Cylindrical Or Hexagonal?

[JimLucas]

Personally, I like the instrument just as it is. It is small, portable, versatile ( just listen to "The Anglo International"), not that difficult to play (notice I didn't say "master"),...

There's the truth, for any instrument... the difference between "playing" and mastery.

[JimLucas]

[is] anything other than a hexagonal concertina ... essentially a gimmick? Are there no advantages to any other format?

This has been discussed in past Forum Topics. There are differing opinions as to "the" answer, but there have definitely been arguments presented to support the belief that the shape does have an effect. The main argument seems to be that for balanced tonality the best arrangement is a radial layout of the reeds with chambers of the same shape and smoothly varying size. To achieve that, a circular reed pan with offset center does appear optimal.

 

A truly circular instrument presents the problems mentioned, but 12 sides is quite close to circular, and any gain from more than 12 sides would almost certainly be imperceptible, while construction difficulty would increase significantly. But as one can hear with top-quality instruments, any unevenness in tone within an 8- or even 6-sided instrument can be compensated, and an experienced builder may not even think of it as a separate process.

 

For a square instrument, uniformity is most easily obtained by setting rectangular chambers along each side. Adapting that pattern to a hexagonal instrument leads naturally to two different solutions. One is the two-parallel-rows arrangement found in many anglos. The other "squeezes" the inner end of each chamber, resulting in tapered chambers and a radial appearance.

 

Has anyone ever published a study comparing tone quality of rectangular vs. tapered chambers? I don't know of any, but I am curious as to whether or not there is a significant difference.

 

But back to "gimmick": The circular concertina is a "gimmick", because it would be a departure from a proven design, with no clear advantage aside from appearance. But I dare say that if Wheatstone had originally standardized the design as circular we might now be speaking of the hexagon shape as a "gimmick". In fact, I suspect that's part of the reason for square concertinas not catching on. If there's no significant difference in price, sound, or playability, then the only distinguishing feature is the "unusual" shape. Some people are attracted to gimmickry, but I think many more are put off by it.

[Boney]

Has anyone ever published a study comparing tone quality of rectangular vs. tapered chambers? I don't know of any, but I am curious as to whether or not there is a significant difference.

From the Concertina Connection website, about the new Wakker concertina with concertina reeds:

 

We offer a choice of two reed pan designs: Radial, as found in Wheatstone and Lachenal concertinas, and parallel, as used by Jeffries. The tonal differences are subtle. The radial design tends to sound "warmer" or "rounder" whereas the parallel design is a little more "direct" with a little "bite".

[JimLucas]

Has anyone ever published a study comparing tone quality of rectangular vs. tapered chambers?

From the Concertina Connection website, about the new Wakker concertina with concertina reeds:

 

... The tonal differences are subtle. The radial design tends to sound "warmer" or "rounder" whereas the parallel design is a little more "direct" with a little "bite".

Ask, and ye shall receive.

 

Thanks, Boney!

[Frank Edgley]

Just a small comment here. I think virtually all Wheatstone & Lachenal concertinas have tapered chambers with a small straight end nearer the centre and a longer one at the outer side. They are all shaped that way whether they are 6, 8, or 12 sided, if they have wedge-shaped chambers. The only thing that would be different with a round concertina would be that one side would have a very slight curve to it. The shape of the chambers on 6,8, & 12 sided instruments would be the same. The shape of the chambers i.e. parallel sides vs. tapered sides wasn't, I think, part of the original discussion, just the shape of the body. I do agree that the shape of the chambers is very significant, but that's not what we were discussing. Maybe chamber size & shape would be a good topic for another discussion, however.

[JimLucas]

I think virtually all Wheatstone & Lachenal concertinas have tapered chambers with a small straight end nearer the centre and a longer one at the outer side.

Those with radially arranged reeds do, and I think that includes all Englishes and duets, but I think most of the less-expensive Lachenal anglos have the reeds in two parallel rows, in chambers with parallel sides. Among others, Jeffries used the parallel arrangement, and apparently Jones used the radial

 

The only thing that would be different with a round concertina would be that one side would have a very slight curve to it. The shape of the chambers on 6,8, & 12 sided instruments would be the same.

The basis of the argument in favor of "circular is most uniform" was that this isn't strictly true. The "length" of the chamber from the side to the instrument's center is greater towards the vertices than it is in the center of the side, so the amount of taper will vary according to position, and so might the length itself. Furthermore, for most radial chambers the outer edge will be at a slant to the radial sides, and those sides will therefor be of different lengths, with the difference being greater for chambers nearer the vertices.

