Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wim wakker

New Wakker Hayden Duet

Recommended Posts

For anyone interested: I just uploaded the first photos of the W-H1 model. We offer 2 models: H1= 46 keys, H2= 65 keys.

For more info visit our site.

 

Wim Wakker

Concertina Connection v.o.f.

 

post-202-1184400309_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best of luck Wim, a decent sized Hayden for them to move on to. I hope you sell loads of them. Duets will rise again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last week we had two at our session: John Vernon on Jeffries duet and Heather Minnion on MacCann. Who said duets had ever sunk :)

 

Nice one, Wim!

 

Chris

Edited by Chris Timson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For anyone interested: I just uploaded the first photos of the W-H1 model. We offer 2 models: H1= 46 keys, H2= 65 keys.

For more info visit our site.

 

Wim Wakker

Concertina Connection v.o.f.

Very exciting for the Hayden Duet world! A quality 46k, and an expanded 65k.

 

One technical question: Why the use of "short scaled" reeds, as opposed to the long-scaled reeds used in the ECs? My understanding (probably wrong) is that long-scale reeds speak more quickly in the low register, so would be preferable for bass notes. Or do the short=-scale reeds balance the volume over the entire range better?

 

The prices -- are clearly, uh, er, professional. Not surprising for the quality, but beyond day-dreaming.

There's still a market for a midrange, hybrid Hayden, both 46k (step up from the Stagi) and larger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One technical question: Why the use of "short scaled" reeds, as opposed to the long-scaled reeds used in the ECs? My understanding (probably wrong) is that long-scale reeds speak more quickly in the low register, so would be preferable for bass notes. Or do the short=-scale reeds balance the volume over the entire range better?

 

 

You’re right. Long scale reeds produce a better/more even equilibrium and need less air to start the swing cycle.. we use them in our anglo and english models, except for the Eir anglo and E-4 english, which both have a different scaling.

The reason our Haydens have a shorter scaling is because of the limited space in the instrument. With the ‘Hayden’ scaling I tempered the lower notes to get a ‘flatter’ amplitude curve.

Most vintage concertinas have short scale reeds (including the linota). The only exceptions are the edeo’s and aeolas.

 

Wim

Concertina Connection v.o.f.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am seriously interested, here.

 

First of all, I don't see a link anywhere in this thread to the relevant page on Wim's site. Here is one.

 

Second, I am curious about the choice of putting an Eb/F button in place of the air button. Does this mean there is no air button? Is that a problem? Does this mean one note is only available on the push and one on the pull? I would think this was unfortunate.

 

I am also humbled by my recent experience with the 86-key Wheatstone Hayden that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. I found it unwieldy and easy to get lost on, even after playing a Hayden-46 for 20 years. I am afraid the 65 might offer similar problems. Are there no plans to make an intermediate-sized instrument (like Dickinson's 55 key)? I don't need another 46, but 65 might be more than I need.

 

But all this is very encouraging. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am curious about the choice of putting an Eb/F button in place of the air button. Does this mean there is no air button? Is that a problem? Does this mean one note is only available on the push and one on the pull? I would think this was unfortunate.

Did Wim indeed mean a separate push and pull note? I thought maybe his "F/Eb" notation meant an optional choice at build time. Though I can understand that this is the lowest note(s) and largest reeds in the box.

 

Yes, getting used to a bisonoric button or two on a Hayden would take some getting used to, but humans are very adaptable :huh:

I am also humbled by my recent experience with the 86-key Wheatstone Hayden that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. I found it unwieldy and easy to get lost on, even after playing a Hayden-46 for 20 years. I am afraid the 65 might offer similar problems. Are there no plans to make an intermediate-sized instrument (like Dickinson's 55 key)? I don't need another 46, but 65 might be more than I need.

I can imagine easily getting lost in too many buttons -- even on my 46 I sometiems start a tune off by a second or a 4th :( Although 65 is a lot less area than 86.

 

I agree, that just to "fix the holes", the most egregious omissions, in the 46, about 55 keys should be enough. It's when you extend either hand down to G or F and try to make all chords playable in the LH, that the buttons mount up in a hurry. However, that extra 4th or 5th of low range is SO desirable!

