Norden Sackpipa Association of the Americas (NSAA) Forum Index Norden Sackpipa Association of the Americas (NSAA)
Jerry Revelle in memoriam
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

different wood choices for pipes?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Norden Sackpipa Association of the Americas (NSAA) Forum Index -> Norden Sackpipa Association of the Americas (NSAA)
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
chad_fross



Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 37
Location: Seoul Korea

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:50 pm    Post subject: different wood choices for pipes? Reply with quote

Hi all, I just ordered some very deeply colored purpleheart wood and some very nice looking bocote. I understand that both woods are very dense and the purpleheart wood can be a little splintery to work with, but takes a very nice finish when sanded and finished. I was considering making a set of pipes using the purple heartwood for the blowstick, chanter and drone, and using some of the bocote for the bell-end of the chanter, and the ferruls of the drone. I was also considering making the stocks out of the purple heartwood, and making a small thickness cap of bocote on the bottom of the stock. These would of course be laminated together prior to boring and turning. I have also a source for some extremely curly maple that might look great as well. Just wondering if anyone has any experience with woods like this for pipes..........curious on anyone's thoughts as to tone and what not...........and maybe even some basic considerations concerning turning and boring this particular wood. I will be turning it in a well ventilated area, with the lathe being hooked up to a vacume system.
Anyone else have success with other non-traditional woods and would like to comment on what they have done?
thanks
Chad
_________________
Chad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Quimbisero



Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have seen instruments made from all of the woods you've mentioned and think they are all adequate. I have not to date used any of them so I can offer no direct insights on these choices.

I have however threatened several times to make a set of pipes using both purpleheart and osage orange together, but that is just for the sake of the outrageous color combination. So far, cooler heads have prevailed.

Eoghan
_________________
Nzambi munzulu Nzambi muntoto.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri
Senior User


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 149
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Purpleheart will darken with time from the vivid purple it starts with to a dark brown, looking more or less like Rio rosewood or cocobolo. It turns and drills well. Some very few freak pieces don't seem to darken much, and some people used UV block finishes with varying results.
Can't comment on the bocote, never worked with that.
As to unusual woods, I live in New Zealand, and there are a whole lot of them. Unfortunately none are exported, for conservation reasons. However, here is a partial list of really great timbers that I worked with.
Rata. A very dense wood, according to some handbooks the second densest wood on Earth. Pinkish to dark brown.
Black Maire. Fantastic, very dense, very stable, a gorgeous "antique brown" colour with an intricate pattern.
Manuka and Kanuka. Described as NZ boxwood
Pittosporums. A family of some 50, they work and feel like boxwood, too, paler, and have an ivory-like pattern on the crosscut.
There are heaps more. 70% of NZ wood is endemic, that is it doesn't occure anywhere else. And a lot of it is very hard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chad_fross



Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 37
Location: Seoul Korea

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:33 am    Post subject: purpleheart and bocote Reply with quote

Wow, that is very reassuring news. I like the idea of the purpleheart darkening with age. Yes, it is my intentions of making the pipes using purplewood and using the bocote sparingly as the ferrules and the bell end of the chanter. I have also been considering the combination for a set of smallpipes if I ever get around to it. I know that in scottish pipemaking, blackwood is the mainstay. In sackpipa making, I think maybe there is somewhat of a mainstay in Birch, but everyone seems to be making sackpipa out of lots of different woods. I like this approach to experimentation. I cannot believe (as far as scottish pipe maker's) that blackwood is the only "best" tonewood for reeded pipes. And if my combonation works well (tonally) and looks nice after being played for a while, I may just keep using it. When I finally get the wood and get a set completed, I will post pictures and an mp3 file sound sample. I am still looking for anyone willing to make a couple of bags for me Smile
Chad

By the way, thanks for including the bit about NZ hardwoods. I would sure love to get my hands on some of that..........too bad for me.
_________________
Chad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Olle
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 435
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you asked a physicist he/she would tell you that the only way the choice of wood could affect the tone is in how smooth one can make the inner wall. If you asked a musician you might get another answer, but the physicist have better evidence to back up his/her claim. I am not a physicist, but I am a scientist so I prefer to believe the physicist.

