Jump to content


Photo

Morse Hayden


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#37 Boney

Boney

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 685 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bellingham, WA

Posted 09 October 2008 - 05:05 PM

Well, given that, Rich, my preferred solution would be to have two Ab's on either end (through linkages), and make the concertina square to keep the buttons from being too close to the edges. You should be able to make a square box slightly smaller from flat-to-flat than a hexagonal or octagonal box too, and the bellows should be simpler and have more volume. If linkages are cheap and easy, then adding a low D# to each end would make sense too. I don't know if a square box would be popular, but I think I'd prefer it for a medium-sized duet or larger.

#38 ragtimer

ragtimer

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern New England, USA

Posted 09 October 2008 - 10:44 PM

Well, given that, Rich, my preferred solution would be to have two Ab's on either end (through linkages), and make the concertina square to keep the buttons from being too close to the edges. You should be able to make a square box slightly smaller from flat-to-flat than a hexagonal or octagonal box too, and the bellows should be simpler and have more volume. If linkages are cheap and easy, then adding a low D# to each end would make sense too. I don't know if a square box would be popular, but I think I'd prefer it for a medium-sized duet or larger.

Well, everyone can guess that I would not object to a square concertina ;)
(since I already have a Hayden "bandoneon"). Given my druthers, I'd prefer hex or octagonal, tho.

Rich has a very elegant design for his internal linkages whereby "redundant" accidentals share a pad and reeds, so I'd expect him to use them.

I'll repeat what I said, that the low D# is very useful in trad keys. When I got my Bastari 67-key, with the low Eb but not D#, I thought "wow, now I can play Cm and F7 chords with some heft to them"

Well, it's really hard to reach that Eb key way over there, so those chords are available but not easy.
If I had to choose, I'd take that note as a D#. Of course I'd like to have both, and practice some mroe to stretch my left hand :o

I do wonder about those "squeakyt" high notes in the proposed 6th (7th?) row in the RH. They can be reached only with the index and middle fingers, which is what was proposed anyway, so these would be useful.

Just feeling glad we're talking about new Haydens again. --Mike K.

Edited by ragtimer, 09 October 2008 - 10:45 PM.


#39 wim wakker

wim wakker

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 09 October 2008 - 11:14 PM

Just found this thread…I am afraid I don’t visit c.net as often as I should…too busy building and designing concertinas…

I can give some more information on the Hayden entry level Rich mentioned.
At this moment I am working on a 34 key model. The “Phoebe”, based on the Jackie and Rochelle, will hopefully be available around June 2009. Initially I planned to make it 30 keys because of economic reasons, but I agree with Rich and other people that 30 keys would be too limited. However, the extra 4 notes do create a lot of problems. In spite popular believe, you can’t just put more reeds in an instrument without changing its playability and air consumption. If all goes well, the first trial runs at the factory should start in February.

While I am at it, there is more news planned for 2009.
Between our entry level instruments (jackie, rochelle) and our Wakker line of concertinas, I am working on 2 additional lines of instruments to fill the gap. In fact, both lines are just about finished.

The next step up from the jackies and Rochelles are the clover (anglo) and peacock (english). Both with hand made Italian accordion reeds. The instruments are finished and ready for production. Actually, their introduction was planned for 2008, but because of our move and the declining US$/increasing shipping cost, we decided to postpone it and move the production to the US and partly to Europe.

The next model line is the prodigy anglo and english. Both models have ‘real’ concertina reeds, but priced at 40-50% lower than the current instruments with traditional reeds. Both instruments are more or less ‘wheatstone clones’ relying heavily on the old 1920s techniques.. These instruments do NOT have our hand made 'Wakker' reeds.

Hopefully, we’ll be able to add a Hayden to both model lines in the future. Although our 2 hayden models are quite popular, I am afraid the instrument will never be able to compete with the anglo or english as far as popularity goes. The number of players will always be limited.

