Welcome to
the forums at bobdunsire.com
bobdunsire.com forums bobdunsire.com forums
You can reset your password by going here. Be sure to try your current email and any email addresses you may have had in the past.
Otherwise please use the Contact Us link at the bottom of the forums. In order to help you, please provide the following info: Your Display Name from the old forum and any possible email addresses you would have used before. Without that info we cannot locate your account.


Go Back   Bob Dunsire Bagpipe Forums > Great Highland Bagpipe > Technique & Instrument
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Technique & Instrument Related to techniques, to the instrument, to the components, to maintenance.

Platinum Sponsors
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-12-2018, 04:00 AM   #31
Mainebagpipes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Maine
Posts: 57
Default Re: Tone Protector vs. Pipers Pal

Rather than implying it's merely a gimmick, why not pick one up and do some testing, or see if someone in your area will loan you one?

My first pipe teacher's advice was the same as the advice you have from Jack. Good, old-school piping know-how. Sucking on the reed a bit before playing to add some moisture works. 20ish years of playing later, my experience has been that the Tone Protector is more reliable.

I didn't pick a Tone Protector up out of the blue. My band bought Piper's Pals earlier this year. Rather than buying another Piper's Pal cap, I switched one from a solo chanter to my band chanter and got a Tone Protector cap from Jori (on sale) to replace it. I noticed enough of a difference that I ended up picking up a second one for my backup chanter.

Long story short, if you try, it you may find you like it. If you don't want to try it, no one's forcing you.
Mainebagpipes is offline   Reply With Quote
Gold Sponsor
Old 10-12-2018, 05:53 AM   #32
Jim Fogelman
Holy smoking keyboard!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,874
Default Re: Tone Protector vs. Pipers Pal

So is Jack the only member of SFU who doesn't use the Tone Protector since all he needs (or at least needed however many years ago you heard him speak) is to suck on the reed a little?
__________________
You don't have fun by winning. You win by having fun.
Jim Fogelman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 07:06 AM   #33
3D Piper
Holy smoking keyboard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Hattiesburg, MS
Posts: 1,070
Default Re: Tone Protector vs. Pipers Pal

Some are taught to never wet the chanter reed. EVER... Others may add a wee bit of moisture or even (shutter!) lick the chanter reed.. If you read older threads, you'll see both methods suggested. Outside of the bagpipe world, other woodwinds routinely wet their reeds to keep a warmer tone and maintain reed playability. Then again, bellows blown pipes never get any moisture on their reeds. Do what works for you!

-Matthew
3D Piper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 08:36 AM   #34
Green Piper
Holy smoking keyboard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,548
Default Re: Tone Protector vs. Pipers Pal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley G View Post
Doug, how much are you offering and do you have PayPal?


If you do what Jack Lee suggested you only have to pay for some spit, not an expensive gimmick.


When the makers state all the things that these gimmicks can do it is reasonable to expect some evidence to support the claims. None provided. Self praise is no recommendation.


If you want to keep your reeds damp, get a glass jar and put a sponge in it soaked with mouthwash. Lots of moisture and not many bugs. You could fashion a piece of pvc conduit to fit over your reed and put a wet sponge down the end of the conduit and this would also work. Not expensive either.



If it works, provide the technical information and the supporting evidence. How hard can it be? In some countries it is actually required under consumer protection legislation. Evidence, not rhetoric.

I do know of a fellow piper who fashioned his own “ToneProtector” out of PVC parts. He even uses the same Boveda packets. It works and cost him a lot less. Even he noticed a significant improvement.

So..... the system works. Plus, in using the controlled humidity packs, the reed moisture is controlled. Too damp, and you run the risk of rot.

I have other “gimmicks” that may or may not work. I use and love the DroneDri system. Have always wondered if air rushing through the drying canisters can really be dried sufficiently for synthetic reeds. However, the bore size certainly improved the drone stability of the vintage Robertson drones plus, I can simply unscrew the drones from my bag and store them without worrying about removing the drone reeds.

The best “gimmicks” I have found right now for tone and moisture control are Gannaway tie-in bag, modern ABW Shepherd chanter, Trap-Dri split stock, DroneDri, ToneProtector, Highlander seasoning, synthetic Ezeedrone and Kinnaird drone reeds. I suppose being English and not Scottish, I must be a gimmick too!

