Łukasz Martynowicz

Those are 2x and 2.5x more expensive than plain DIX and only come in brass flavour. There is also no musical benefit from using "DIX concertina" over plain DIX, those have exactly same tongues and slots, "DIX concertina" are just heavier (more brass per two tongues) and more cumbersome to use, so contradict the "affordable" goal. "DIX concertina original" have straight tongues, however I don't know if they have tapered slots.

Sadly, 46 DIX does not fit in 6 1/4" hex. That is why I plan a square one. Hex must be 6" 3/4 - 7" if all reeds are mounted flat. Keep in mind, that I'm talking about accordion style, rectangular, double tongue DIX, not DIX concertina or DIX concertina original reeds.

I try very hard to convince Ed to try DIX reeds for a long time now, but he has only tried melodica ones, which are aluminum, and compared to Binci he's using have a worse tone. Harsh sound of low notes is a chamber size problem that can be managed in a large box. But LH side is not layed out yet. Linking is an option, I have instructed Ed on how they work and he already ordered necessary supplies, but it may still be difficult to implement links in a crowded box.

I use MusixPro for melody practice when traveling, but never thought about pairing it with ThumbJam, so thanks for the tip!

That is the current goal, yes. But since reed placement is not a trivial task, it may end with less than 55 buttons, but I don’t think it will be less than Beaumont’s 52.

Accordion style, pre-folded papers, leather gussets and fabric top runs, like Elise has. This is just a preliminary concept stage at this point. I'm assessing what is financially viable, as making concertinas will never be my main job and it is more of an ambition project, so it has to make me at least my main job wage while being as affordable as I can make it, which is quite a challenge. Of course I am aware, that accordion style bellows will have to be reflected in the lower price and I'm open to making option for concertina style bellows upgrade. One of the goals on this is developing a process that leaves a room for some flexibility/customisation while being as easy and straightforward as I can make it. So, for example, I'm certain that it won't have riveted action, as it is unprintable, even partially, but there can be a choice of durable plastic endplates and more fragile but prettier faux wood endplates. Musically speaking, since I'm aiming at DIX reeds, there can be a choice of timbre - accordion like (aluminum frame reeds), concertina like (brass frame reeds) and bandoneon like (zinc frame reeds), plus a choice of more open or cassotto endplates, etc. Hopefully, I'll have a prototype around summer, as I need a travel box and I don't want to make another "single serving" concertina at the last notice as I did last year

I'm aiming at something between Stagi and Troubadour price tag myself, so your reply is well in line with it. Thanks Happens to the best of us

Wait, standard 48? Isn't the standard 46 as H-1? As to my antler alternative to hand strap I think that is something that would be a straightforward option to implement as soon as I'll find a good way to make my design an "universal fit".

~55. I've made a separate thread about it here

As a person who switched from the buttons sticking out to the buttons going all in, the difference is HUGELY in favour of "deep buttons" for me. First of all, my fingers no longer hurt after a long session, because the full depression force is spread out and there is no button edge to act on the same area of the finger repeatedly. Paradoxically, this have lead to even lighter touch. What is more - 6mm, flat buttons with a very soft edge (I have flattened button caps that were originally made round) that go all in enable playing triplets with a three finger technique, where the previous finger slides to the side and up, not only upwards. It doesn't go any faster than this. Even when not playing triplets, switching the finger on the button is way easier and can even be made seamless, because when fully depressed, there is basically no coupling between the finger and the button sidewise. I play Hayden, so there is basically no fixed fingering pattern and with long jumps and strange finger configurations any improvement on the ergonomy had a direct impact on the level of play.

So, as I mentioned in a different thread, I'm helping Ed develop a new Hayden model. At this point we are discussing the range and size of the box, with Edward preferring the range over size. The current iteration is 55 button, hexagonal, 8 1/4" flat to flat box with Italian accordion reeds. The large size is due to Edward not being open to mounting accordion blocks and wanting to stick to flat, reedpan arrangement. He already made a Crane duet of this size and the owner is reportedly happy with both the feel and the sound of the instrument (is it someone on this site perhaps and is willing to share his experience first hand?). Now for the layout. The basis is the current Beaumont. There is room for 25 notes on the LH side and 30 on the RH side, but basses are unlikely without some sacrifices. This is a quick reference chart to start the discussion. The left B4 and the right D#5 are half covered because those are IMHO the buttons which could be sacrificed for a bass note or increased range. Orange notes are my picks, coded for preference with the colour intensity. There might be a room for my style of button links, but that is to be established only after the reed layout is finalised. Additional and a bit unrelated question. I'm recently doing some concept work on eventual small batch of 3d printed Haydens of my own to fill in yet another gap in the market, that is affordable "46 standard" box. Currently I'm leaning towards a 6-6 1/4" square box with accordion style bellows, built around DIX reeds. So, what are the hive mind opinions on those two options. As a bonus, a question about acceptable price point for Ed's instrument, given a method of production but having his proven quality of sound in mind. And when you're at it, the acceptable price point for my eventual box.