 

The shape of the chambers i.e. parallel sides vs. tapered sides wasn't, I think, part of the original discussion, just the shape of the body. I do agree that the shape of the chambers is very significant, but that's not what we were discussing.

It's not how this discussion started, but as I believe it's relevant to the question of why one might want to use a circular shape, I brought it up.

 

Maybe chamber size & shape would be a good topic for another discussion, however.

I think it already has been. Maybe more than once, as I think it was at one point discussed in combination with the subject of reed profiling. I have no objections to revisiting the subject, though.

[m3838]

I disagree with Frank about the topic of this discussion.

I started it up and I couldn't even imagine that the shape of a concertina can be considered without correlation with it's internal design.

I agree with Jim about the possibility of Wheatstone circular standard. I wonder, how many peopel today would be arguing that making 6 sided concertinas, esp. bellows is so much more difficult than radial, and boy, what about the reed chambers being of irregular shape? Have you noticed that tradtitional concertina reed shoes are tapered? Why would they be tapered, if not to be fitted in basically round instruments radially?

Which brings me back to the point, that was ignored: If in 19 century round shape was difficult, it's not the case today. I can walk into any hobby store and buy plywood rings of any size and thickness for 2 bucks. What is the reason for stickiing to labor intencive multy corner cabinet, aside from the habbit? And round is sturdier, with no joints. Round bellows is not a problem either, in fheory they are more easy to construct, with less gussetts, more sturdy.

The idea is that with ready jigs the shape doesn't matter, it's the internals, springs, buttons, tuning - that matters. But with the right jig round shape may offer more rigidity, more even tone, uniformity in reed replacements. And perhabs 6 sided IS the single contributor to this infamous (though arguable) disbalance between the voices. Imagine an accordion with reed banks of various shapes.

I also disagree that 8-10-12 sided instruments were marketing gimmicks. I think it was an attempt to bring instruments to sought round shape for believed advantage in sound.

If "I" was a luthier, "I" would tend to stick to proven design. The only motivation for me would be waning of the stream of customers. I know it doesn't seem like the customers, waiting for 6 sided concertinas will disappear anytime soon, but things usually change drastically in a very short time. Never hurts to try different things.

[Henk van Aalten]

I know it doesn't seem like the customers, waiting for 6 sided concertinas will disappear anytime soon, but things usually change drastically in a very short time. Never hurts to try different things.

Michael,

There are already a lot of customers for completely round concertinas.

 

 

It's a promising begin of a world wide introduction of the CR concertina

[m3838]

I want one.

Where did you find it?

My problem is solved: for one - it's more sturdy. Then it's easier to learn (an obvious attribute of round concertina, it's loud (must be), bright, light, disposable and it does roll off the table, which makes it fun to play with.

[red]

[Jim has suggested, privately, that I should have written

 

"Although you didn't say so, do you also

believe that the other non-hexagonal designs are just 'gimmicks'?

 

And I apologise to Frank if I caused him any offence.

 

I didn’t say that because it seems to me that if you state that a round concertina is a gimmick then the 8 and 12 sided are also gimmicks, as surely they are steps along the road to the round concertina. And if there is no practical advantage to the round then there is none to the 8/12. Presumably there was some perceptible marketable advantage to the more than six sided instruments? As m3838 has stated;-

 

“I also disagree that 8-10-12 sided instruments were marketing gimmicks. I think it was an attempt to bring instruments to sought round shape for believed advantage in sound.”

 

Was the perceived advantage the progressive uniformity of the chambers? Surely purchasers had to be persuaded of some advantage over the hexagon? People will not part with money for what they think of as a gimmick. Surely they had to hear the difference?

 

As to the difficulty of construction – by coincidence I was in friend’s workshop last week. He is a specialist in antique clock cases and was making a drum in mahogany for a mid 19c mantle clock – about 6 inches in diameter. He had coopered the segments to form a multi faceted polygon and then turned it true on the lathe – he didn’t think it a big deal. I suspect that this is how the round instrument under discussion is constructed, but it would be useful to know this and whether veneered.

[m3838]

Making myself more clear to those, who believe the round shape or it's approximation isn't necessary.

Please look here:

http://www.concertina.com/gaskins/baffles/...s-of-Ends-M.jpg

 

Note some wood carved out on the very rim of the end to make space for the valves.

A round (or 8-12 sided) cabinet would have accomodated the action, which was designed radially. A hexagon doesn't, being a crude approximation.

I don't know whether German 20 button push/pull instruments were designed to mimick more expencive conceritnas, made in England, or whether good quality English made instruments were in production before geman 20 button boxes.

