Łukasz Martynowicz

I had an anglo opition in my DIY MIDI Hayden. Back then, I was just switching from an anglo playing and missed the "bouncing joy" of playing bisonoric instrument. It was fun to fiddle around, so I also did have some sort of a "hayglo" - a bisonoric Hayden layout that automaticaly transposed a whole tone up or down (or a semitone for a sake of experiment) depending on bellows direction. With a Hayden keyboard and a programmable bisonoric capable instrument, you can do all sorts of fun things. But I never had explored those variants deeper than a couple of shanties, as I was quickly and deeply drawn into Hayden logic and have abandoned anglo entirely. One suggestion for you, conzertino - you should program the option to connect bellows pressure sensor reading to channel pressure OR note velocity. This way you will benefit greatly in regards to piano-like or plucked string, velocity driven samples. And if your tablet software does not recognize channel pressure you might link the bellows pressure to simple MIDI volume. Any dynamics is way better than no dynamics at all.

Same as Matthew, I have an Jackie's "sister" Elise, and it is sadly true, that those instruments aren't realy made for gentle, quiet play. My wife also complained a lot when I first started to learn anything on this box and was making a LOT of mistakes over and over again But fortunately there is an easy, "non destructive" way to "turn down the volume" on those instruments. Buy a sheet of an EVA foam, press it on the fretwork to mark the shape, cut out and fill the holes in the fretwork (you have to cut rougly, so there is some air leakage around those foam inserts, but they still hold in place). This way you can cut about 20dB, so neither yours or your girlfriend's ears won't hurt that much after your practice This solution is very convenient, as you can take out the foam inserts easily if you need to e.g. play in a loud enviroment or for a bunch of singing people and put them back for solo practice.

Of course it would be ideal to have an array of buttons like my entire hexagonal grid (including gray areas of duplicated buttons) - just like 5 row CBAs do have - so you won't have to transpose. But I wouldn't demonize the "stretch" when playing on a Hayden - I have trained playing all sorts of "edge chords" on my 64b MIDI and this is not harder than making long jumps on Stradella bass system (but I have long fingers which may play a role in this opinion). In fact this "stretch" is in some cases easier and more natural than jump your entire hand across the keyboard back and forth. And as you have stated, those "stretches" or jumps are quite inevitable in less diatonic music - even with large button array you either stretch some chords or you have to jump across the keyboard for a single chord or note (which may be more comfortable when isolated, but may require more awkward wrist movement when actualy playing something). It is the very nature of a quite stretched octave on a Hayden and adding a single repetition of duplicates does not eliminate the problem entirely, you still have to use those awkward fingerings sometimes, so why bother making larger array if you still have to learn those fingerings? IMHO it might even cripple your ability to play fluently, as you will use those edge fingerings less frequently and in turn won't have them inprinted in your muscle memory that well… And with larger button arrays you begin to have wrist movement restriction and finger reach problems (this is why I'll have completely different handstraps on my DIY acoustic box) And I'm not sure if you have understood fully what I had in mind by transposing "on the fly", as (as far as I'm aware) you have limited experience with isomorphic layouts. On an "unlimited Hayden array" there is no difference between playing in different keys other than actual pitch produced. And because of that, playing on a Hayden is purely about geometric shapes of intervals, both in melodic and harmonic context. So if you "erase button labels" (as is possible with MIDI), you can play in every key with the exact same, most comfortable fingering. You don't make any "unnecessary extra work to transpose a piece" - you just play it with different button labels, the geometry stays exactly the same and with MIDI transposition capabilities you'll most likely always move the root note to most comfortable position (this may be different for major and minor keys and may depend on occurrences of accidentals in a tune). This is why I think that teaching to play on a Hayden in a manner "this is C note, this is A note" is wrong - instead it should be learnt like "this is root note, this is major second, this is the scale shape, this is a major chord shape" - especially on a transposable MIDI instrument. And one more word about "advantage of marked buttons" - if the markings are logical, you are simply NEVER lost, because you either feel the marking with one of the fingers and know where you are or you don't feel the marking and because of this you know where you are. This is of course true only if ones style of play does not rely on hovering fingers above buttons when they don't play a note, but usually rest on silent buttons. Finding a position using array edges is IMHO sufficient enough only for smaller Hayden keyboards, when you are usually no further than a single button away from proper position or an edge.