 

Rich Morse's chart, with the "Minimal" and "Optimal" additions to the basic 46k layout, is very helpful in this regard, to see where the tradeoff points lie.

 

I'd like to see a 55k in the $3,000 range, myself.

But all this is very encouraging. Thanks.

Indeed it is! We can dream again. Maybe even start socking caash aside, notwithstanding my earlier remarks ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am curious about the choice of putting an Eb/F button in place of the air button. Does this mean there is no air button? Is that a problem? Does this mean one note is only available on the push and one on the pull? I would think this was unfortunate.
Or maybe not? I think that the choice of those two notes by the thumb is at the suggestion by Brian Hayden himself. He had his Dipper made that way and stongly recommended that we make our larger Hayden that way. Part of the reasoning is that it would be really hard for one's pinky to grab the D# and part because the D# button would be so close to the edge of the instrument that it's lever arm would have to be severely compromised (plus if you had raised ends, that button would be completely off the raised part).

 

-- Rich --

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Second, I am curious about the choice of putting an Eb/F button in place of the air button. Does this mean there is no air button? Is that a problem? Does this mean one note is only available on the push and one on the pull? I would think this was unfortunate.

 

I am also humbled by my recent experience with the 86-key Wheatstone Hayden that there is such a thing as too much of a good thing. I found it unwieldy and easy to get lost on, even after playing a Hayden-46 for 20 years. I am afraid the 65 might offer similar problems. Are there no plans to make an intermediate-sized instrument (like Dickinson's 55 key)? I don't need another 46, but 65 might be more than I need.

 

Since I don’t play Hayden duet myself, I followed Brian Hayden’s suggestions to the letter. Certainly at this point I feel it is not up to me to change the layout or number of buttons. Brian was kind enough to sent me information on keyboard dimensions etc. and approved my layout.

 

I thought of offering a ‘marked’ button, for instance the “A”. Since the instrument has standard flat buttons, the marked ones (1 or 2 per side) can be domed, or flat with a domed keyboard.

 

I read all the articles dealing with Hayden lay outs. Between these and the emails I got from different players I ended up with so many variations that I decided to stick with the 2 that Brian suggested: 46 and 65.

By the way, the D#3/F3 button on the 65 key can be one of the two notes, both or just an air button.

If there is a 55 key layout that can be considered standard, I am willing to add this to our gamma.

 

Another reason for the 46 and 65 key models is the cost. I realize that they are not cheap, but they are much more complex to make than a simple 30 key anglo and take much longer...It took me 1500-2000 hours to design and test the instrument, and I have been doing this professionally for many years….

 

Wim

Concertina Connection v.o.f.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought of offering a ‘marked’ button, for instance the “A”. Since the instrument has standard flat buttons, the marked ones (1 or 2 per side) can be domed, or flat with a domed keyboard.

That's a good idea on a larger layout. Just don't remind anyoen that it's used on the LH of accordions :rolleyes:

I read all the articles dealing with Hayden lay outs. Between these and the emails I got from different players I ended up with so many variations that I decided to stick with the 2 that Brian suggested: 46 and 65.

By the way, the D#3/F3 button on the 65 key can be one of the two notes, both or just an air button.

If there is a 55 key layout that can be considered standard, I am willing to add this to our gamma.

After making my earlier posting, I went back and looked at Rich Morse's chart. He shows the 46, "Minimal", and "Optimal" added keys. To put things in perspective, even his Minimal layout is 59 keys! And the Optimal is 79 or 80! So it appears that 65 is not excessive for a top-end Hayden instrument.

 

Once you extend either hand down another fourth or fifth -- deeper oom-pah bass in the LH, get down to Fiddle G (like a treble EC) in the RH -- you really do need a button count in the 60s. Extending both sides may push to 70.

 

I need to do some more thinking about what could be done with 55 or so. I suspet every Hayden player has his own wish-list for added notes.