Charlie
__________________
"Melancholy as the Drone of a Lancashire Bagpipe" (Behn, Aphra 1678. Sir Patient Fancy)
Green Piper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 12:12 PM   #35
Stephanie Allen
Forum Regular
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 253
Default Re: Tone Protector vs. Pipers Pal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley G View Post

The mere assertion, in the absence of any evidence is merely an assertion.

[...] it would still only be an unsubstantiated opinion in the absence of credible technical evidence.

I will bet there is not an independent technical assessment of these devices as to their ability to actively control RH anywhere to be found. Just opinions, cleaver marketing and salesmanship.
Museums routinely use silica gel to passively modify environments in an enclosed space (such as a showcase). There is a lot of proven science behind this and it is an accepted practice that has been demonstrated to work predictably. Museum all over the world protect their treasures in a predictable and stable environment using this premise and similar materials.
You can review the science, formulas etc here: https://cool.conservation-us.org/waa.../wn23-206.html

I do not own a Tone Protector, but the theory is sound and the science can be extrapolated from the practices I see every day at work.
__________________
Stephanie Allen
@piperchickYYZ
Stephanie Allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2018, 01:30 PM   #36
el gaitero
Holy smoking keyboard!
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Estados Unidos
Posts: 6,152
Default Re: Tone Protector vs. Pipers Pal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanie Allen View Post
Museums routinely use silica gel to passively modify environments in an enclosed space (such as a showcase). There is a lot of proven science behind this and it is an accepted practice that has been demonstrated to work predictably. Museum all over the world protect their treasures in a predictable and stable environment using this premise and similar materials.
You can review the science, formulas etc here: https://cool.conservation-us.org/waa.../wn23-206.html

I do not own a Tone Protector, but the theory is sound and the science can be extrapolated from the practices I see every day at work.
Interestingly...?...thruout Asia jewelers routinely keep a glass of water in their display case ...especially pearl displays..as well as ( rosewood) furniture stores keep glasses of h2o dispersed around their showroom.
el gaitero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 05:19 AM   #37
Harley G
Forum Member - Shy or Quiet
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 23
Default Re: Tone Protector vs. Pipers Pal

Please read the following from the Stephanie reference making particular reference to the first point, particularly the part about case leakage.


It is not reasonable to compare apples with a bowl of goldfish.


Also look at the temperature ranges and actual RH levels.


I make the point that has anyone provided any substantiated technical evidence that these devices do what is reported by the makers?


If the reed is wet when it is put into the case it would be at saturation point. 100% RH, yes? If these devices can control RH at a claimed 87% then the reed is going to be dryer than it's optimum operating moisture level when you again start to use it.



If the silica can only absorb 40% (aprox) of it's weight in moisture and it is fully exposed to the atmosphere through the chanter, it has already absorbed moisture from the atmosphere at the RH of the environment before it has actually started to allegedly control RH. It is therefore unable to operate at the theoretical maximum potential of the medium.



It is so easy to measure the moisture content of the reed when it is put into the protectors and then again once it is removed, a kid can do it. And I have. I bet you don't find these figures on the maker's web site rhetoric.


If there are figures then produce them to justify the gross expense. While I wait for this I will just suck on my reeds as per the advice of JL. His piping medals and awards are recommendation enough for me pending something more credible.







Conclusions

Based upon the experimental and computer simulation results of this study, the following conclusions can be made:
  • All three gels would provide effective RH control using Thomson's recommendation of 20 kg/m3 if the case leakage rate is 1 ACD or less.
  • On a pound for pound basis, Artengel has a higher buffering capacity than either regular density silica gel or Art-Sorb.
  • On a cost basis, regular density silica gel and Artengel have about the same cost for a given amount of buffering capacity while Art-Sorb has twice the cost.
  • Over the RH range of 30-60%, Artengel has a consistent performance, while Art-Sorb performs better above 50% and regular density silica gel performs better below 40%.
  • For the conditions investigated, a case with a leakage rate of greater than 2 ACD would require more than 30 kg/m3 of gel in order to keep the display case RH fluctuation at 10% or below over a one year period.
  • For the conditions investigated, a case with a leakage rate of 2 ACD or less would require 5-30 kg/m3 of gel to keep display case RH fluctuations to 10% or less over a one year period.
Harley G is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 06:47 AM   #38
el gaitero
Holy smoking keyboard!
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Estados Unidos
Posts: 6,152
Default Re: Tone Protector vs. Pipers Pal

..a thinking mans analysis. Good stuff. I was going to go for similar on BDF way back when the TP first appeared. But limited my view simply to ..with an end always open to the environment how could it be totally effective.