Wim Wakker
Concertina Connection Inc.

#40 ragtimer

ragtimer

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern New England, USA

Posted 19 October 2008 - 10:14 PM

I can give some more information on the Hayden entry level Rich mentioned.
At this moment I am working on a 34 key model. The “Phoebe”, based on the Jackie and Rochelle, will hopefully be available around June 2009. Initially I planned to make it 30 keys because of economic reasons, but I agree with Rich and other people that 30 keys would be too limited.

Wim Wakker
Concertina Connection Inc.

I was thinking about the small (30-odd key) Hayden introductory model, and it occurred ot me to assign buttons from the botttom up (starting from scratch), rather than mentally taking a standard 46-key and removing notes.

Let's see: If we start out diatonic, just white notes in the key of C, we can do two octaves on each side for 15 notes per side or 30 keys.
But even the 46ers don't have the top C on the left side, so we can leave that one out, for 29.

Now we want to play in key of G, so add the higher F# on LH, and both on RH. 32 keys.
Then add the C# on LH for the A major chord, and C# on the RH, and I guess we're at the limit that Wim proposed.

But the RH's high C would be all by itself, so drop it (this could really tick off the melody tho).
Maybe lets you put in another sharp on the RH.

I suspect that more reeds can be fitted on the RH than LH, being an octave higher, but maybe not.

Anyway, would someone want a Hayden that was nearly diatonic? Hey, it would still be a blast to play in C and G.
But it would lose the much-vaunted ability of the Hayden to play in several keys.
Tho a C/G Hayden would be as useful as a C/G 20-button Anglo!!

Note that all the above applies to any Duet system that tries to get by on low-30s button count.

Am I helping or hindering here? I really want the world to have an affordable Hayden.
--Mike K.

Edited by ragtimer, 19 October 2008 - 10:18 PM.


#41 Richard Morse

Richard Morse

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Massachusetts, USA

Posted 20 October 2008 - 06:59 AM

I suspect that more reeds can be fitted on the RH than LH, being an octave higher, but maybe not.

The way Wim described the problem to me is that both sides have to be near identical (same number of reeds, reedbank layout, action placement) in order to get the fabrication costs so low.

Your suggestion of C to B on both sides with F#'s and C#'s is also one of my suggestions to him. Wim says that the folk tune crowd is pretty minor compared to the chromatic accordion crowd so he's aiming his Hayden layout more toward them which means a box which is near fully chromatic albeit at the expense of range.

Am I helping or hindering here? I really want the world to have an affordable Hayden.

I think that the more input he gets the better this thing will turn out.

-- Rich --

#42 ragtimer

ragtimer

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern New England, USA

Posted 20 October 2008 - 09:04 AM

I suspect that more reeds can be fitted on the RH than LH, being an octave higher, but maybe not.

The way Wim described the problem to me is that both sides have to be near identical (same number of reeds, reedbank layout, action placement) in order to get the fabrication costs so low.

OK -- I wondered if there were some constraints (like all six reed banks identical) that Wim was working under. I know the Jack/ie and Rochelle look pretty much the same inside.

Your suggestion of C to B on both sides with F#'s and C#'s is also one of my suggestions to him.

Glad to hear that great minds think alike ;)

Wim says that the folk tune crowd is pretty minor compared to the chromatic accordion crowd so he's aiming his Hayden layout more toward them which means a box which is near fully chromatic albeit at the expense of range.

I suspet Wim is right. The diatonic folk crowd is already playing Anglo or melodeons.
So this would lead to a Hayden with fewer rows of buttons, but each row as wide as a 46er.
C to G, maybe. I haven't stopped to visualize it yet. But one could jsut start counting buttons up the rows on a 46er and stop on reaching 16.

Let's see ... C to F# on both sides. Maybe sacrifice some black note to get up to G. 1.5 octaves, about the same range as the melody section of my monkey organ. Usable, and a proper intro to the Hayden.