 

But in short, the 65-key model seems like the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, that just to "fix the holes", the most egregious omissions, in the 46, about 55 keys should be enough. It's when you extend either hand down to G or F and try to make all chords playable in the LH, that the buttons mount up in a hurry. However, that extra 4th or 5th of low range is SO desirable!

 

Rich Morse's chart, with the "Minimal" and "Optimal" additions to the basic 46k layout, is very helpful in this regard, to see where the tradeoff points lie.

 

I'd like to see a 55k in the $3,000 range, myself.

Tedrow makes a 52-key hybrid Hayden which I understand is in that price range. He includes the partial rows so that it provides a complete set of accidentals across its range, and a complete 2 octaves in each hand. Wim is charging the same for his 46-Hayden as for his 48-English, so I don't think he can charge any less.

 

With 46/48-key duets, there are always compromises, because you need 50 keys to get the complete 2 octaves in each hand we generally crave. So do you shorten the range or miss out some of the accidentals? Crane-48 shortens the range in the LH; the Maccann-46 and Wim's 46-key Hayden both keep the range but miss out some accidentals.

 

Comparing Wim's Hayden with a 46-key Maccann (which I recently played) in more detail, we find that Wim has provided the LH low D that Maccann players so miss, at the cost of the LH upper B-flat. (Whilst I would give up almost anything - within reason - for the low D on a Maccann, if I was to choose I'd have given up the top C or top G# before the B-flat). He has also provided the RH range down to middle-C that many - perhaps not all - 46-Maccann players crave. But he has not provided the accidentals in that low end RH range - they are only available duplicated on the LH - thus making it much harder to play within the low range of the instrument on the RH than would be true of a Maccann (in its range).

 

On Wim's 46-key, my priority would have been to have a complete 2 octaves in the right hand, because there are enough keys for it, ie provide the low c# and d# and lose the top c# and d. Now playing 57-key Maccann, where I have both, I find the former much more useful. Having provided those, it then becomes a matter of taste whether one keeps the LH upper C# and D# as currently provided, or provide the low ones instead and rely on overlap for the upper ones. (Is it preferable to rely on overlap to fill in missing LH notes rather than missing RH notes? - I think so). In the latter case, the instrument would now have a complete 3 octave range. But both these adjustments would have required either partial rows (as on the Tedrow) or out-of-pattern keys (as on a Maccann).

 

I really don't think there is a standard anything yet in the Hayden duet world. Wim has a real chance to establish a standard. By looking at what 55-key Crane and 57-key Maccann provide, which I think are very much the benchmark for medium sized Duets, considered very useful instruments, it is evident that the minimum standard is a complete 2 octaves in each hand, with an octave overlap, which takes up 50 of the 55 keys. Maccann and Crane provide that on C, but Tedrow provides it on Bb on his 52-key.

 

I'm not sure whether I was saddened or relieved that I saw a good-sized Wheatstone Hayden, made 2002, in the display cabinet at the Horniman Museum when I visited a couple of weeks ago. On the one hand, it is the most recent English-made Hayden I am aware of, indicating that supply has not completely dried up, as discussion on this forum suggested. On the other hand, surely someone wants to be playing it rather than leaving it to sit there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, that just to "fix the holes", the most egregious omissions, in the 46, about 55 keys should be enough. It's when you extend either hand down to G or F and try to make all chords playable in the LH, that the buttons mount up in a hurry. However, that extra 4th or 5th of low range is SO desirable!

 

Rich Morse's chart, with the "Minimal" and "Optimal" additions to the basic 46k layout, is very helpful in this regard, to see where the tradeoff points lie.

 

I'd like to see a 55k in the $3,000 range, myself.

Tedrow makes a 52-key hybrid Hayden which I understand is in that price range. He includes the partial rows so that it provides a complete set of accidentals across its range, and a complete 2 octaves in each hand. Wim is charging the same for his 46-Hayden as for his 48-English, so I don't think he can charge any less.

Thanks; I'm glad to hear that the Tedrow Hayden is more affordable. One objection I have is that Tedrow puts the low C# and D# in a bottom partial row. That's OK on the RH, and consistent with the 3rd row there.