If you don’t find a Beaumont, and are ok with the concept of a 3d printed concertina, then you may want to wait a bit. I’m currently helping Edward Jay develop a sensible Hayden that might just fill in the gap after the end of the Beaumont.

I first learned about the existence of concertinas on shanties concert when I was 11 and was immediately hooked. But I never saw one up close until I was 25 and it took me 19 years to get my hands on my first, DDR made Anglo-German... The problem is the entry price (and in case of Poland, up until internet shopping era, availability of instruments or even any written sources on concertinas). Even nowadays, entry level Rochelle/Jackie/Elise is 3 times more expensive than an entry level acoustic guitar. Then, in case of duets, there is a very, very steep price curve to get your hands on an instrument large enough for a serious repertoire. Few days ago I had a long chat with a fellow polish Anglo player, who recently switched to melodeon, because he could find a decent one for a fraction of a price of a decent Anglo. I'm perfectly aware why concertinas are as expensive as they are, but if you don't have a box in your family or very supportive parents it is very hard to get that kind of money before your first proper job.

It had resin for the endplates or resin for the reedpan?

First time through I thought that the metal one was slightly brighter, but then I switched between the middle fragments of each recording and the effect was significantly less prominent without the initial few notes of the wood version, where I think the mic position or other situational factor might had have a decisive influence on the resulting tone. I think, that this was a blinded trial, the result would be close to 50-50 split.

There are very lengthy discussion at guitar forums on which finishes do interfere with the sound and which don't. The most common finishes are oil&wax, shellac, nitrocellulose and polyurethane, all used widely and successfully. Out of those I think the shellac is the easiest one, despite it's fame of being the hardest ported from furniture making, where it is indeed hard to cover areas so huge evenly with just a small pad.

Those IMHO differ mostly due to the total area covered by the fretwork/casotto effect.

Don't worry, as useful as 3d printing is, you can't print the classic aesthetics of concertinas and it comes with it's own can of worms. But it is the technology for "Ford model T" of concertina world for sure.

When I was experimenting with baffles on my big Hayden, it didn't matter at all if the baffle was from hard plastic or way softer wooden filament, despite those two materials having vastly different sound properties. The only variable that mattered was the geometry of the baffle.

Blender, I'm a graphic designer by trade, so that was the most straightforward approach for me. It is awfully backwards for CAD applications due to poor support of direct measurements, but then subdivision modeling is pretty powerful.

Have you looked at the antlers yet?

I don't think that the choice of wood would have a big enough impact to decide on the difference between those instruments when you also change dimensions and thus chamber geometry and fretwork geometry. Couple of months ago I have printed a light, travel duet. It was a "fast and dirty" design, engineered in two weeks to last me two weeks of vacation only. A thing to know about 3d printed concertinas is that they are as light as it gets, because they are mostly made of air - prints are hollow inside, only 15% of total volume is material, and the material itself is very rigid, so good at reflecting the sound. Without the endplates mounted, there was virtually no difference between the reed when on a tuning bench and when mounted in the box. The whole sound shaping was done through the geometry of the fretwork and varied between very dry and sharp/bright with completely open fretwork to deeper but muted tone with full cassotto endplates. I also experimented extensively with baffle geometry on my big Hayden as the initial sound with my very open fretwork was ear piercingly sharp. No matter what I did in both those boxes I couldn't change it enough to overcome the fundamental difference of the reed frames material - the big one has brass plates, the travel one has aluminum plates, and this difference is audible on the tuning bench and stays nearly the same up until fretwork design stage. What is even more important is that even 1mm of chamber depth can have way more influence on the final tone than the material of the box does.

Past the reed materials and chamber orientation, the final sound of a concertina is all about sound reflections. This mostly depend on geometry and less on materials used, but they do factor in. I would say that materials are the spice in a meal composed from the reed, the reedpan and the box.

I play duet, but I had the same problem - RH melody alone was easy, LH oom-pahs alone were easy, playing octaves was easy, but playing both hands together with non-symmetrical hands movements was impossible. My trick was to stop treating hands separately - instead learn to play very slowly with both hands together, so that your muscle memory encompasses hand-to-hand-to-bellows interactions and timings and then gradually increase speed only when you are not making mistakes at a current speed.

Ach, I misunderstood. My current array goes from Bbs/Ebs to D#/G#, but with antlers I could extend it to span from Abs/Ebs to A#s/Fs without sacrificing the ability to finger all available triads with same fingers efficiently and add two additional rows on each side, giving me the maximum reachable layout going from C2 up to E7.