I get its concept...but would rather just blow in my reed naturally each session. Save the $80 for a few new reeds,when needed etc.
el gaitero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 10:02 AM   #39
Green Piper
Holy smoking keyboard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,548
Default Re: Tone Protector vs. Pipers Pal

What actually is the humidity control substance inside the Boveda packs?

Your “studies” cite silica gel and relatives of it.

The simple fact of the ToneProtector is that the reed is stored in a much more stable environment in term of RH. Furthermore, the RH meter tells me that the reed is at an RH of 84% or whatever. In my pipes, it’ll be something more like 96%. You state 100% which may be the case if you’re wet.

Sure, there’s an opening/leakage of the humidity via the open end of the chanter, but how significant is this? What measurements have you done on a chanter/reed inside a TP to compare it directly to the values mentioned in your research article? Even with leakage, there’ll be a humidity gradient down the length of the chanter anyway. A basic understanding of physics is all that is required to appreciate that.

For me, I have used the TP and it made improvements in warm-up time and stability during the first ten minutes of playing time. I found this extremely useful during competitions where I had to coordinate my warmup and tuning times with getting my kids warmed up ready to play their solo drum competitions. In fact, in a couple of competitions, I was able to do a quick tune-up, get my kid to his drumming judge, get back to my pipes and jump right onto the boards for my competition (2 minutes to steady nerves) and into my tunes. I have got great comments on tone, tuning, and steadiness, not so good for my piping skills sadly!

So, I’d strongly suggest that you stop dissing a respected piper who has produced a popular product. If you really dislike it, go produce evidence to show it to be useless.

We await your research results.
__________________
"Melancholy as the Drone of a Lancashire Bagpipe" (Behn, Aphra 1678. Sir Patient Fancy)
Green Piper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2018, 12:41 PM   #40
Doug Walton
Forum Gold Medal
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: U.P. of Michigan, USA
Posts: 581
Default Re: Tone Protector vs. Pipers Pal

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley G View Post
Please read the following from the Stephanie reference making particular reference to the first point, particularly the part about case leakage.


It is not reasonable to compare apples with a bowl of goldfish.


Also look at the temperature ranges and actual RH levels.


I make the point that has anyone provided any substantiated technical evidence that these devices do what is reported by the makers?


If the reed is wet when it is put into the case it would be at saturation point. 100% RH, yes? If these devices can control RH at a claimed 87% then the reed is going to be dryer than it's optimum operating moisture level when you again start to use it.



If the silica can only absorb 40% (aprox) of it's weight in moisture and it is fully exposed to the atmosphere through the chanter, it has already absorbed moisture from the atmosphere at the RH of the environment before it has actually started to allegedly control RH. It is therefore unable to operate at the theoretical maximum potential of the medium.



It is so easy to measure the moisture content of the reed when it is put into the protectors and then again once it is removed, a kid can do it. And I have. I bet you don't find these figures on the maker's web site rhetoric.


If there are figures then produce them to justify the gross expense. While I wait for this I will just suck on my reeds as per the advice of JL. His piping medals and awards are recommendation enough for me pending something more credible.







Conclusions

Based upon the experimental and computer simulation results of this study, the following conclusions can be made:
  • All three gels would provide effective RH control using Thomson's recommendation of 20 kg/m3 if the case leakage rate is 1 ACD or less.
  • On a pound for pound basis, Artengel has a higher buffering capacity than either regular density silica gel or Art-Sorb.
  • On a cost basis, regular density silica gel and Artengel have about the same cost for a given amount of buffering capacity while Art-Sorb has twice the cost.
  • Over the RH range of 30-60%, Artengel has a consistent performance, while Art-Sorb performs better above 50% and regular density silica gel performs better below 40%.
  • For the conditions investigated, a case with a leakage rate of greater than 2 ACD would require more than 30 kg/m3 of gel in order to keep the display case RH fluctuation at 10% or below over a one year period.
  • For the conditions investigated, a case with a leakage rate of 2 ACD or less would require 5-30 kg/m3 of gel to keep display case RH fluctuations to 10% or less over a one year period.
Now I remember you. You’re the troll who wandered in here 8 months ago and started a time-wasting crapfest with your long-winded, weird, and annoying comments about Colin Kyo chanters and Murray Huggins.

I thought you’d left for good. But sadly, you’re back, trolling away.
Doug Walton is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Silver Sponsor

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:40 AM.