Apart from the inner wall, the rest of the wood does not affect the sound. It is not resonating (well, not much anyway, as opposed to the wood in the body of a violin, for example, where the choice of material really matters). What is resonating in a chanter is the air column inside - along the length of the chanter, not against its sides. The material is only there to shape the column (a cylinder in our case).

Now, most of the energy in that resonating air column (more than 90%, I believe) is along its outer edge, i.e. along the inner wall. So, there it matters, not direcly on what it is made of, but on how smooth it is. Put simply, if the inside is fluffy, so is the sound. The crispness disappears. Fluff kills the over tones. And it is probably easier to make the bore smooth if you build in denser wood.

I once built a Swedish bagpipe using chromed copper tubing for both drones and chanter (and mouth piece actually, but my teeth did not like it). It looked great and the sound was indistinguishable from that of a conventional set.
_________________
Info on Swedish bagpipes at http://olle.gallmo.se/sackpipa
More about me at http://olle.gallmo.se
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Quimbisero



Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olle,

Thank you for your insightful comments. A number of forums on piping and pipesmaking contain a great deal of folklore about the qualities of materials used for making instruments. Such beliefs are often strongly held and the proponents of these views are often remarkably resistant to considering objective evidence if it contradicts their treasured ideas.

As an academic folklorist, I am not at all unsympathetic, mind you. However, I prefer to be informed by an understanding of the properties of acoustics and physics, as well as I am able to understand them, when making instruments. While I do not privilege science over other forms of knowledge, it does provide, however faulty the premise may be that our senses provide a totally valid means of apprehending objective reality, useful and practical information.

Eoghan
_________________
Nzambi munzulu Nzambi muntoto.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri
Senior User


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 149
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olle, I have had some serious grounding in physics, math, chemistry and others. So I started out having a view fairly much like yours. Then I started making flue type pipes, recorders and others. Well, you get the idea already from my site. Weellll, the wood does make a difference. Otherwise there would be no point of not making all top-notch recorders from concrete. The wood itself resonates, too, and sets up secondary waves. It also reflects the pressure of the air column in different ways, depending on the species. It also absorbs moisture in different patterns. It also absorbs the actual waves in different patterns, too. Then it's about how differently it responds to changes in moisture/temperature of the athmosphere. The shrinkage/expansion ratio.
These are all physical aspects. Consider the fact that music is not just physics, otherwise computers would make by far the best music around. (with today's trends it looks like quite a lot of people would agree, too) There is (at least, for now) the other side, too. The musician just simply will feel different about using a maple one from a blackwood one. And that, however unscientific it is, will influence their playing quality. I think we all can tell a bamboo flute from a wooden one purely by sound. There surely must be a reason.
The thing about science, much as I personally am for it, that it tends to work with a simplified model, rather than a complete one. It is, of course the only way to get ahead,( you can hardly make a perfect model of the universe without literally reproducing it again in full), but it also means that secondary, less influential effects are often , of necessity, ignored, at least for the general picture. I'm sure this is exactly the case in this instance, when it comes to musical instruments. Just try to make a violin top from ebony. It will sound, all right, but how?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Olle
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 435
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Otherwise there would be no point of not making all top-notch recorders from concrete.


There are very good reasons not to build recorders from concrete, I'm sure, but sound is not likely to be one of them. Traverse flutes have been made in concrete, and compared to other materials in blind tests. Don't know if that test has been made for recorders, though.

Quote:
I think we all can tell a bamboo flute from a wooden one purely by sound.


Sorry, Yuri, but I don't think we could, no. This has been tested over and over again. Look here, for example: http://iwk.mdw.ac.at/Forschung/english/linortner/linortner_e.htm

You are right about physicists basing their claims on models that may turn out to be too simplistic. But this particular model has been tested subjectively many times, in front of blindfolded professional musicians. If it had failed such tests, the model would have been extended to try to explain how the musicians can hear a difference which is not explained by the simple model. But, so far, the model holds.

