Busker Low F thoughts please

[Mikethebook]

Can anyone give me their thoughts on Phil Hardy's Busker Low F please? They sound really nice but what are the air usage, backpressure, and ease of playing the upper second octave like please? And I'm also interested in how the holes are finished. I'm sure they're not deep and rounded like the holes on Goldie's whistles but are they sharp edged?

Many thanks
Mike

[Narzog]

I got a Thunderbird low F and Busker Bb to try, and didn't like either and sold them. The thunderbird should be extremely similar to the newer Busker low GF. The only difference should be it uses a tiny bit more air, and has a slightly shorter windway. some of the issues I had with the mare preference, but some things I think are just bad.

First, the good. The tone is awesome, good classic low whistle tone. Also the air efficiency was incredibly good. Will be a bit worse on the Busker, but will still be good.

Now everything else I didnt like or thought is just bad.

Both whistles were the squeakiest whistles I've ever played. A lot of whistles can make sharp squeaks if you screw up. But this one, maybe the sharpest sounds imaginable, and would still make sharp sounds just on basic cuts and rolls. I don't think I'm the best player ever, but this is just unacceptable. Playing it felt like if you max the treble on your radio, and every time they say somethign wit han "S" you get this suepr sharp Ssssss. That was every cut. No matter how hard I tried, what finger I used, there would be this little Ssss along with every cut, that got old really quickly. My Reyburn low D and Alba low F's can make squeaks if you do something bad, but they don't do it anywhere to the level of the Chieftains I had.

It was also raspy. It had room to pus hthe low end, but if you did it got super raspy sounding. Mostly due to the moisture issues.

Speaking of moisture issues, it had really bad clogging. I did the toothpaste trick, which helped. But it would still always have some moisture in it, and on the windway bevel, which just made it more raspy and Ssssier. The busker model is supposed to improve clogging. but I still thought the Busker Bb had moisture issues. Note though, I'm a very wet player. A dry player will have less issues in this department.

I didnt like how its tuned. This ones a preference thing. The two above are just whistle sins that have no reason to exist when there's whistles that dont squeak and don't clog. I'd say it has a very 'trad' feeling. What I mean, you need to blow the low end softly to not go sharp, and the high end, especially top of second octave, breaks very flat, and needs to be pushed further into tune. This is very different than Burke/Goldie/MK/Alba/Reyburn/Etc, who do things in the windway to make second octave break nearly in tune. Giving almost a conical feel. I find that style is much easier to play in tune, way less room for error. If you liek how Gen and Feadog play, you will prob be fine wit hthe buskers tuning style.

They are definitely harder blowing, and have high back pressure. This isnt a pro or con, just depends what you want. A lot of people seem to liek easier to overblow, giving an easy high end. This isnt that. You can push the low end a bit, and it takes a lot of push to hit the upper second octave in tune. The con comes in, when you link the above. You need to push extra hard to play the second octave in tune, and cant push the low end or it goes sharp. So it kidna has no purpose in being harder blowing.

Note though that because its very air efficient, having to blow hard still doesnt use a lot of air. so that part is balanced well. Harder blowing whistles that use a ton of air feel horrible to play. The super air efficiency with the harder blowing feels fine.

I feel like the holes were slightly sharp. Not bad, but not hand smoothed with love by a maker.

My 2 cents, you should consider getting an Alba. It costs a bit mroe but not as much as some of the others. To me, it does what the busker wants to do, but better. It has a similar 'classic' low whistle tone, and takes a bit of push giving a strong low end. Not quite as air efficient, but still good on air. But way less squeaky, and no clogging issues. Much easier to play second octave, because you dont have to blow it extra hard to be in tune. I've played Burke, Thunderbird, Reyburn, and Alba low F and I feel like the Alba wins by a decent margin (The Burke and Reyburn just use way too much air. and The alba has a better tone, but thats preference) all of which are harder blowing low F's. If you want somethign that overblows easily, you prob want none of those. Maybe a MK, but that costs a lot more.

Hope some of this helps. Just my 2 cents. You could still like it. I'm really picky. I've played some really nice whistles so when I play one with things I hate I'm really confused as to why that trait made it into the end design.

[RoberTunes]

Haven't owned a Busker or Thunderbird (yet), but am watching for reviews of a wide variety of whistles, as a musician searching for highly expressive instruments. The whole idea of the Thunderbird and Busker design accesses a range of performance dynamics and expressive possibilities that the old inexpensive "tin whistle" designs simply could not approach. It's a major change in results. With that, will come variations in playability, vs other designs. Many other whistle makers look for what they can find and offer variations on this idea of maximizing the whistle. There are discussions everywhere about how playability differs from whistle to whistle, it's part of the physics of it. I recorded a CD with one whistle tune where I used a Walton's "Guinness" whistle, an el-cheapo (~$20) thin aluminum whistle that had such a peculiar and vulnerable tone, it worked for the tune I wrote (and plays/sounds better than a Generation), and when the notes started to break into rasp near the high second octave and third octave, it was manageable if I only visited that range briefly, and the musical effect could be maintained. A "one song only" whistle. BUT!!! BUT!!!!! What I could have done back then if I'd had a whistle capable of far more dynamic range, tonal richness and ability to sing powerfully and in full control from lowest to highest note! I would have created, practiced and imagined it all far further. Maybe I'll re-record that ditty some day. Maybe a Busker, maybe an Alba or who knows, but something with LOTS of expressive range, great playability and tone. Thanking my lucky stars it was a D whistle, so upgrading that specific tune won't leave me with another "one song only" instrument, ha ha.

Watch the recent Phil Hardy Busker videos on his website, as he specifically mentions the Busker design improvements that fixed issues with condensation and air efficiency. There is a difference. But remember, if you want a Feadog, use one and know what you'll get (and what it can't offer). If you want something with far more tonal richness, range of dynamics and power, expressive possibilities, agile playability, you will be looking at other designs, and the Busker is one such option.

[Mikethebook]

Thanks for the input guys. I'm not so sure about the Busker now and definitely prefer rounded to sharp-edged holes. Thanks for the Alba suggestion. I'll check into those. BTW What are the holes like on the Alba Low F?

[Narzog]

Alba holes definitely aren't sharp.