Am I helping or hindering here? I really want the world to have an affordable Hayden.

I think that the more input he gets the better this thing will turn out.
-- Rich --

OK Rich, thanks. Let me know when I need to sit down and shut up :huh:
--Mike K.

#43 inventor

inventor

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 22 October 2008 - 07:04 AM

Have been away for 3 weeks and on return amazed to find this thread resurected. I seem to have missed all the fun.
Regards 7" concertinas: the Russian model was designed using standard size Accordion reedplates (16mm wide) as a pattern. It had 65 buttons the same notes as the shortly expected WW larger Hayden (7.75 octogon). These buttons were most carefully selected, bottom end F, G, A, Bb, - chromatic. The F prefered to an Ab as most people would find this note much more usefull. Some years ago I discussed this with Reuben Shaw, one of the finest of the older generation of Maccan Duet classical music players. He used a 67 button Wheatstone Aeola (8.75 octogon) with the low G# replaced with an F.
Wheatstones 7" (57 button hexagonal duet) had 25 buttons on left (tenor c - 2 octaves) though I have come across Lachenal duets with the same 25 in a 6.5" Hexagon.
Regret I will have to break off as my time is nearly up.
Inventor

#44 Dirge

Dirge

    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Napier, New Zealand

Posted 22 October 2008 - 01:26 PM

And on your suggestion I did exactly that with my 67 (commissioned an F to replace the Ab) and it was well worth it, it opens up a lot more written music. I think you could take this to extremes though; there are a surprising number of tunes that do need either the F or G sharp.

Someone said earlier that 57's are too big; I disagree. I think they are fine for pumping leverages and bellows capacity, both of which suffer with very small duets once you start to play several notes at once.

#45 ragtimer

ragtimer

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern New England, USA

Posted 22 October 2008 - 03:56 PM

And on your suggestion I did exactly that with my 67 (commissioned an F to replace the Ab) and it was well worth it, it opens up a lot more written music. I think you could take this to extremes though; there are a surprising number of tunes that do need either the F or G sharp.

My 67-key Bastari square-ender has a low F# where the low Eb should be. I don't need the low Eb much, but the F# in that position is pretty useless for chords, as it is out of position for Hayden. It is usable (but not easy to reach) for chromatic bass runs.

Someone said earlier that 57's are too big; I disagree. I think they are fine for pumping leverages and bellows capacity, both of which suffer with very small duets once you start to play several notes at once.

I agree. My big square Bastari runs out of air amazingly fast (two reeds per note), and I am always "swallowing" (missing) notes due to frequent bellows reversals. Would I want it even bigger? Yes -- and no! :blink:
--Mike K.

#46 inventor

inventor

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 28 October 2008 - 06:32 AM

Continued to look at my notes on 7" Hexagonal Concertinas over the week.
1) I examined a Crabb 7" 62 button Crane system (made by John Crabb) LHS 30 buttons, must have been baritone G to c" chromatic. Paralell reedchambers 11 up 11 down 7 in the middle (up) and one sideways (diagonally up). RHS middle c' to f"' chromatic plus g"' & a"', 10 up 11 down 7 in middle (up) and 4 sideways.
I did make a particular note about this one that the reeds in the centre of the reed-pan were dovetailed diagonally into the reed-pan (not screwed on as I have seen on later Harry Crabb duets) and that there was no noticeable difference between the timbre of these notes and the reeds tat were dovetailed from the sides. On the RHS the air button went to a chamber big enough for another pair of reeds, and/or there could have been 11 up instead of 10 giving 33/34 possible. So (with a few Morse enharmonic links) a 65 button instrument should be possible.
2) 7" Hexagonal Wheatstone Maccans have 57 buttons laid out radially in a double fan. LHS tenor c to c" (drop this 2 semitones to Bb to a' plus b' and there is still plenty of space for F, G, & A in the centre of the pan. on the RHS you will only need to add one pair of reeds (suggest the top eb"'/f"') to the centre of the pan, combined with 4 Morse enharmonic links again makes 65 button.
3) Some years ago I was considering upgrading my original Hayden system Crabb (a tad over 7" wide) to conform to the standard button spacing and angles and at the same time upgrading it to a 65 button instrument (only a few of the inner pan spaces had been filled) and using extra reed pairs from a broken down Jeffries duett concertina. Everything for a 65 button instrument would have fitted into this instrument without the need for harmonic links, but suddenly a larger instrument that I had given up hope of ever receiving suddenly appeared so I have kept the original, and expect to leave it to a concertina museum when I snuff it. I have the diagrams of how I proposed to do this and will dig them out.
4) 6.25" Instruments....
Inventor

