Anotheractive thread on this forum got me to thinking about the inherent quality of some of the old analog instruments built before the digital organ age. The electronicorgan industrydecided long agothat digital is the onlyway to go, but I often wonder if we haven't lost something in thewholesale abandonment of analog. Was there something --in some way -- more "real" or "honest" about the analogs that the digitals just don't capture?</P>
My partner and Istill tune and repair a lot of analogs, especially Allen and Rodgers organs, some built 40+ years ago, and I'm often amazed at the beautiful sounds I hear from them. Just today we tuned an old Rodgers 32C from 1969, installed in a cavernous 1200-seat sanctuary with wondrouslylive acoustics. Probably quite undersized for that room, but still making some lovely music without the benefit of any digital technology. Just listening to some of those beautiful tones gave me chills. I've had this same reaction on a number of occasions.</P>
Digital made it possible to put a lot moredistinctive stops into an organ at reasonable cost, mostly eleminating unification and borrowing. And certainly the tones are more "authentic" and startlingly pipe-like. Tuning and regulation can be done once and locked in forever. All kinds of features can be incorporated into an organ with minimal cost.</P>
But there is still a charm about the old analogs, something I can't quite quantify, some characteristic that still appeals to my ears, often more so than a new digital. When I hear one like the 32C we worked on today, I'm once more aware of the respect due these older organs, in spite of the advances in technology since their building.</P>
Anybody out there agree? Or disagree? Have any comments or reactions?</P>
John</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>
Comment