Quote:
The musician just simply will feel different about using a maple one from a blackwood one.


I can't argue with you there. That's definitely an important aspect. But, to me, that is all there is to it: psychology.

All this said with the deepest respect for differences in opinion, of course. But personally, I don't buy it.
_________________
Info on Swedish bagpipes at http://olle.gallmo.se/sackpipa
More about me at http://olle.gallmo.se
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Olle
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 435
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

PostPosted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 12:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would like to add that, in my opinion and for our instrument in particular, the Swedish bagpipe, whether the choice of wood makes a difference or not is a minor issue. Even if Yuri is right and there is such a difference, it is completely overshadowed by the difference in sound between two different reeds! Even if made by the same maker and cut from the same stem.
_________________
Info on Swedish bagpipes at http://olle.gallmo.se/sackpipa
More about me at http://olle.gallmo.se
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Yuri
Senior User


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 149
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think a test more to the point would be using the very same reeds on two pipes made exactly to the same design, but with different materials. Say, a sakpipa from birch (a relatively soft wood) and blackwood (a very hard one) And playing both with only the same two reeds. Apart from the player feeling the difference in no uncertain terms, I'd guess that a blind test would have musically inclined listeners guessing correctly just a bit above mathematical average. Having said all that, I have to add that in my opinion there is no such thing as "better" or "worse" sound. They are just different. And as to recorders, the wood matters more simply because the lip (edge, fipple, whatever, there is no accepted standard nomenclature) is extremely thin, and gets warm moisture-laden air soaking it in seconds, so it will behave very differently in half an hour's time if it is birch from if it is rosewood. I agree though that in bagpipes this difference is far less crucial.
Just one more thought. The blind tests are always conducted with listeners participating. I fancy if the players were given blind tests, the results would be rather different. Even though they couldn't feel with the fingers any differences. I mean, I'm not talking about concrete, where you actually can feel it. But still on this subject, there have been excellent baroque recorders made from fine terracotta clay. The players certainly could hear the difference. And of course, there are many examples of baroque flutes (traversos) made of porcellaine and glass. Both these materials had their own adherents in their time, and they certainly did not treat the materials as interchangeable with no discernible effect.
In case of organs, why would be wooden pipes within the same instrument made often from different timbers? Cedar and oak are favourites. And your way, in Denmark the Compenius has all of it's 30 ranks made of wood. All different wood, I have to add.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
pipercozza



Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 5
Location: Brisbane Australia

PostPosted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi all,
my two sense on this topic-
well i think its a personal preferance as to what wood you use. i made my first sackpipa about 3 weeks ago from banksia. it is a close grained but fairly soft wood. the bores were almost mirror smooth and the reeds were great. it sounded great. on thursday this week a built chanter #3 from a wood called myall. it is a very hard and dense outback acacia tree. this chanter had almost mirror smooth bores built with the exact dimentions of the first, but it had nearly half again more volume than the banksia chanter and it had a much brighter and harmonic tone. today i built another drone to go with the new chanter. i made it from iron wood, wich as the name suggests is VERY dense and Very hard. this drone had a lot of volume and a bright tone. now, i must say i think i like the myall chanter with the banksia drone. it has a much softer and melower tone than the iron wood one. however i also realy like the iron wood one. so, i would think that in the matter of what wood one uses to make their insturment from, it should be purely up to your sound preferances. weather you like soft and mellow ( a soft wood) or bright, crisp and harmonic (hard wood) is entirely up to you.
i could go on to say what you make the bag out of has a surprising effect to, or the tapering out the bores of the stocks inside the bag helps harmonics and tuning, but i think thats a bit of another issue.
cheers
cory
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Yuri
Senior User