Here you have a standard 46 layout (in red-ish color) with Bob Tedrow's additions (in violet-ish color). Notes in circles are what I would add for the sake of continuity of chromatic range and symmetry between hands (I like to play in octaves or to have full freedom of accompaniment in a given range and I play a lot in minor keys, hence the low Bb for keyboard geometry reasons). On a MIDI I see no point realy to double accidentals, other than Matthew's microtonal reasons. You can (and probably will) always transpose your keyboard for keys with a lot of sharps and flats, so that the key you play in is in the center of the button array. And from my experience you'll only realy need a semitone transposition, as on a Hayden this switches outside keys with inner keys and is sufficient, as you are probably used to whole tone transpositions by hand placement. As a sidenote, I don't realy think that "getting lost" on a keyboard is problematic at all if you have some sort of a reference point, be it marked (domed or flatted) buttons for F and B or A notes, or a thumbstrap. It is a bit more likely on a Hayden than on a Wicki, due to slant, but I had no problems at all on my 64button MIDI.

That's why I said "after first few cycles". From what I understood, Tom has explicitly stated, that he has no idea (at least he don't have a definitive description) on how the tongue start it's movement, and in my post above I have only pointed out, that initial movement and steady oscilation phase are different enough to be treated as separate problems, and that the latter is quite well researched and that Tom's description and math can be used in practical aplications of reed and instrument design. My opinion on the very first cycles is that even slightest (both spatial and temporal) effects matter and that they accumulate over first few cycles, so no "single first cycle" description of the reed start can ever be complete nor true. And yes, I think that some of those effects cause the momentary effective pressure difference acting on the tongue to be greater than P1-P2 (or at least that the whole "macro scale" P1-P2 approach is somehow fundamentaly inadequate in those very first cycles, as it results only in a "pressure valve", single airflow cut predictions), but at this point I have no more ideas on what they might be. I also think, that the most important observation about first cycles is that the entire oscilation starts with amplitudes smaller than the gap width and that the first few cycles never even reach the shoe, so there is no complete airflow cut-off during this first stage. Then comes Dana's "abrupt amplification" phase (this is IMHO the point in which first tongue sinking into the shoe occurs) and then we have the steady oscilation phase, in which Tom's math works as described by him. (to be more precise, I think that Tom's approach is also at least partially true in the "abrupt amplification" phase, as this is the transitional phase in which both "initial" and "steady" parts of the description should overlap). And I also think, that without high-speed, smoke flow footage of the first cycles we cannot give any true and definitive answers to how the reed starts. Unfortunately I don't have such capabilities. [sidenote: I was wondering recently, if Schlieren photography could be of any use in resolving the first cycles movement question… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSFwH0BVd3Q]

This was originally linked by Tom in a "MIDI latency" thread, but I think it should be linked here as well. http://www.public.co...g/PMA035061.pdf There is quite solid proof in this paper, that initial conditions in transient stage are very different from those in a steady oscilation phase and therefore a steady oscilation phase can have a completely separate description (which is in fact quite well researched and used in practice of reed/instrument construction). The missing "initial movement" problem does not in any way invalidate all other findings on the free reed behaviour that have been published and I personally don't have any objections to Tom's description of physics after the first few cycles (more precisely after Dana's "abrupt amplification" phase).

