Raised ends versus flat ends

[fred v]

I would like to hear some comments about how high do the pads have to go to get a clear tone. When I made my button covers I played every note and looked at how much stroke was needed. I found that most notes had about double the needed stroke. That is a huge waste of motion for fast playing. I spent quite some time bending levers to get the action all at the same height; then made my plates to the thickness that allowed just enough stroke to sound right. My buttons stick up about .12" above the plate. It looks like Alex did similar with the Muller instruments.

[Jake Middleton-Metcalfe]

I learned about this somewhat at C.Wheatstone and co who always do raised ends nowadays I think. The reason they do it is it lets you make the action box shallower, using less wood thus less weight. It is a very small difference but the philosophy is to try to improve the instruments performance where ever possible even if only by a small amount.

[alex_holden]

17 hours ago, fred v said:

I would like to hear some comments about how high do the pads have to go to get a clear tone.

 

Maybe start a new topic for that question because it isn't directly related to raised ends?

[Little John]

On 1/16/2024 at 7:23 AM, alex_holden said:

... with metal ends you usually have a bushing board under the end plate around 3mm thick that reduces the height inside the action box in the area around the buttons.

 

The effect of this on raised ends is that the inside becomes almost flat. So if there is intended to be an acoustic effect (which I doubt) it would suggest the aim of raising metal ends is to compensate for the bushing board and produce a flat internal surface.

 

Personally I think it's all cosmetic. And what's wrong with that?

[Little John]

3 hours ago, HansQ said:

Hmm ?...you usually dont have that situation with wooden raised ends !

 

The quote I gave and to which my comment related was specifically for metal raised ends.

[Jake Middleton-Metcalfe]

15 hours ago, HansQ said:

With all respect...this sounds very strange.

Firstly as a motive for raised ends in general since it is more costly both for producer and user.

( again it would be SO interesting hearing what the Lachenal folks said about the idea when it came up from the start !!) 

Secondly the possible "weight difference" (when there is one at all...) would likely be negligible in factual playing anyway.

Thirdly,  is not the common concern about instrument weight exaggerated? 

 

What "performance" was actually meant to be improved by the measure ? 

 

 This philosophy has to be applied to all aspects of the design for it to make sense, if you just remove the few mm of height from the action box by adding raised ends it is a very small difference in weight - insignificant one might say. But if you then - reduce the weight of the buttons by making them metal capped plastic or just plain plastic or bone instead of solid metal, and then also use for example 1/16" brass for the reed frame clamps instead of 2mm and numerous other things then the end result of all of these efforts is of significance in terms of reducing the weight. The weight of the instrument isn't the be all and end all but it was believed by these designers to be a factor. Yes, added cost can be a factor in this - if a manufacturer would go down that route it depends really on if they are making an instrument up to a standard which the cost has to follow or down to a price and the quality has to follow that.

 

It might seem finickity or a bit fussy as an approach but the thing is comparing a "very very good instrument" to "an instrument where you literally could not imagine it being any better" is probably only a matter of 5 or 10% in terms of performance (though I would not try too hard to quantify that mathematically). 

 

Also I should add, don't let it appear that I am saying anything without raised ends is bad, I'm just trying to explain the thinking of designers in the past. Personally I have never made an instrument with raised ends! 🤣Also I feel I should mention this funny story: I recently repaired what I considered to be a really bad instrument and was unhappy with it, when the musician (a very well known musician) collected it he played the most beautiful music I had heard in ages on it. Ultimately its the musician who makes the difference I suppose.

 

[Paul_Hardy]

11 hours ago, Jake Middleton-Metcalfe said:

and numerous other things then the end result of all of these efforts is of significance in terms of reducing the weight.

 

It applies the other way round as well. I possess a John Conner English (rare as he mainly made Anglos) which is very loud and fast, but is appreciably heavy because he engineered everything very sturdily. See https://pghardy.net/concertina/connor_2/index.html. 

[Theo]

2 minutes ago, HansQ said:

 

I am still curious to hear the motivations....or is it all transcendental ? 🙂

 

 

My guess (no more than a guess) is that the motivation was marketing.  From the late 19th C  there seems to have been an innovation arms race between Lachenal and Wheatstone.  Possibly something like this:

 

Lachenal New Model introduced raised ends

Wheatstone responds with Aeola with 8 sides and raised ends (I know I'm simplifying the evolution of the Aeola)

Lachenal responds with Edeophone with raised ends and 12 sides

Bowing valves probably come somewhere in there too.

[Richard Mellish]

Many factors influence the weight of a concertina. The most significant must be simply the number of reeds; not only the weight of all their frames but also the overall size of instrument needed to accommodate them. I think the next most significant is whether the reed frames are of brass or aluminium, then the material of the buttons. (From the picture it looks as if Paul's Connor has aluminium frames but brass clamps.) "Raised" ends may allow the edges of the ends to be slightly closer to the bellows and thus reduce the total weight slightly, but I can't believe that makes much difference.

 

That seems to leave only aesthetics as a reason for the extra complication in manufacture. Some people may find raised ends aesthetically preferable and others have no preference. I have just looked at all my concertinas: until I looked I could not have said which have raised ends. (It's a third of them.)

[Luke Hillman]

9 minutes ago, HansQ said:

Time for summing up maybe ?

 

Ahh, man, the idea that cnet would ever allow a thread to be tidily concluded...