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 149
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olle, I thought about this whole issue, and am more and more convinced that the catch is as follows: In science, as you pointed out, the norm is to build a simplified model, compare it to the real world, and if it doesn't match, look for the secondary effects to correct the model. Well, in this case the testing method is flawed. Simply, the blind tests conducted on listeners are the wrong testing. When you test a new car, no-one asks a spectator what he thinks. It's the driver that matters. You can take an engine out of a Volvo and replace it with one from a Trabant. (funny thought, though) And believe or not, from a point of view of a spectator (provided he is deaf), both cars get from point A to point B much the same. It's quite irrelevant. The drivers will tell you quite another story, as you can imagine.Same with instruments. For some reason it's never the players that are asked.
Pipercozza is a player, he can obviously hear a hell of a difference, as you can see. What a bunch of listeners would think about the Banksia v. Ironwood is open to speculation, but my guess is that even if they notice things, that will be much closer to just guessing.
Hey, Pipercozza, care to conduct an experiment?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Yuri
Senior User


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 149
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, Cory. Didn't notice the signature until posted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
pipercozza



Joined: 20 Jan 2007
Posts: 5
Location: Brisbane Australia

PostPosted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

yuri,
im always up for an experiment. what were you thinking of?
cheers
cory
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Yuri
Senior User


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 149
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, a blind test between as many listeners as you can find that are not likely to lynch you, and another between as many players as you can find. Just to test if my whole point has a foundation. As in listeners guessing within mathematical probability, and players being spot on nearly every time.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Quimbisero



Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally, I'd rather get as many players and listeners together as possible and then give them all blind taste tests on a selection of good beers until none of them can tell the difference and / or play another tune. Twisted Evil

Eoghan
_________________
Nzambi munzulu Nzambi muntoto.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chad_fross



Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 37
Location: Seoul Korea

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:12 pm    Post subject: pipe wood Reply with quote

Olle, although I respect your experienced opinion and knowledge in everything I see you post.......I have to somewhat disagree with you here. Of course, as of yet my only basis for comparison are two highland bagpipes. One with Chanter and drones made of polypenco and one with chanter and drones being made from African blackwood. Now keep in mind that when comparing to highland bagpipes (as opposed to comparing two Swedish Sackpipa) the sound volume is rather awesome to say the least. The important part about more volume............it causes the material of the pipe to resonate much "harder". This is plainly evident when you play a set of GHB, then put them down and play a set of smallpipes.....Huge difference. Also, the walls of a highland chanter are very thin, sometimes thiner than that of even a rustic cane flute. I can tell you from my experience (and many highland pipers will tell you the exact same thing) that there is a distinct difference in the tonal qualities of the two pipes. I can't explain it. I don't know the how or why. But I, as well as many others can tell the difference right away (even using the same drone/chanter reed set-up and strength).
On another note, as it pertains to wood being either hard (dense) or soft, that also seems to have a distinct impact on the tone of the pipe as well. Again, my experience in this is related to the Welsh Pibgorn (hornpipe) and Pibgorn bagpipe. I have made many pibgorn from various materials. I use the same type of cane to make as identical reeds as I can for these pipes (if nothing more than the fact that the measurement of reed I use, works for my pipes as far as tuning and stability). I have made a few of these pipes from Elder, which is a fairly soft wood (not as soft as pine, but soft anyway). I have made them from black walnut and even curly maple. The first elder pibgorn I made was made with a handsaw, pocket knife and burning rod (elder having a soft pithy center, needing no boring other than to burn or push the pith out). Needless to say, the bore was not exactly smooth. The pibgorn pipes made from the other woods were bored and turned with smooth bores. If I want a louder, tonally "harder" pipe, I would pick up one of the turned/smoothbored/hardwood pibgorn. If I want a sweet, haunting pipe, I pick up a "naturally" bored elder pipe. And on pibgorn bagpipe, a hardwood chanter with a semi-softwood (in my case elder) drone is a great combo. The drone seems to support the chanter without matching it for volume (yet it's presence is still known), and the chanter has the right properties to cut through and say it's piece.
But, I am not a scientist, just have a good ear. And that is my 2cents, as it were.
When I started this thread I did not know it would spark this debate...........it never even crossed my mind. I just assumed that everyone knew that different materials will creat slightly different tones, just as different combinations of reeds or cane type can change the tone. I don't think I was really looking for specific answers so much as I was looking for other's experiences in woods that they have used and which woods they prefer and like best. Keep in mind, that if I use a larger, thinner tongued reed in the same wooden pipes, and bring the bridle up to tune with the pipe, the pipe softens and mellows some. If I make an elder or elder like wooden reed (which can be suprisingly stable if cut right) has a very good presence, yet is still very sweet in one of these hardwood pipes. Just a few ideas to throw out there. Hope this one is not drawing any lines
Chad
_________________
Chad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Olle
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 435
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

PostPosted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
... the testing method is flawed. ... For some reason it's never the players that are asked.


