws of Physics and Sod's Law. In varying proportions, obviously. I don't think I've seen Arthur Benade's Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics mentioned in this forum. I certainly can't claim to know it well, or to understand most of it. But I think it is one of the best regarded textbooks on musical acoustics written by a first class scientist who also enjoyed making musical instruments (especially wind) when he wasn't busy with the day job. I'm mentioning this here because it's a book I turn to in curiosity when the behaviour of woodwinds is in question. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
I have been enjoying the thread discussions since I joined the list serve back in the fall. I have now been playing my F set since late November and have learned about five tunes on the 17 key chanter. I get tired easy and have some squeaks from the lower registers but otherwise I am making nice progress thanks to John Liestman 's book. I am now ready to have a lively discussion with whoever will entertain me. I have LOTS of questions so please only respond if you are willing to deal with stupid questions. The most immediately perplexing issue is that I was sure the set was F+ when I purchased it from my friend in Italy but the chanter tends to slightly flat of E with what I believe to be medium bag pressure but I can easily get it to Concert F to play with my wife's accordion. This exercise has also revealed that I know way too many Irish and old time American tunes on fiddle and banjo. I want to concentrate my musical life at the moment on border music. Which tunes should we learn over the next months pipes aside? Is there a good source of music with recordings to help? I have Liestman's book and am working on those tunes on the pipes. I hunger for more. My local musician friends are also intrigued though I have been laughed at more than once when I pull out my set. My goal is to form the only legit Northumbrian/border band in Mississippi! It is nonsensical to me that Irish music has such a choke hold on our region given that the lineage of the majority of US South! erners is lowland Scotland/northern English/ northern Irish. I recognize lots of the border tunes I have heard from my old time fiddle involvement. Thanks Reid On Feb 10, 2011, at 10:46 AM, Julia Say julia@nspipes.co.uk wrote: On 10 Feb 2011, Francis Wood wrote: I don't think I've seen Arthur Benade's Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics mentioned in this forum. I think I've seen it on Barry's shelves. Which is where it's staying unless my son borrows it. No point me even trying - it would be a huge waste of the remaining brain cells. Julia. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning
Fair enough. George Welch sings it in B minor - or very low of course. though George appears to be having problems with the high notes even at this pitch. c __ From: Matt Seattle [mailto:theborderpi...@googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 5:12 PM To: BIRCH Christopher (DGT) Cc: anth...@robbpipes.com; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: Re: [NSP] Re: Tuning On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, [1]christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu wrote: Also, it's a song and all of the singers I have backed prefer that key. Yes, it would be horribly high in A min unless you were a natural light tenor. Fair enough. George Welch sings it in B minor - [2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=map9v2neGbA and Judy Dinning sings it in A minor. As a non-NSP player I had assumed that it would feel more at home on the un-keyed notes. Robert Bewick has it in A minor in a setting which has high a and omits f. -- References 1. mailto:christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=map9v2neGbA To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
On 9 Feb 2011, at 07:20, Paul Gretton wrote: So in fact the variety of pitches for the NSP is extremely traditional! Two hundred years ago it wouldn't have been thought in any way remarkable. Hello Paul and others, I must say, I disagree here. It's often forgotten that the the NSP of two hundred years ago - the conventional fully keyed form - was the product of a single workshop and was played in a relatively narrow geographical area. There's no reason to suppose that Robert and James Reid were careless about the consistency of pitch of their products. No doubt, they would be extremely surprised to know of the latitude in pitch (and indeed tuning) of many of today's pipes. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
One maker having lots of influence again, or rather previously! C -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Francis Wood Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 10:31 AM To: Paul Gretton Cc: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu group Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch On 9 Feb 2011, at 07:20, Paul Gretton wrote: So in fact the variety of pitches for the NSP is extremely traditional! Two hundred years ago it wouldn't have been thought in any way remarkable. Hello Paul and others, I must say, I disagree here. It's often forgotten that the the NSP of two hundred years ago - the conventional fully keyed form - was the product of a single workshop and was played in a relatively narrow geographical area. There's no reason to suppose that Robert and James Reid were careless about the consistency of pitch of their products. No doubt, they would be extremely surprised to know of the latitude in pitch (and indeed tuning) of many of today's pipes. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