Just to confuse this thread a bit more, my latest accidental finding (rather unsuprising, but still interesting). I was testing my new reedpan yesterday and have tried a couple of accordion reeds on it. They are still unvalved, so when I have applied pressure, BOTH tongues of the accordion reed have spoken simultanously. In such conditions both tongues have smaller amplitude, the combined pitch is much more pressure dependant (note bends very easily, it is quite difficult to achieve a steady note) and the "reverse direction tongue" oscilates with small amplitude only (so it does not sink into the shoe), but it vibrates nevertheless. This "double reed" setting is much more sensitive to overall pressure and behaves very nice around a bellows reverse point giving almost uninterrupted sound [it starts to speak with very low pressures and cannot be chocked with sudden, high pressure push on the bellows. When one of the tongues was valved (with a masking tape) the same reed was very prone to choking with sudden bellows movement] This finding got me wondering if such effect could be usefull for some kind of "another type", new concertina… Probably somehow electric in nature as this setup has significantly lower volume (and is very air inefficient) and would require some sort of a "second step amplification", but almost continuous sound and note bending capabilities could prove musically usefull...

Then it is probably a rhetorical question if you know Korpiklaani? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvbsrD3gDwo

But with Stuart's concertina in it

Nice work! I would like to hear this in a full metal band arrangement, along with drums, guitars and vocals

I use a large moleskine - it is very durable and large enough to actualy note something useful. With this larger version I can fit both ABCs and lyrics on the same page (or on the same spread) and actualy read the lyrics while I play.

I did listen to Stuarts version couple of times to get a clear view on why his version didn't had such impact on me as other versions prior to posting my opinion. But I see I must stress one thing more clearly: I don't think, that Stuarts version is bad or shouldn't be enjoyed And I truly think that this is a very fine piece of concertina playing. I was just trying to describe what differences made his version so different in its effect on me. Not to change anyone's taste or musical choices, but to just give some feedback from another angle - as a not native english speaker - as I think this changes a lot in percieving songs, focusing emotions more on music than on lyrics. And I must admit that not comparing it to NIN version is hard for me, as this is indeed one of the very few NIN songs I like and had listened to it over and over again at some point in my life, so it's now "embossed" in my mind very, very deep as a "blueprint" for this song.

I must agree with Ruediger on this one. But before I will add my two cents, I want to be clear - I definately appreciate your concertina playing here, what I have to say is about emotional content of the arrangement itself (and this is of course purely personal opinion). Hurt is one of my favourite NIN songs and the original Johny Cash version is playing right now as I'm writing this post (I didn't knew that NIN rendition was a cover). And I must say, that I haven't ever even focused on lyrics before (I'm not a native english speaker and I focus mostly on musical content when listening to songs in foreign languages) but still, both NIN and Cash versions have VERY strong choruses, and in both cases the overall construction of the melody tells a very strong emotional story with the music layer itself (NIN IMHO even stronger than Cash). For me, it could even be in Suahili or Chineese and it would make the exactly same emotional impact. Your version has no such effect - it makes me completely indifferent to the meaning of the lyrics. One reason for this is that you have dropped a very significant, steady beat in the chorus that builds up the tension and instead you slow down at the begining of the chorus, loosing the grip you have build up on the listener. And the second reason is that your vocals are very smooth and ornamental - very "polite" compared to strong and harsh "cry" in Cash and NIN versions. But nevertheless, I'm (as always) very glad to hear any non-traditional concertina repertoire, so keep it coming

There is HUGE audible difference between aluminum, zinc and brass reeds in "pure testing conditions". For my DIY project I have ordered sample reed from harmonikas.cz with shoes made from three different metals (and also three different aluminium reed "grades") and reeds with same geometry but with different properties of the shoe metal produce completely different sound spectrum. This spectrum can be of course modified to great extent by an instrument maker, but the exact same box fitted with two different sets of reeds will sound different. If your goal in learning to play bandoneon is to play "proper" argentine tango, then you should definately go with zinc plates - this very distinctive sound cannot be imitated even with large accordions with many different reed ranks. But if you are just looking for a good sounding "general use" instrument and prefer bandonion layout/ergonomics over accordion, there is no real point in zinc plates other than personal preference in tone. (But there can of course be further difference in response time and dynamics between different grades of aluminium reeds)

From my experience, clamping is not sufficient - my DIY concertina endplates had warped signifficantly even when screwed to the actual box. Stress caused by unequal drying of wood (or uneven distribution of this stress due to assymetric geometry etc) occurs whether or not the wood is clamped. It will just manifest when unscrewed, but the stress will be present in the wood nevertheless. As a sidenote: plywood warps too, but the amunt of warp for given thickness is smaller in plywood than in solid wood. And from my experience plywood tends to twist rather than bend in single direction (due to crossed grain direction in each layer).