No, because that would be flawed. It would not measure what we want to measure and isolate here - sound difference. The player's experience is composed of many other things than just the sound. Not a fair test.

I'm not denying that the material makes a difference to the player. Of course it does. If I did not believe that I would not play the instruments I play. It's just whether there is a sound difference or not we disagree on, and your test would not measure that. Testing it on a blind audience of experienced musicians does.

Somehow, I knew that my first post would lead to reactions ... :-)
_________________
Info on Swedish bagpipes at http://olle.gallmo.se/sackpipa
More about me at http://olle.gallmo.se
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Yuri
Senior User


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 149
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It certainly does.
Well, another example. Take a professional cook. He's given a new gizmo, say some sort of super-duper mincer to try out. The point is , it is a tool of his trade, His trade is not self-serving, it is to satisfy the customer. As far as he is concerned, the tool might or might not make a huge difference. As far as the diner is concerned, he is given a good meal that for him there is no way to tell apart. Even though there does exist a huge difference between the two preparation processes.
Now, substitute musician for cook, and listener for diner.
Having said all this, I do have a respect for other's views, even if it doesn't necesserily come across very clearly. And I'm not actually getting hot under the collar. Grrrr, GGrrrr!!.
No, Olle, I'm perfectly aware of your view, it's far from the first time I've come across it. And, yes, I also know of the blind tests, and quite understand the view, too. Being a player, however, I think that as instruments are tools, not the end result in themselves, it's the users of these tools that they are aimed at, not the listeners. Therefore it's the users' views that should matter.
Yuri
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
frodemo



Joined: 25 Feb 2007
Posts: 12
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, talking about materials and stuff:
Here's a picture of a säckpipa made with recycling in mind.
I built it probably around 10 years ago when I was bored and needed something to have fun with.
The bag is a rubber glove and a raincoat, stocks from pvc, rubber plugs and copper pipes.
When I first tried it, I was totally amazed with the sound quality of it. Sounded like any other säckpipa I had heard. Lucky shot, maybe.

Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
A fun thing I used to do with it was to tape the fingers of the glove in such a manner that a certain finger was pointing up in the sky, so to speak.
_________________
Like I always say: I never repeat myself
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Quimbisero



Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yuri wrote:
Take a professional cook. He's given a new gizmo, say some sort of super-duper mincer to try out. The point is , it is a tool of his trade, His trade is not self-serving, it is to satisfy the customer. As far as he is concerned, the tool might or might not make a huge difference.


I understand your point, but being a professional does not exempt anyone from the risk of accepting a logical fallacy as fact. Logical fallacies often appear, well, logical.

Eoghan
_________________
Nzambi munzulu Nzambi muntoto.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yuri
Senior User


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 149
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I had in mind is not logical. It's a blind test, still, just with people who play, rather then listen. I think most players will recognize the different effects of instruments made frokm different woods. The emphasis here is not on whether it's better or worse, but on that it's not the same. I don't think logic comes into it, it's feeling it or not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Quimbisero



Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suspect that is what both Olle and i maintain, that most pipers feel that different woods make a difference.