Absolutely! Couldn't agree more. But I wasn't really talking about inconsistency or carelessness. Rather, I was thinking of the various prevailing standards such as F F# a bit sharp of F, G and us lot 'ere all tune to old Fred's chanter 'cos he's the one wot sounds the best. I would assume that the Reids worked to a chosen pitch standard in the same way as did Silbermann or - more relevant here - the Hotteterre gang. Cheers, Paul Gretton -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Francis Wood Sent: 09 February 2011 10:31 To: Paul Gretton Cc: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu group Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch On 9 Feb 2011, at 07:20, Paul Gretton wrote: So in fact the variety of pitches for the NSP is extremely traditional! Two hundred years ago it wouldn't have been thought in any way remarkable. Hello Paul and others, I must say, I disagree here. It's often forgotten that the the NSP of two hundred years ago - the conventional fully keyed form - was the product of a single workshop and was played in a relatively narrow geographical area. There's no reason to suppose that Robert and James Reid were careless about the consistency of pitch of their products. No doubt, they would be extremely surprised to know of the latitude in pitch (and indeed tuning) of many of today's pipes. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
On 9 Feb 2011, at 15:11, Paul Gretton wrote: I would assume that the Reids worked to a chosen pitch standard in the same way as did Silbermann or - more relevant here - the Hotteterre gang. And at least the Hotteterre gang had the sense to pitch their instruments a whole tone below modern pitch, their G being more or less concert F. No NSP's there, but the next best thing. Some delectable 12 keyed musettes. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
Hi Anthony, Perhaps we should also take reed variations into consideration. Cheers, Richard - Original Message - From: Anthony Robb anth...@robbpipes.com To: Dartmouth NPS nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:02 AM Subject: [NSP] Tuning/pitch Francis wood wrote today: There's no reason to suppose that Robert and James Reid were careless about the consistency of pitch of their products. No doubt, they would be extremely surprised to know of the latitude in pitch (and indeed tuning) of many of today's pipes. Hello Francis, John and others with the stamina to keep reading this, The puzzling thing is that we have had two reports in recent postings of Reid sets happy to play up near F# (for example Billy Pigg) and yet Andrew Davison's Reid set are said to be happy at F+20. This degree of variation would make it impossible for these sets to span the gulf by pressure adjustment. Add to that the modern trend to play as near to F (A=440) as possible, with the resulting move away from the Reid pattern, and here we find ourselves. What would be interesting, Francis, is to see the figures for Reid's scale length (say top g down to bottom D) and compare that with Ross/Nelson figures. Cheers Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
But have they been rereeded (almost certainly) and retuned (quite possibly) since leaving the workshop? Rereeding can account for a semitone, and the tuning could then have been readjusted for consistency once they were flattened. John -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Anthony Robb Sent: 09 February 2011 16:02 To: Dartmouth NPS Subject: [NSP] Tuning/pitch Francis wood wrote today: There's no reason to suppose that Robert and James Reid were careless about the consistency of pitch of their products. No doubt, they would be extremely surprised to know of the latitude in pitch (and indeed tuning) of many of today's pipes. Hello Francis, John and others with the stamina to keep reading this, The puzzling thing is that we have had two reports in recent postings of Reid sets happy to play up near F# (for example Billy Pigg) and yet Andrew Davison's Reid set are said to be happy at F+20. This degree of variation would make it impossible for these sets to span the gulf by pressure adjustment. Add to that the modern trend to play as near to F (A=440) as possible, with the resulting move away from the Reid pattern, and here we find ourselves. What would be interesting, Francis, is to see the figures for Reid's scale length (say top g down to bottom D) and compare that with Ross/Nelson figures. Cheers Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