But on the LH the D# should be in the Eb position, left of the F in 2nd row, for use in makign Eb chords.

 

I may get razzed for saying it, but the RH is for playing melodies and the LH is (mostly) for playing bass and chords. More about this below.

With 46/48-key duets, there are always compromises, because you need 50 keys to get the complete 2 octaves in each hand we generally crave. So do you shorten the range or miss out some of the accidentals? Crane-48 shortens the range in the LH; the Maccann-46 and Wim's 46-key Hayden both keep the range but miss out some accidentals.

Yes, that's good basic math -- 2 octaves each side = 2 x 25 = 50 keys.

"Folk" instruments (which some concertinas are considered) have a tradition of dropping a few accidentals (or mroe than a few!) to get more range. But when reading a piece of music, I get more confused by missing accidentals near the end of the range, than I do by simply running out of notes -- that is, it's harder to tell (with missing accidentals) when you need to drop or go up an octave.

On Wim's 46-key, my priority would have been to have a complete 2 octaves in the right hand, because there are enough keys for it, ie provide the low c# and d# and lose the top c# and d. Now playing 57-key Maccann, where I have both, I find the former much more useful. Having provided those, it then becomes a matter of taste whether one keeps the LH upper C# and D# as currently provided, or provide the low ones instead and rely on overlap for the upper ones.

I agree; I'd rather fill in the missing bottom accidentals than extend the range above C.

(Is it preferable to rely on overlap to fill in missing LH notes rather than missing RH notes? - I think so). In the latter case, the instrument would now have a complete 3 octave range. But both these adjustments would have required either partial rows (as on the Tedrow) or out-of-pattern keys (as on a Maccann).

I don't think very highly of using overlap between hands to fill in missing notes, tho I have practiced it some. It only works for solo passsages, the two sides don't quite match in tone quality, and that's whawt ECs are for ;)

I really don't think there is a standard anything yet in the Hayden duet world. Wim has a real chance to establish a standard. By looking at what 55-key Crane and 57-key Maccann provide, which I think are very much the benchmark for medium sized Duets, considered very useful instruments, it is evident that the minimum standard is a complete 2 octaves in each hand, with an octave overlap, which takes up 50 of the 55 keys. Maccann and Crane provide that on C, but Tedrow provides it on Bb on his 52-key.

Well, the 46-key is the defacto standard of the Hayden world, and Wim just went with it. Of course we are all frustrated with it. Anyway, you seem to agree with my earlier post that 55 keys might be a good spot.

 

So I have a comment on Wim's 65-key. Like the old Bastari 67, it extends the LH down a 5th (for deeper oom-pah bass, let's be honest about it <_< ), but neither extends the RH below middle C.

 

(Edited to correct my ERROR above. Wim's 65 does indeed extend RH down to Fiddle G. Please excuse me for getting my charts mixed up! -- Ragtimer]

 

With all the fiddle and EC tunes that descend to G, with accidentals to boot), it would seem that a top priority for a larger Duet would be to get down there, even at the cost of those big bass reeds on the LH.

I'm not sure whether I was saddened or relieved that I saw a good-sized Wheatstone Hayden, made 2002, in the display cabinet at the Horniman Museum when I visited a couple of weeks ago. On the one hand, it is the most recent English-made Hayden I am aware of, indicating that supply has not completely dried up, as discussion on this forum suggested. On the other hand, surely someone wants to be playing it rather than leaving it to sit there.

A brand new Hayden rotting in a glass case? I hope it's a dummy mockup :angry:

Edited by ragtimer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amongst belches and banter, disgruntled drunken groans, a hairy knuckled hand casts a strangely ornate hexagonal box to the sky.

 

Tumbeling heaven ward, amongst hoots and howles, bannana peelings and "forget-me-nots" baking on a granite slab, the beast transforms: a caterpiller foaming in its coccoon, leather and wood resound, buttons sunder up and the shell of pretentious bisonorism sheds away.