Eoghan
_________________
Nzambi munzulu Nzambi muntoto.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Olle
Site Admin


Joined: 21 Oct 2006
Posts: 435
Location: Uppsala, Sweden

PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed! Try biting down on the mouth piece on Peter's punk säckpipa depicted above. It'll hurt! :-)

Peter, myself and percussionist Hassi Nilsson (now resident in the USA) had a trio in the second half of the 1990's called Härfågel (Hoopoe). We played music under the motto "the right music, on the wrong instruments" (or was it the other way around? :-). Anyway, Peter's punk bagpipe was part of the instrumentarium then. We had lot's of fun with it.
_________________
Info on Swedish bagpipes at http://olle.gallmo.se/sackpipa
More about me at http://olle.gallmo.se
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
chad_fross



Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 37
Location: Seoul Korea

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:17 pm    Post subject: Piper's ear vs scientific "facts"??? Reply with quote

That is a neat conversation piece, the copper pipe sackpipa. The same thing has been done with PVC pipe and Scottish smallpipes and Highland Pipes. Sure, It sounds suprisingly like a "real" set of smallpipes or Highland pipes. But...........and bear with me here.... it IS a tube with finger holes and sounded with a reed powered by air forced into the reed from the bag, supplied by the human lungs. Reed+tube+finger holes+forced air = a reed instrument. Yes, we all understand this. The science and physics of the the instrument is going to be the same regardless of the material. Great. The one thing that will probably always be debated is the sound QUALITY. Sure, both instruments work EXACTLY the same, which I'm sure we will all agree can be easily proven in any lab study. Sure, an old VW Beetle operates using the same combustion engine and "science" as a brand new Jaguar. But I'm am willing to go out on a limb here and say that about 95% of the people that test drive the old Beetle, then test drive the Jag would all agree that the Jag drives better, smoother, "sweeter", and even "purrs" smoother than the Old rough and tumble Beetle. The science of how and why it works and runs is still the same. The materials are the same. (metal, plastic, fuel of some sort, oxygen, etc) but the outcome is significantly different. Sure, the Beetle will get you from point A to point B just as the Jaguar will. But thing you have to contend with is "how" you got from point A to point B. Science is all good and dandy, without it we would not really understand even simple things like why the reed causes the pipes to sing as they do. The sound (as we humans experience it) and how HUMANS feel and react to it is something that can't be measured or quantified by any amount of hard "science". It's something that is just "realized". Sure, some will prefer the sound of the plastic or copper tubing pipes to the sound of traditional wooden pipes. Sure, some will prefer the sound of exotic, tight-grained hardwood pipes to their softwood brothers and sisters. I just think that in this arena of human "likes" and "dislikes", it is something much more subjective than what science can "prove" or "disprove". Plus, if I'm not mistaken, at the beginning of this thread I believe I was trying to elicit various preferences from various people, not this huge debate from the scientific community. I personally could give a hog's ear if a listener prefers the sound of a clumsy clay bagpipe over a graceful, easy to play well crafted wooden pipe. I won't play it if I don't PERSONALLY enjoy the way it sounds or "feels"..............................and no amount of science will change the ear of this musician. Unless of course it can give me a better sense of taste Very Happy
Anyway, Olle, I just want to let you know, that you are well respected here, and truly one of the Sackpipa's pioneers. If it had not been for your website, I would probably never have learned about the sackpipa. I also respect your position within the scientific community, and your efforts at higher learning in order to reach your position within it. I am obviously not as learned or experienced in any manner of speaking as you are and will never claim to be. But I know what I like and I know what I don't like, and I'm sure that everyone has preferences which is what I was pretty much asking for. So despite my appearantly vehement opposition to your scientific approach in this particular thread, I am thankful for your efforts in bringing the Swedish bagpipe to the forefront for the rest of us to enjoy and learn. And rest assured, that I DO appreciate differing opinions and thoughts on the matter. I just don't agree that any amount of science will ever be able to tell us just how good one construction material over another will sound to the human ear............"will a set of pipes made from African Bocote will sound better to human ears then a set of pipes made from dried outer membranes of 1,000 tapeworms"? There are probably many scientific facts to know and learn about, but I don't want to know what the ears of science prefer, I want to know what human ears prefer.
_________________
Chad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Yuri
Senior User