On 9 Feb 2011, Anthony Robb wrote: The puzzling thing is that we have had two reports in recent postings of Reid sets happy to play up near F# (for example Billy Pigg) and yet Andrew Davison's Reid set are said to be happy at F+20. We know that Billy was in the habit of making his reeds as sharp as possible -and not just so that he could get over the John Doonan problem but all the time - he liked them that way, apparently. Annie Snaith played in F# to accompany him, she said. He learnt to make reeds from George Storey who learnt from Richard Mowat who learnt from...? (Obviously with influence from other players but that's the basic chain) 10-12 of us, on an assortment of modern makers' pipes (5, I think, but at least 4) happily played along with Andrew on Monday without much perceptible difficulty. I didn't have a tuner out but my ears would tell me we were certainly no sharper than F+20, and probably a bit shy of that. Add to that the modern trend to play as near to F (A=440) as possible, eh? Not on my watch! Based on the meetings I go to I would have said F=20 to F+ 30 was about the norm, varying a bit depending on the season, the venue temperature, the degree of exciting-ness, the amount of alcohol consumed etc etc Concert F and below I reserve for the top of the Wannies and suchlike Arctic locations. It was E one year with the windchill. I've had my wrist slapped on reaching F+40/50, but that's where I want to play if I can. What would be interesting, Francis, is to see the figures for Reid's scale length (say top g down to bottom D) and compare that with Ross/Nelson figures. Are the Reid ones not in CB (don't have it to hand)? We also have Clough figures, there are Hedworth ones and I'm sure I've seen comparison charts of this kind in at least two locations in the past few years. Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
As for the Reids' hole spacings, Dr. Wells is probably better placed than anyone to answer, having looked at most of the survivors. He might also know which ones look to have the original hole spacings and which show signs of subsequent work? John -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Julia Say Sent: 09 February 2011 16:42 To: Dartmouth NPS Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch On 9 Feb 2011, Anthony Robb wrote: The puzzling thing is that we have had two reports in recent postings of Reid sets happy to play up near F# (for example Billy Pigg) and yet Andrew Davison's Reid set are said to be happy at F+20. We know that Billy was in the habit of making his reeds as sharp as possible -and not just so that he could get over the John Doonan problem but all the time - he liked them that way, apparently. Annie Snaith played in F# to accompany him, she said. He learnt to make reeds from George Storey who learnt from Richard Mowat who learnt from...? (Obviously with influence from other players but that's the basic chain) 10-12 of us, on an assortment of modern makers' pipes (5, I think, but at least 4) happily played along with Andrew on Monday without much perceptible difficulty. I didn't have a tuner out but my ears would tell me we were certainly no sharper than F+20, and probably a bit shy of that. Add to that the modern trend to play as near to F (A=440) as possible, eh? Not on my watch! Based on the meetings I go to I would have said F=20 to F+ 30 was about the norm, varying a bit depending on the season, the venue temperature, the degree of exciting-ness, the amount of alcohol consumed etc etc Concert F and below I reserve for the top of the Wannies and suchlike Arctic locations. It was E one year with the windchill. I've had my wrist slapped on reaching F+40/50, but that's where I want to play if I can. What would be interesting, Francis, is to see the figures for Reid's scale length (say top g down to bottom D) and compare that with Ross/Nelson figures. Are the Reid ones not in CB (don't have it to hand)? We also have Clough figures, there are Hedworth ones and I'm sure I've seen comparison charts of this kind in at least two locations in the past few years. Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
The original question I posed was more a rhetorical one. The point being that, until the invention of the tuning fork, there was no set or standard pitch as such. Only the sound of other instruments - hence the plethora of tuning methods to ensure everyone played the same (or as near as possible). Obviously better to tune to an instrument either to a well known one (such as the town organ) or one that couldn't be altered (as in the principal of a tuning fork as it comes from the maker and before anyone files a bit off because it's sharp etc). We are lucky now because we have the technology to set, say, A=440 and make comparisons for tuning, our forbears were not so lucky. The reason they traditionally/originally tune to the oboe A, of course. I wonder how many orchestras tuned to an Oboe that was several cents out? Colin Hill - Original Message - From: Paul Gretton i...