#47 inventor

inventor

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 28 October 2008 - 07:26 AM

Had to log out suddenly as my time was up but have managed to persuade the Librarian that I had important imformation to send worldwide and she has kindly given me another 45 minutes ! So back to 6.25" instruments.

People love this size of instrument and it is always going to be the defining size for a concertina however the 46 buttons usually put on small duett concertinas is just as few too little for many people. I had hoped to put a few more buttons in this when I originally worked on the design with Steve Dickenson, however he was unwilling to alter any established Wheatstone practice.
To Rich and anyone else who has a 46 button Wheatstone Hayden. Look inside first you will notice that there are 2 very small empty spaces in the RH Reedpan, if these were combined another button could be included at the upper end of the compass. However it would have meant that some of the upper end notes would have had to use criss-cross action, (this was a well established practice at Crabbs for some of their larger Duets, and was used extensively for a whole two rows of notes by Colin Dipper on his "Franglos", (but "we don't do that at Wheatstones"). In the centre of the reed-pan on both sides there is adequate space for an extra 2 pairs of reeds and I have given a clue as to how to add the extras without changing the timbre, (but "we don't do that at Wheatstones").
This would give a 49 button instrument as follows LHS add B flat and e flat at the left hand end of the lower two rows.
and the same (bb & eb') an octave higher on the RHS. the other button to play the higher eb", Morse links might be rather difficult on such a small instrument. Look at the button board on the 46 button instrument, you will see that these will fit within the oval of button space.
This adds the popular key of Bb to the "easy keys" which would be very usefull for American Trad Musicians, and would make the most popular Klesmer scale (D Eb F# G A Bb C d) easy to play. I think that could be a winning small instrument that everone would want to own.
Inventor.

#48 Richard Morse

Richard Morse

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Massachusetts, USA

Posted 28 October 2008 - 02:27 PM

Morse links might be rather difficult on such a small instrument. Look at the button board on the 46 button instrument, you will see that these will fit within the oval of button space.

Do you mean the buttons or the link action? Ensuring that the links fit within the raised oval isn't an issue with my design as I've got the transverse bar rotating in a "tunnel" routed into the underside of the action board (so they can run as long as the box is wide and makes for unencumbered space above the "regular" action). The only tricky bit is making sure the dimension from the active/remote buttons to the fulcrum post is the same, and that the post to pad dimension is the correct ratio from the buttons.

This adds the popular key of Bb to the "easy keys" which would be very usefull for American Trad Musicians, and would make the most popular Klesmer scale (D Eb F# G A Bb C d) easy to play. I think that could be a winning small instrument that everone would want to own.

A great size/range box for sure!

-- Rich --

#49 inventor

inventor

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 297 posts

Posted 05 November 2008 - 06:56 AM

What I was meaning was that as the d#" on the 46 Wheatstone has on a very short action and goes out almost directly to the RHS I thought it might be very difficult to get a Morse link from LHS eb" to this, and it might be easier to simply have a pair of reeds for each of these notes, and amalganating the 2 unused narrow spaces might enable this to be done more easily. However if you are designing from scratch, rather than modyfying an existing design, this shouldn't be any problem.