I kind of suspect that EC came first, then Germans started making already popular button accordions in the shape of even more popular, but expencive concertinas and called them "Anglo", then Engish makers started to address rapidly growing market with 30 button Anglos.

[Henk van Aalten]

I want one.

Where did you find it?

Michael

 

You can place your order at this web page!!

[JimLucas]

...it seems to me that if you state that a round concertina is a gimmick then the 8 and 12 sided are also gimmicks, as surely they are steps along the road to the round concertina.

I disagree with your "as surely" conclusion. Though they may be in some sense compromises between the round shape and the 6-sided -- or is it the square? -- shape, these "intermediate" forms may have advantages of their own. Being less prone to roll and easier to construct (without extensive retooling) are two such advantages that have been suggested.

 

By the way, I used to believe the rumor that the 12-sided Edeophone was a Lachenal response to Wheatstone's 8-sided Æola, but I learned that it's not so. The 8-sided design was adopted about a decade after the 12-sided.

 

Was the perceived advantage the progressive uniformity of the chambers? Surely purchasers had to be persuaded of some advantage over the hexagon?

Is the primary motivation for buying Rolex watches the fact that they are superior timepieces, or the fact that they are status symbols? Was there a perceived performance advantage to the bizarre fins on the cars of the 1950's? (If so, why did the Chevy lose its fins in going from '57 to'58, while in the same timeframe the Buick -- also by GM -- added fins?) Perceived advantage need not be a advantage in performance.

 

People will not part with money for what they think of as a gimmick. Surely they had to hear the difference?

Actually, huge numbers of people constantly do just that, as long as it's "the latest" gimmick. Furthermore, people will commonly believe what they're told about the superiority of one thing over another without actually trying to validate it themselves. And if an item looks fancier, is labelled "deluxe", or even simply costs more, many (most?) people will assume that it's superior.

 

But here's a description of the Æola from a Wheatstone catalog:

Forty-eight Keys, very finest Ebony finish and best materials throughout, EIGHT SIDES and RAISED ENDS, C. W. & Co.'s new round top silver keys and fittings to match, duplex screwed notes and finest special grade new short touch, giving extremely rapid articulation. Powerful and rich tone

Note the emphasis on "EIGHT SIDES and RAISED ENDS" (the capital letters are theirs, not mine), yet no attempt to explain what might be advantageous about those features, and in particular no attempt to claim that they are responsible for the "Powerful and rich tone".

 

As to the difficulty of construction – by coincidence I was in friend’s workshop last week. He is a specialist in antique clock cases and was making a drum in mahogany for a mid 19c mantle clock ... he didn’t think it a big deal.

Which is why I suggested earlier that round ends may not be more difficult to make than polygonal, but might require different tools -- e.g., the lathe -- to make it easy. For someone already making multi-sided instruments the retooling would be an added expense.

 

I suspect that this is how the round instrument under discussion is constructed, but it would be useful to know this and whether veneered.

From the photos I have, I can't be sure, but I suspect not. I think the circular walls are far too thin (about 1/50 the diameter) for that method to work. I think that if made of wood, it would have to be a loop of steam-bent lath or ply. But since the end plates are metal, I wonder if the circular frames holding the reed pans might not actually be turned metal drums. Since what I can see is covered by leather, I can't really tell.

[JimLucas]

I don't know whether German 20 button push/pull instruments were designed to mimick more expencive conceritnas, made in England,...

Some were, but not the first ones. That was a later development, almost certainly after the Enlgish started making concertinas with German keyboards.

 

...or whether good quality English made instruments were in production before geman 20 button boxes.

I believe Wheatstone sold his first concertina -- a photo of which is Stephen Chambers' avatar -- in 1831, while Uhlig's first sale of his invention was 1835. Neither was called a "concertina" at the time. And though it's not impossible, I don't think there's any evidence that either inventor copied his design from the other, or that they were even in communication.

 

I kind of suspect that EC came first, then Germans started making already popular button accordions in the shape of even more popular, but expencive concertinas and called them "Anglo", then Engish makers started to address rapidly growing market with 30 button Anglos.

The English concertina came first, but the German one was apparently invented independently. When cheap German concertinas -- they were not known as "anglos" -- started showing up in England, the English makers (was Jones the first?) took advantage of its popularity by using their own construction methods to make instruments with the German-style keybaord. These were called "anglo-German". When additional buttons with accidentals were added, some were then marketed as "anglo-chromatic". As a result, they all became known simply as "anglo". But in my experience the name "anglo" wasn't applied to German-made instruments until some time in the 1970's or 1980's. Up until then the "anglo concertina" and the "German concertina" were generally treated as separate species.

 

If you search the old C.net posts you should find several Topics that fill in many more details of this history.