 

Edited January 18 by Luke Hillman

[Little John]

3 hours ago, HansQ said:

Corrections?

 

Not a correction, but an observation to put the conclusion in perspective.

 

If raised ends are just for aesthetic reasons it shouldn't be a cause for surprise; so much about a concertina's design and construction is. Take the ends for example. A few drilled holes would serve acoustically just as well as the wide variety of fancy fretwork we see. Pure aesthetics. And the action box sides, which generally have a second groove scored to mirror the split which allows it to be taken apart. The score serves no purpose other than aesthetics. Decorative bellows papers, gold plated buttons, amboyna veneer, ...

[Luke Hillman]

Reading back through the thread, I do feel, as a total layman, that Mr Wakker's explanation was dismissed rather quickly. I can fully believe that the "lowered rims" approach does affect sound and also that there are multiple ways of achieving raised ends which don't actually lower rims. As he's an academic as well as a rather prolific maker, I'm inclined to trust him when he says of his own creations that there's a difference measurable on a sound analyzer, and that untrained ears aren't likely to hear a difference. Next time I talk to him I'll ask if he's published anything on the topic.

 

Nothing wrong with purely aesthetic ones, though, and no argument that they look cool. But even fretwork serves a functional purpose in allowing more or less sound to escape, and if the choice is between an acoustically optimal utilitarian design and a slightly-less-optimal design that's also a work of visual art, I know which one I'd choose.

[Little John]

10 hours ago, Luke Hillman said:

Reading back through the thread, I do feel, as a total layman, that Mr Wakker's explanation was dismissed rather quickly.

 

It is interesting that on his website Wakker makes no reference to the effect on sound of raised ends. He offers five of his six anglo design with optional raised ends. He gives a comparison chart of the six instruments for loudness, brightness and evenness; he differentiates wooden ends from metal ends but no mention of raised ends.

 

Amongst his English concertinas only the Aeola copy has raised ends, and again no discussion of why or what the effect is. His top-of-the-range Parnassus has flat ends.

 

It all leaves the impression he considered raised ends as cosmetic.

[Jake Middleton-Metcalfe]

Basically the reason given for the raised ends design feature was: "less weight = less work for the player". I learned this at the C.Wheatstone and co workshop as part of a period of training that has lasted a number of years. 

 

I would caution people against over thinking this one.

 

Edited January 19 by Jake Middleton-Metcalfe

[fred v]

21 hours ago, HansQ said:

Time for summing up maybe ? Something like this : (?)

 

Aesthetics is the most likely excuse for raised ends but appreciation is ambiguous.

When introduced as a novelty, for marketing reasons, no objective benefit was presented.

Advantage from reduced weight has been claimed but weight difference has not been verified.

Tonal effect has been described on subjective grounds but no valid trials to objectify this have been carried out, like blind listening tests, and technical sound analysis is absent.

Conclusion may be that it is a luxury feature like other cosmetic ones with expensive models.

 

Corrections?

 

 

 

 

I have always heard from tine dealers that the metal ended ones have a brighter sound than wood ended ones. I've owned both and I agree.

[Stephen DOUGLASS]

Possibly the folks at Wheatstone (and possibly others) were looking at improving tensile strength, and mitigating cracks in low humidity, and the idea 'stuck', whether it worked or not (the aesthetics are appealing). The 'physics' of domed V flat, may have been a factor in the original design.

[Steve Schulteis]

33 minutes ago, HansQ said:

Secondly...even if/when there is some weight difference what importance does it have...really?

Just as with sound...what do possible differences mean if you cant hear them ??

 

Assuming small differences add up to a bigger total, I've found that a lighter Anglo is significantly easier to play standing up. While some are content to play only while seated, for others this is an important practical difference.

 

In my opinion, many of the differences in the construction of quality instruments (not just concertinas, but any musical instrument) are more for the enjoyment of the musician than the audience. And why shouldn't they be? After all, people become musicians because it's fun. So why shouldn't they want an instrument that maximizes that, even if it doesn't make an audible difference?

Edited January 19 by Steve Schulteis

[Jake Middleton-Metcalfe]

1 hour ago, HansQ said:

Im not sure I am "over thinking"...too stubborn maybe...Earlier it was said that raised ends made the instrument lighter. When comparing a couple of Wheatstone and Lachenal trebles raised end plates with reasonably alike flat end plates NO weight differences were noticed !

 

The weight argument itself becomes dubious also when finding that the Aeola wooden treble is not significantly heavier than the common wooden flatended sixsided,  BUT the metalended Aeola weighs 150 grams (> 10%) more than the wooden ended one. Conclusion: For *metal  raised ends instruments*  the weight argument seems entirely meaningless. Apart from that:

 

Firstly..."less weight=less work"....TRUE physically maybe but NOT relevant for all "work" when playing squeezeboxes. 

 

Secondly...even if/when there is some weight difference what importance does it have...really?

Just as with sound...what do possible differences mean if you cant hear them ??

I think I would have to see the instruments you are measuring to validate any of what was just said. 

 

If you can't see why a heavier instrument is going to be harder to play if only fractionally then I don't think there is any hope for you on this one. 

 

More and more on this forum I see self appointed experts going on and on about things and when a professional adds something they are not even listened to. This is why most of the professionals in the UK are never posting on here and the online community is poorer for it.