I had a very serious latency problem with the first version of my MIDI software, and found out, that above a certain amount it effectively cripples the ability to play, because sound is generated a bit later than you expect it and this confuses brain too much. From my experience, this critical delay is about as long as it takes your finger to fully press the button (when you have normal force acting on the bellows) - the sound should play no later than when button is fully depressed. Otherwise you have to take this latency into account when fingering (on my Elise this applies to lowest, weighted reeds which are significantly slower to speak than the rest) which requires "forward thinking" and not just following the melody.

Well, this particular discussion, however deep and intensive it is, has very little to do with actual problems arising when building the actual instrument... The "multi instrument" approach which Jake suggested and which is already prooving worthy on the FB group is the main reason why this here forum is not the greatest place for this group's existence. I can remember at least one thread about designing and building a "modern anglo", which was overhelmed by people trying to discourage any modification to traditional Anglo concertina. This, by definition, won't be the case on a forum/group not focused on any single type of free-reed intrument. Similiarly to what you said "I myself don't see attending several forums with roughly the same (or widely overlapping) contents." - so why would a melodeon, bandoneon or accordion maker/player be interested in a concertina forum which even conciders chemnitzer concertinas as "outside of the scope" of this site? And facebook makes it an "automatic" participation for anyone already using this page on a regular basis for whatever purpose they do.

Ron, the whole point of me performing this experiment on the largest reed I have was to try to apply the flow ONLY below to the gap. This reed has a gap of about 1 mm height and tongue thickness at the edge of about 0.5 mm so you can easily flatten the straw below this width. I have performed this experiment once again, this time with bent straw and a lens, so I could observe reed behaviour a bit more precisely. This time I was varying the straw crossection height and here are some additional observations (the bottom edge of the straw is always touching the shoe): - if the straw height is less than the gap height the reed does nothing. - when the straw height reaches the combined height of the gap plus the tongue thickness (probably exceding it a tiny bit), the reed starts to vibrate. - when the straw height exceeds this combined height by a certain amount (but is still lower than double the gap height plus tongue thickness) the reed does not speak (at least not at a highest blow strenght I could achieve) - the assymetry of the flow is to small to propel the tongue. After this experiment my current intuition is that the only part of the reed that is responsible for the ability of the reed to start vibration is the "double V" (*) shaped section just at the tip of the reed and edge of the shoe and the Venturi effect at this small section, combined with bifurcation in the flow caused by the even slightest movement of the tip, deflecting the flow to the upper or lower surface of the tongue. Due to spring forces and tongue momentum this will be an increasing effect. One other thought: until this point we have assumed, that the axis of oscilation is always the same. But I think that it may be false assumption. I think that when the tongue is swinging enough to touch the surface of the shoe and close the gap completely, the pressure acting on the whole tongue surface moves the axis of vibration downwards. And because the pressure acts on the entire surface of the tongue and the initial mechanism acts only on the tip of the tongue, there will be some "wobbliness" in the tongue at this very point - it won't just bend at the mounting pivot point, but also around the center of percussion of the tongue. Think of it: this sudden axis change when the pressure gives the tongue "a kick" occures at the lowest point of the the already established oscilation but is not instantaneous, so the tip is already moving upwards in relation to center of percussion. So when the pressure pushes the tongue as far as it can (and we know from "choking" reed behavior that this is not a lot further than the thickness of the tongue) the initial oscilation, (this time around this new axis) opens the flow on the bottom, the pressure force acting on the tongue drops and the whole oscilating tongue axis moves upwards again. With few further cycles this initial oscilation wears off because the initial mechanism of bifurcation is no longer present (or significant) and the steady oscilation around the mounting point is established without any significant oscilation around the center of percussion. (*) "the double V" shape I think of is the crosssection shape at a tip, because the tongue and shoe are not infinitesimaly thin.