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 149
Location: New Zealand

PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

WOW!
That was rather heartfelt.
Just one minor thing. I don't think the point was which is better, just whether there is a difference. Not the same thing.
And just another metaphor. Any woman (or, for that matter man) is from a purely scientific point of view equal in terms of her/his value to the species as a reproductive unit. Now try to expain that to a lovestricken teenager. Or a lovestricken old fart, it doesn't make any difference. That is, that the choice of his/her heart is perfectly identical to any other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chad_fross



Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 37
Location: Seoul Korea

PostPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:26 am    Post subject: changing direction for this thread Reply with quote

I would like to take this opportunity to change the direction and focus of this thread. The back and forth banter (of which I am to blame) is not productive to the group. So, in efforts to curb any unintentional and unwanted confrontations, I would like to try to send this thread into the direction that I originally intended.:

I would like to hear anyone and everyone's personal preference for woods used in Svensk Sackpipa. Even if the preference is one of workability, or what you percieve as different or better tonal qualities. Also, when you list your preferences, please give some detail on your reasons for that preference.

I apologize for allowing this thread (myself) to get "carried away", and vow that this will not happen again. I am truly interested in what woods/ materials people prefer. Hopefully we can breath some new life into this thread Very Happy

Chad
_________________
Chad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
favrepipes



Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 63
Location: Vancouver

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chad, I had a go at turning some olive wood. It was a pleasure to work with both for its turning and machining qualities. It also takes a nice finish. One of the interesting aspects about it is that it didn't soak up any oil like other usually wood does. It's almost as if it is already impregnated with its own natural oils. I have some more on order as well as a small quantity of lychee wood which I bought as an experiment. We'll see how that turns out.
Bo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chad_fross



Joined: 02 Feb 2007
Posts: 37
Location: Seoul Korea

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:31 am    Post subject: Olive Oil sounds fun Reply with quote

Olive wood......I never thought of that..........I'm sure it looks great also. That would be a perfect compliment to the oil I use to oil the bores Very Happy
I don't suppose you mind divulging your source? Where do you order from? I am currently ordering from an ebay seller who has canary wood, walnuts, spalted maples, bloodwood, purpleheart wood, bocote and many different. I would love to try some Olive or even Plum. I especially like the way the plum looks but I can't find a source. Plus I am living in Korea, kind of a damper for companies that won't ship to an APO AP address (American Postal Box).
Thanks for the info Bo, and I really love the look and work of your pipes!
Chad
_________________
Chad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger
Anders Jackson
Senior User


Joined: 28 Nov 2006
Posts: 142
Location: Dalarna, Sweden

PostPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, a listening (and playing, which you also add to the mix) is more than just sound waves in the air.
IF we only should examin the instruments from a sound point of view, then Olles (and mine) point is valid and usefull.

But if you take in account all aspects of an performance, there isn't only the waves in air travelling from instrument to listeners ears. It is the surroundings, what other listeners does.
It is also what the piper feels and express in his pose and face that make impressions to the listeners. And that is dependent on how the piper feels about his instrument.

So when we tell you that there is no major sound difference, we do not say any thing about that other parts. And how that is recieved to listener is all depending on that persons experience, preferences etc.

And that will be perceptived by the listeners as a difference in the instruments, which isn't there. The difference is mostly in the listener (and player, as she also listen), not in an objectiv reality.
So yes, you are also right, as we are. There is just in which context we are looking at the object. A science point is to make it in a clear environment, and measure one thing at a time. Which make everything so much easier to observer, explain and later use in practice. So one thing doesn't make the other untrue. Like you can still belive in a religion and also trust the latest explanation in Sience without having to use some strange, hard to explain alternative "explanation".

Oh, this was a long posting. Sorry.

So, back to the question.
I belive that the material in the reeds is much more important than what material the pipes is made of. Like difference by the soft and hard tone in different sorts of reeds (rondax and the other type, don't remember the names Smile )
_________________
No MSN or ICQ. Only Jabber at <xmpp:anders.jackson@gmail.com>
Änd sorri får maj misspellingz, inglish is nått maj först language.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Norden Sackpipa Association of the Americas (NSAA) Forum Index -> Norden Sackpipa Association of the Americas (NSAA) All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group