@gretton-willems.com To: 'Colin' cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 7:20 AM Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch In a large number of cities, the tuning standard was taken from the organ (specifically the flue pipes) in the church, the cathedral, or the local ruler's chapel. That pitch in turn tended to be determined by the particular organ-builder - say Silbermann - who transported his preferred pitch from one commission to another. Until well into the 19th century, there was an incredible mish-mash of different pitches from one town/city to the other. (And even within a particular city too - Bach complained of the varying pitches of the organs in Leipzig.) This was not a terrible problem for string players but it certainly was for wind players. Brass players, for example, had to travel equipped with a whole series of bits for fine tuning because until the 19th century brass instruments didn't have tuning slides. Flutes had to have corps de rechange - alternative middle sections of slightly differing lengths and hole placements for tuning to different pitch standards. So in fact the variety of pitches for the NSP is extremely traditional! Two hundred years ago it wouldn't have been thought in any way remarkable. Cheers, Paul Gretton -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Colin Sent: 09 February 2011 01:37 To: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch Which were tuned with reference to.. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: gibbonssoi...@aol.com To: cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 9:27 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch Before the tuning fork was invented, there were pitch pipes. John -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
On 9 Feb 2011, at 16:02, Anthony Robb wrote: Hello Francis, John and others with the stamina to keep reading this, The puzzling thing is that we have had two reports in recent postings of Reid sets happy to play up near F# (for example Billy Pigg) and yet Andrew Davison's Reid set are said to be happy at F+20. Hello Anthony and others, Well, not quite as far as the Andrew Davison set is concerned. What Julia said was that when a reed was first put in the chanter it was said to have played at F+20. I took that to be an interesting and amusing anecdote without any specific conclusions to be drawn from it [is that correct, Julia?] Incidentally, the owner of that set is admiring and appreciative of the work done by the expert fettler who did the best possible job. However, he acknowledges that the performance at F+20 of that historic set is not ideal at the present pitch which is (if other Reid chanters are taken as valid examples) very far from that originally intended. What would be interesting, Francis, is to see the figures for Reid's scale length (say top g down to bottom D) and compare that with Ross/Nelson figures. I have recorded hole positions from several Reid chanters. This is easier than one might suppose because although hole sizes have wandered over the years, their original position is usually indicated very clearly on the opposite wall of the bore where the Reid drill made contact. It's evident that Reid revised some of his hole positions - a normal and sensible thing for any woodwind maker. As you would expect, the Reid scale is shorter, as you would expect from a higher pitched instrument. Julia is right to point out that Reid hole positions are provided (very accurately) in Cocks Bryan. Ross/Nelson figures are not identical and I believe Colin's pattern also shows some evolution, as one would expect. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
On 9 Feb 2011, Francis Wood wrote: What Julia said was that when a reed was first put in the chanter it was said to have played at F+20. I took that to be an interesting and amusing anecdote without any specific conclusions to be drawn from it [is that correct, Julia?] When I was told it, it was with a little surprise, I think - they had perhaps expected it to be sharper. That it played in easily with other pipers was felt to be an immediate bonus. However, he acknowledges that the performance at F+20 of that historic set is not ideal at the present pitch My understanding is that they both regard it as a work in progress. It sounds very agreeable, although Andrew remarked that they are not yet happy with it. He played a solo set and then folk got a chance to look at it. If he is compensating for non-ideal tuning then it is certainly not obvious from his playing that anything is amiss. I find my own (modern made) ivory set has a more brilliant tone than the equivalent in wood, even using the same reed. If I were to nit-pick on Monday's playing, I would say I would be interested to see if the fettling team can coax a bit more brilliance from it, but maybe this is not what Andrew is looking for. I have recorded hole positions from several Reid chanters. their original position is usually indicated very clearly on the opposite wall of the bore where the Reid drill made contact. This can also be seen on some modern sets (various makers), although I have been taught to put a rod down the bore before drilling to prevent it happening! (And had the bore inspected closely to check I'd done so!) Sets have been observed where the maker has absent-mindedly drilled right through the far side, I believe.