 

Spiralling on its way through space, grinding its way through the curvature of the cosmos, it waltzes past the clutches of non-opposing digits, a shooting star twinkling in moon glazed eyes.

 

Fear, prejudice, disbelief - at last the creature uncurls from its heavenly voyage.

 

A mighty rock is rolled away, from a shadowy cavern a figure emerges with the box, bedecked with harmony, reeling with chromatisism, leaving the lamenting cries of envy chained to endless drones in D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amongst belches and banter, disgruntled drunken groans, a hairy knuckled hand casts a strangely ornate hexagonal box to the sky.

 

Tumbeling heaven ward, amongst hoots and howles, bannana peelings and "forget-me-nots" baking on a granite slab, the beast transforms: a caterpiller foaming in its coccoon, leather and wood resound, buttons sunder up and the shell of pretentious bisonorism sheds away.

 

Spiralling on its way through space, grinding its way through the curvature of the cosmos, it waltzes past the clutches of non-opposing digits, a shooting star twinkling in moon glazed eyes.

 

Fear, prejudice, disbelief - at last the creature uncurls from its heavenly voyage.

 

A mighty rock is rolled away, from a shadowy cavern a figure emerges with the box, bedecked with harmony, reeling with chromatisism, leaving the lamenting cries of envy chained to endless drones in D.

That's easy for you to say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regards the high eb"'/f"' button on the right hand thumb. This was included on the Russian concertina. If I had put an eb"' and f"' on the place that they would normally go this would have pushed all the RH buttons back so that either the lowest would be too close to the hand rest or the hand rest would have been pushed too far back to comfortably play the instrument. An air button was included for the left thumb.

Inventor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S.

So far as I am concerned I think that the Button sceme as on the Russian is the best for a medium sized concertina, this fits into a convenient 7" size using standard accordion reed plates or on a Crabb type up and down tonechamber instrument. I daresay I could design an instrument radially if required.

inventor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "Russian" button scheme I presume is the Haydenovskaya 64-key, which never got beyond a prototype, shown here http://www.well.com/~jax/rcfb/hayden_duet....date_2004-01-31. As far as I can see, externally the key scheme it is identical to the Wakker 65-key apart from the thumb-button. Maybe Inventor has in mind the internal layout in referring to the "scheme", since the Wakker is 7 3/4".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike in concertinas with accordion reeds, in instruments with traditional concertina reeds the size of the instrument is mostly determined by the size of the reed frames and chambers.

 

When using uncompromised reed scaling (having the pitch of the reed determine the length of the tongue, rather than ‘pinching’ the lower reeds) the lowest reed frames would be over 3”.

Add to that the optimum chamber dimensions in order to give the reed the same swing cycle start and harmonic spectrum as the higher reeds, the chambers will be around 4”.

 

If you want to make the instrument as small as possible, you’ll need to change (compromise) the reed scaling, especially of the lower notes.

Personally, I think that both sound quality and action performance (= key travel, weight with the smallest possible variation between the keys) should be more important than instrument size. Even when done right, reed scaling is always a compromise.. This goes for both reed and string instruments. Just compare the sound quality of a 9’ concert grand with a 4’ baby grand…

 

examples of “good” reed scaling in vintage concertinas are the late Victorian englishes from both Wheatstone and Lachenal and the linota anglo which also has compromised scaling…

 

The ‘long scale reeds’ found in aeolas and edeo’s and harmoniums (which use the same reed technique and are the closest free reed relative to the concertina) are actually based on uncompromised reed dimensions. We use these also in most of our anglo and english models.

I developed (calculated) a slightly different reed scaling for our Hayden 46 key, in order to fit the reeds in the given reedpan, and to obtain a slightly ‘flatter’ equilibrium. In the 65 key I start ‘pinching’ the lower reeds later down the scale, keeping most of the reeds at perfect dimensions..

 

Extreme small instrument dimensions can only be obtained with brutal scaling methods like adding weights to the lower reeds, something I refuse to do…. I rather add a ¼ or ½ inch and have an instrument with a uniform spectrum and reed characteristics…..

 

Wim

Concertina Connection v.o.f.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...