Regards a 34 Chinese: I would definitely reccomend going for middle c' to b" with f#', c#", & f#" on the right hand side; (LHS tenor c to b' with f#, c#' & f#'). Those small Maccans which start on the higher g" on the right and have a missing tenor d on the left are definitely wrong, no matter how cheap they may be; people continually turn up to my beginners duett classes with them, and I am constantly telling them that if they like the Maccan system to get a 57 button instrument (not even a 56 Maccan) as soon as possible.
I didn't like the name "Pheobe" at all, I see Duetts as Male instruments, along with English style Anglos, and "Pheobe" has backward looking associations to the 1940s. English system trebbles are femail (Jackie very sensible) and English Baritones are Male (Jack excellent); Irish anglos are of course femail (I understand that the Irish name for a concertina, which I can't remember off hand translates as "Mrs Accordion"). I am not quite sure where the name Rochelle comes from. Personally I would prefer the name RYAN, for a Chinese Hayden system duet, what do other people think?

Inventor.

#50 Ivan Viehoff

Ivan Viehoff

    Chatty concertinist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 303 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chalfont St. Giles, England

Posted 06 November 2008 - 06:16 AM

Regards a 34 Chinese: I would definitely reccomend going for middle c' to b" with f#', c#", & f#" on the right hand side; (LHS tenor c to b' with f#, c#' & f#').

If I had only 17 buttons a side, I'd go, as a starting bid, for C to G with F# G# Bb C# F# each side. Then you could play in a couple of minor keys (D min A min) as well as gaining F maj and A maj. I realise that Brian's suggestion gives you rows of 4, 5, 4, 4 which looks pretty, whereas mine is 5, 5, 5, 2, which is messier. But I think I would say a lot of the pieces I play on my 57-Maccann use only the buttons I mention, whereas I rarely use the two higher buttons I have sacrified.

If I was allowed (or indeed forced) to have the buttons 16 and 18 across the sides, I might give up the upper F# and G on the left, and put an (upper) Eb or D# on each side.

#51 ragtimer

ragtimer

    Heavyweight Boxer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 742 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern New England, USA

Posted 29 November 2008 - 01:15 PM

Regards a 34 Chinese: I would definitely reccomend going for middle c' to b" with f#', c#", & f#" on the right hand side; (LHS tenor c to b' with f#, c#' & f#'). Those small Maccans which start on the higher g" on the right and have a missing tenor d on the left are definitely wrong, no matter how cheap they may be; people continually turn up to my beginners duett classes with them, and I am constantly telling them that if they like the Maccan system to get a 57 button instrument (not even a 56 Maccan) as soon as possible.

I agree. A RHS that doesn't go down to Middle C is just way too limiting, especially when you're giving up some top-end notes.

I didn't like the name "Pheobe" at all, I see Duetts as Male instruments, along with English style Anglos, and "Pheobe" has backward looking associations to the 1940s.

Well, it seems that a Duet should be named after a couple -- a man and a woman both -- since it has a "male" LHS and "female" RHS. Anyone know a famous man and wife musical duo?

Personally I would prefer the name RYAN, for a Chinese Hayden system duet, what do other people think?

Inventor.

RYAN sounds close enough to BRIAN, which was my suggestion a while ago -- I udnerstand that Inventor can't suggest that one ;)
Any other suggestions? Anyway, let's hope Wim gets to work on the instrument -- it could really open up the Duet world -- or leave a lot of frustration if it's too limited.

Re the Morse Hayden -- I like the idea, mentioned in several earlier posts, that adding just a few well-chosen notes to the standard 46 can give a much more useful instrument. The Tedrow 52 is a good example. If Rich wants to start off with a button count in the low 50s, I'll buy one. But I still hope for somethign that goes down to G on both sides and has a few flat keys.
--Mike K.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users