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
- Original Message - From: Julia Say julia@nspipes.co.uk This can also be seen on some modern sets (various makers), although I have been taught to put a rod down the bore before drilling to prevent it happening! (And had the bore inspected closely to check I'd done so!) Sets have been observed where the maker has absent-mindedly drilled right through the far side, I believe. Whereas I can't claim NEVER to have touched the far side of the bore (a good tune title?) I'll just say that with care, a flat-ended drill and delicacy of touch, there should be no need for rods down the bore. You just stop the drill before it goes too deep! Answering Colin's earlier post: until the invention of the tuning fork, there was no set or standard pitch as such. In fact, according to the latest research (Bruce Haynes' fairly definitive book The story of A - a history of performing pitch) even in the late 16th/early 17th century there were three main standardised pitches generally recognised across Europe, and the fact that there were only a few centres where the best wind instruments were made helped to determine this - but it's a complex subject, best summed up in the biblical quotation He that toucheth pitch shall be defiled therewith. Very interesting discussion though. Thanks for all the contributions. Philip To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
That's very interesting. I still have to ask though (and it IS a genuine question) - how did they tune to those standard pitches? Did a clarinet maker in the area say I'll make my clarinet to be in tune to Fred's serpent, he make's good ones? Most standards are set in various ways (like a size being the length of the King's foot or similar) and then having something made to check everything else again (like the standard measures held in the Jewel Tower) and all other measures are compared against this to ensure uniformity. I suppose it would have to be something untunable - like a cast bell (yes, I know they can be tuned ) from which the idea of a tuning fork originated (rather than the idea of the city organ which had to be tuned to something in the first place). Unlike pitch pipes, a tuning fork is pretty well stable (reeds in pitch pipes can go out of tune over time). As establishing frequencies was yet to come, I keep wondering what the instrument makers tuned to. Maybe one maker made all the instruments in a band or got together with other makers so they played in tune with each other. A bit of a chicken and egg situation. I'll stop asking questions. I'll find a copy of that book and read it. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: Philip Gruar phi...@gruar.clara.net To: julia@nspipes.co.uk; Dartmouth NPS nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wednesday, February 09, 2011 11:29 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch - Original Message - From: Julia Say julia@nspipes.co.uk This can also be seen on some modern sets (various makers), although I have been taught to put a rod down the bore before drilling to prevent it happening! (And had the bore inspected closely to check I'd done so!) Sets have been observed where the maker has absent-mindedly drilled right through the far side, I believe. Whereas I can't claim NEVER to have touched the far side of the bore (a good tune title?) I'll just say that with care, a flat-ended drill and delicacy of touch, there should be no need for rods down the bore. You just stop the drill before it goes too deep! Answering Colin's earlier post: until the invention of the tuning fork, there was no set or standard pitch as such. In fact, according to the latest research (Bruce Haynes' fairly definitive book The story of A - a history of performing pitch) even in the late 16th/early 17th century there were three main standardised pitches generally recognised across Europe, and the fact that there were only a few centres where the best wind instruments were made helped to determine this - but it's a complex subject, best summed up in the biblical quotation He that toucheth pitch shall be defiled therewith. Very interesting discussion though. Thanks for all the contributions. Philip To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning
Also, it's a song and all of the singers I have backed prefer that key. Yes, it would be horribly high in A min unless you were a natural light tenor. And finally, as an instrumental it makes a loamishly lovely springboard to dive into P B's P. I don't know PBP but BAM sounds wonderful at the deeper pitch (and I have got F nats). C To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning
I set my Korg DA 30 to 446 using the calibration button and take it Sorry to be a nuisance (again!), but what note on the chanter do you tune for zero deviation of the needle? The (nominal) G or the (nominal) B? (or other?) Thanks CB To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 10:06 AM, [1]christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu wrote: Also, it's a song and all of the singers I have backed prefer that key. Yes, it would be horribly high in A min unless you were a natural light tenor. Fair enough. George Welch sings it in B minor - [2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=map9v2neGbA and Judy Dinning sings it in A minor. As a non-NSP player I had assumed that it would feel more at home on the un-keyed notes. Robert Bewick has it in A minor in a setting which has high a and omits f. -- References 1. mailto:christopher.bi...@ec.europa.eu 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=map9v2neGbA To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