@Dana: your observation may sugest that after those 5-6 cycles the mechanism I seek gives way to the direct acting of the high pressure on the entire area of the tongue pushing it through the shoe. This is also why I was only able to get the reed oscilating above the shoe with the straw blow, getting only a low volume sound.

Well, as I'm more of an experimental than theoretical person, I have just performed a very quick and simple experiment which you can easily reproduce and which I think proove my approach definitively: I've taken my largest reed (the same I've mentioned earlier, which was choking under typical bellows pressure) and a drinking straw (flattened at the end to improve selectiveness of the jet produced), pointed it at the gap (*) and I blew hardest I could. I did manage to start the reed vibration and got a low volume sound. I was holding the reed in my hand in the ambient air, so there was no perpendicular pressure force on the tongue other than resulting from the jet of fast moving air and those two phenomenons I've mentioned eariler (or some additional turbulent effects on the bottom side of the tongue). (*) you have to hold the straw end with your fingernail very close to the gap and tongue.

@ Tom: Of course that all those various fluid dynamics effects come from calculations of the same equation, but used at different scales (both spatial and time) resulting in looking at a different geometry and airflow. I think that our missunderstanding comes from looking at the reed tongue at two different scales. You look at the reed as a divider between high pressure reservoire and low pressure reservoire and try to describe it at this "large" scale of an airflow. I on the other hand, focus only on the flow through the gap "magnifying" it. I'm not particularily interested in pressure differences between the bellows and the chamber and the steady oscilation phase, because I try to understand only the first cycle of movement, which we already agreed cannot be explained by this "large" scale (P1-P2)*A approach. It should be clear by now, that I think that the reed would close even when subjected to a very selective jet of air pointed only at the gap (prior to introducing this jet, the reed as a whole subjected only to ambient air pressure, equal both above and below the tongue).

I didn't say "basic physics" but "based on actual physics".

To be clear - I think that at the later stages of the reed oscilation the effects I have described coexist to some degree with the direct effects that the pressure gradient has on the oscilating reed.

Tom, all theoretical papers I've found on free reed analysis skip the starting period and focus on sound generating properties of steady oscilation. I also think, that slow motion, smoke airflow analysis is the only logical step in verifying my assumptions. Unfortunately I'm bound by the capacities of my workshop here which does not include high speed camera I'm also aware, that my explanations weren't as clear as they should be, and there are two main reasons for this: first is the language barrier and the second (more important) is that my times at university are long past and I haven't done serious math for more than a decade now. This is why I can only operate on simple illustrative experiments, observations and intuitions and must withheld from throwing any calculations into this discussion. Instead I did some digging and I think I have finally found a well-described principle that I was trying to ilustrate with my paper experments. It's called Coanda effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coandă_effect and describes the tendency of a fluid jet to be attracted to nearby surfaces and is one of the fundaments for the lift force generation and numerous other fluid flow phenomenons. This combined with the third Newton's law makes the tongue to be atracted towards the jet as well and is what I think draws the tongue into the shoe at an early stage of the oscilation. The second principle which I have tried to describe with "the paper corner reed" example (in the part of airflow acceleration) is Venturi effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venturi_effect which speeds the airflow and significantly lowers the pressure locally at the gap below P2, and in consequence increases the force generated by Coanda effect. Both of the effects above are generated only dynamically and are significant only when there is fast enough airflow, so as soon as the gap is closed (*) the tongue can spring back upwards against the pressure gradient. Because there will be some time needed for the airflow to reestablish after reopening of the gap, the tongue can have enough time to swing higher than initial position. In my opinion this combined effect is present also at a stable stage of the reed oscilation. This effect can also be present at the second (and third) point in the reed cycle, when the tongue crosses the bottom of the shoe, creating another gap - this time with the force acting upwards. But those both statements heavily depend on whether or not there is enough time for the steady jet to be formed at those later stages of tongue oscilation. Those effects are of course dependand on pressure difference P1-P2, tongue area and all sort of reed parameters, so they will be proportional to them in some way or another, so those "microscopic" effects may be in fact omitted in "macroscopic" description of the stable phase of reed oscilation, when the focus of description is mainly on acoustics of the free reed (as is done in all reed-related articles I could find on the web). I hope this time my point of view is finally clear enough to be seriously considered (either as true or false) as a coherent "theory" based on actual physics (*) there will probably be a slight delay between cuting the airflow and upward acceleration of the tongue because of inevitable turbulence below the tongue caused by a sudden cut-off of the airflow.