Good points. I suppose as the pipes are essentially a solo instrument, it wouldn't matter what note they sounded provided the things were in tune with themselves. That's essentially true for many rural instruments (I remember making penny whistles from elder wood as a child and goodness knows what key they were in as it depended on the size of the branches I cut) I suppose. It's only when two or more get together that differences would show up. Big difference when any form of mass production came in and everything was made to the one set of plans. Do the older instruments that still exist show this or not? On a similar vein, what did people tune things to (prior to the invention of the tuning for in 1711). Colin Hill - Original Message - From: Anthony Robb anth...@robbpipes.com To: Dartmouth NPS nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 10:08 AM Subject: [NSP] Tuning/pitch On 7^th Feb Colin Hill wrote: What I can never understand is WHY the pitch changes. Thanks Paul (Gretton) for a full entertaining reply from an orchestral point of view. From the point of view of pipes we need to remember that in the 20^th century professional Northumbrian pipe makers only came in around 1973/4. Before that David Burleigh was still stuffing animals at the Hancock museum and Colin Ross was a lecturer in sculpture/fine art. When, in 1967, I first asked about getting a set for myself every reply was based on the same advice, 'find some lignum vitae mangle rollers and make your own'. Occasionally it was 'find some ebony ledger rulers and make your own'. I would guess that well over 50 people took this advice and made sets at night classes following (more or less) the plans in the Cocks Bryan book. The result is that there are a fair few sets around which are (to put it kindly) approximations to the plans but many people still stick with these sets they or friends have made because they are dear to them. I have 8 F chanters here at the moment. 4 by professional makers have dimensions hole spacings with 1mm of each other so could be regarded as standardised, but the 4 garden shed examples vary by up to 5mm over the single octave G to g spacings. I well understand the frustrations caused by the variations in pipes pitch but I suspect the same is true wherever there has been a living tradition of people making their own instruments on which to play their own music. It seems to me that any change towards full standardization to say concert F pitch could only come about by destroying 80% or more of instruments in existence (perish the thought!). Perhaps we just need to accept the situation as it is and make the best of it. To be honest I find it all rather wonderful and challenging. Cheers Anthony -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
Which were tuned with reference to.. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: gibbonssoi...@aol.com To: cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 9:27 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch Before the tuning fork was invented, there were pitch pipes. John -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch
In a large number of cities, the tuning standard was taken from the organ (specifically the flue pipes) in the church, the cathedral, or the local ruler's chapel. That pitch in turn tended to be determined by the particular organ-builder - say Silbermann - who transported his preferred pitch from one commission to another. Until well into the 19th century, there was an incredible mish-mash of different pitches from one town/city to the other. (And even within a particular city too - Bach complained of the varying pitches of the organs in Leipzig.) This was not a terrible problem for string players but it certainly was for wind players. Brass players, for example, had to travel equipped with a whole series of bits for fine tuning because until the 19th century brass instruments didn't have tuning slides. Flutes had to have corps de rechange - alternative middle sections of slightly differing lengths and hole placements for tuning to different pitch standards. So in fact the variety of pitches for the NSP is extremely traditional! Two hundred years ago it wouldn't have been thought in any way remarkable. Cheers, Paul Gretton -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Colin Sent: 09 February 2011 01:37 To: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch Which were tuned with reference to.. Colin Hill - Original Message - From: gibbonssoi...@aol.com To: cwh...@santa-fe.freeserve.co.uk; nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 9:27 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning/pitch Before the tuning fork was invented, there were pitch pipes. John -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: Tuning
Hello Matt Yep, it's a 7 key chanter so no F nats. Also, it's a song and all of the singers I have backed (OK, there have only been 3 in 40 years!) prefer that key. And finally, as an instrumental it makes a loamishly lovely springboard to dive into P B's P. Cheers Anthony --- On Mon, 7/2/11, Matt Seattle theborderpi...@googlemail.com wrote: From: Matt Seattle theborderpi...@googlemail.com Subject: [NSP] Re: Tuning To: Dartmouth NPS nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Date: Monday, 7 February, 2011, 16:41 On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Anthony Robb [1][1]anth...@robbpipes.com wrote: * My solo pipes are happy playing at 458 which is well on the way to F# but when I do Em tunes I tune drones to a reasonably happy compromise between fingered B and bottom E. To keep in acceptable tune with these drones I find I am playing at 454. I keep it all as relaxed as possible and Bonny at Morn, Peter Bailey's Pig etc sound good to my ears. Just curious - why play Bonny At Morn in Em? Would Am not fall more readily under the fingers, or do people generally not have an Fnat key? -- References 1. mailto:[2]anth...@robbpipes.com To get on or off this list see list information at [3]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://uk.mc5.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=anth...@robbpipes.com 2. http://uk.mc5.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=anth...@robbpipes.com 3. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: tuning tapered bore chanters