This is exactly why I think that (P1 – P2)*A is not a maximum force acting on the reed and an airflow through the gap must create force larger than this - you are seeking an additional mechanism that causes an amplified return in the first cycle, I seek the different mechanism which draws the tongue into the shoe in the first place, so the return mechanism is plain and logical. This force created by the gap airflow and it's relative value to the pressure applied to the tongue is easiest to observe on the lowest/largest possible reeds as the scale and frequency of movement is observable with a naked eye. If I experiment with my lowest reed on my tuning rig, this is what happens: 1) if I act on the bellows with normal force (pulling on the bellows, so I can observe the tongue motion above the shoe) the tongue is pushed into the shoe (just the thickness of the tongue below the edge, so the whole reed is flat) by the (P1-P2)*A force and does not speak, it acts only as a pressure valve. (by "normal force" I mean the force that makes treble reeds speak) 2) in order to make it speak, I must start the airflow through the gap with a much lesser force on the bellows (so that (P1-P2)*A is to small to draw the tongue into the shoe and in the same time is too small to keep it inside on the "agaist the pressure" part of motion). The tongue start to vibrate (at the stage in which it does not even sink into the shoe with all it's thickness and almost all of the oscilation happens slightly above the shoe) and only then I can increase the force on the bellows to make it louder. (I can recreate this reed-starting behaviour with weights attached to the bellows, so the eventual unsteady motion of the hand is not a factor in this) Another "paper experiment" for you to ilustrate that lift is generated: take a small piece of paper (I have used 5x10cm strip) and place it so it is horizontal (rest it on your finger) and has one (short) edge firmly held against your lower lip and then blow on it. As long as you blow there is an airflow speed difference between the upper and lower sides of the paper, so you can take your figer away and the paper will stay horizontal. The curvature of the paper is not important, it does not need to be an airfoil - an airfoil shape is necessary to divide the single pressure enviroment into two enviroments of different pressure but in this case we divide the enviroment by introducing the selective airflow by blowing just on the upper side(*). As soon as you stop blowing, the paper bends naturaly downwards, but you can lift it again by blowing (in this "freely hanging" starting position it does resemble an airfoil at the begining, but it becomes more flat the harder you blow and this shape is not essential to lift the paper as shown above in "resting on the finger" starting position). If you look at the closeup of the reed tongue at the gap, it looks very similiar to this experiment: due to the tongue/gap/shoe geometry there is significant airflow only on the single (lower) side of the tongue. And my above example with the low reed shows that this effect occur at pressure lower than needed to push the tongue into the shoe and that this is essential for the reed to speak. So I must disagree with you Tom on your statements that my illustrations are incorrect. My interpretation seems to be coherent with all different reed types: free, beating and double (and double oboe reed is the most close realisation of the "two sheets of paper" experiment, just with the hinge points on the oposite ends of sheets). And especially beating and double reeds cannot be explained by the approach in which (P1-P2)*A is the largest acting force, as this would just cut the airflow completely and hold the reeds closed as long as there is high pressure acting. And as you Tom admit, your interpretation fails to explain how the reed goes back against the pressure to higher position. Mine may of course be entirely wrong, but it does at least explain this and can be illustrated by all sort of different experiments. (*) to be perfectly correct there is a secondary airflow on the lower side of the paper to ensure the continuity of the flow speed gradient across the enviroment (the flow is laminar, no turbulence is created or necessary), and is caused by the upper airflow, but it is much slower than the upper flow.