Yup, agreed! I have been using the same reamer in the same place for all the original chanter blanks. In the end it was a reed issue that changed the course of my itterations as there was too much length in the blades that was causing terrible flatness in the top hand. I seem to have it now (just about!) but I totally agree with your comments compared to smallpipe chanters, they are much easier to produce consistently. I am also discovering the frustration in what you say about the uncertainty in the conical bore system!! ;) Best Wishes Alec -Original Message- From: rosspi...@aol.com [mailto:rosspi...@aol.com] Sent: 08 March 2009 12:42 To: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: tuning tapered bore chanters Dear Alec, The secret is to stick to one reamer that is inserted to exactly the same position for each chanter you make and you may get consistent results as you jockey the hole positions around with subsequent chanters you make. Even then the quality of the wood will affect the tuning so you can never be absolutely certain you are going to get the result you want with each new chanter you make. And then there is the variable nature of the reeds you make. Much easier to make SSP chanters. Colin R - -Original Message- From: rosspi...@aol.com To: a...@lauriebeck.co.uk Sent: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 12:41 Subject: tuning tapered bore chanters Dear Alec, The secret is to stick to one reamer that is inserted to exactly the same position for each chanter you make and you may get consistent results as you jockey the hole positions around with subsequent chanters you make. Even then the quality of the wood will affect the tuning so you can never be absolutely certain you are going to get the result you want with each new chanter you make. And then there is the variable nature of the reeds you make. Much easier to make SSP chanters. Colin R -Original Message- From: Alec a...@lauriebeck.co.uk To: n...@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 12:08 Subject: [NSP] Re: malcom's final solution 0 I've been having a go at making a Border chanter in 'A'. I've measured and collected plans for chanters and had five different designs to study and try and work out how the thing ticks. I bored and turned 7 chanters in order to do some fingerhole itteration. My first attempt was based on my collective research. It didn't work so I moved some tone holes. Still didn't work. I looked at the reed and applied some backround knowledge of rectifying problems with GHB reed/chanter and suddenly things took a turn for the better. I changed my tone holes again. Once, twice, three times. Hey presto! A chanter that plays. Mind you, there is undercutting here and there, especially on certain notes like 'F' and 'E' that were very sensitive to reed design. What I'm trying to say is that I tried the 'measure every chanter route' and apart from an initial starting point, it got me absolutely nowhere. I'm sure my chanter will evolve still further but it is only doing so because I am learning so much about the reed, it's interactions with individual notes and all the little things that you can and can't do to get a result. Cheers Alec -Original Message- From: Philip Gruar [mailto:phi...@gruar.clara.net] Sent: 07 March 2009 14:10 To: Malcolm Sargeant Cc: n...@cs.dartmouth.edu Subject: [NSP] Re: malcom's final solution Dear Malcolm, Yes of course - I read your post more carefully after sending mine, and see that you were in fact referring to an old chanter rather than something one of our current pipemakers had done. Sorry to have reacted over-hastily! I agree that some research and collating of measurements may be interesting and useful, though of course finger hole positioning is, and always has been with all wind instruments, a compromise between theoretical calculated positions and positions where the player's fingers can move most easily, and then undercut and adjusted for accurate tuning - making compromises and decisions to accomodate the balance between pure and tempered intevals. I do drill my fingerholes in the same very carefully measured places on all my chanters, though these have been refined and slightly changed over the years. However, the undercutting and fine tuning is always subtly different. I'm afraid I don't think chanter tuning can be reduced to an exact science, precisely the same on every instrument! Philip - Original Message - From: Malcolm Sargeant malcolm.sargea...@ntlworld.com To: Philip Gruar phi...@gruar.clara.net Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 9:00 PM Subject: Re: [NSP] Re: malcom's final solu tion Dear Philip thank you for your mail. the half inch tone hole sizes came from a Fred Picknell chanter about 100 year old and been in constant use. This chanter belongs to Tommy Breckons and is in use today. I have had it here at Scunthorpe
