"New" organ for my church (again!)

[circa1949]

Re: "New" organ for my church (again!)



private message sent</p>

with a slight correction to what I've posted on this matter before</p>

</p>

[myorgan]

Re: &quot;New&quot; organ for my church (again!)



[quote user="jbird604"] What is my personal ultimate goal for a church organ? I haven't actually thought about it, though I'm sure I wouldn't reject a Trillium or Quantum or even a newMonarch or Viscount if offered! Right now I'm so pleased with the Allen, and will be even more excited about it when I get the MIDI on it next week, that I'm not thinking about a future tradeup yet.[/quote]</P>


John,</P>


Approximately how much does the Allen MIDI kit for theADC-4000 run? Send me a private message if you wish. I'm thinking of buying one for my organ, which I could use with the Symphony's organ. Thanks.</P>


Michael</P>

[circa1949]

reeds and rohs



However, the reeds produced by the card reader are very good, if not excellent, and the Chrysoglott is outstanding. Other percussions are less successful. And as we've both mentioned, the flute cards leave something to be desired, as the fuzziness of the low-resolution waveform is really apparent in the flutes. (I suppose that's the source of that noise anyway.)</P>


Yes, funny enough of all the MADC percussion cards I tried, the chrysoglott is the best one on that system too! Reeds, as you note, work well because the noise seems to blend-in as part of the harmonic construct of the sound. I tried various MADC flute cards, one standout in terms of low noise seemed to be the Traversflote 4. A terrible one was the Military Fife 2, which absolutely screamsat any range of the keyboard with a terrible digital gurgling/scratching sound! It sounds like a synth path on a Roland alpha-juno!Add some reverb to it and you'd have "hi-frequency alien communication sounds." LOL Some math or CS grad student (masters level, probably) could write a thesis about "Predictive algorithm for noise variability in a low-resolution frequency-domain PCM sound reproduction system"...haha. Because there had to be something about certain waveforms that really "set off" the digital resonance on those particular stops. That what I noticed back when I was buying a lot of those cards, most of the flute were unusable but a couple were actually pretty nice.</P>


As to longevity of electronics today, I suggest you read up on RoHS and weep(if you don't know what that means Google it).</P>


Oh believe me, I know, I've already sounded the alarm about this in earlier posts here. It was a really bad approach to the problem, because it will just mean more major appliances and electronics being thrown away after 5-10 years, which can't be good for the environment even if they aren't lead-containing. I suspect that some manufacturers were secretly thrilled by this "environmental requirement". There should have been a tiered legislation...nobody is ever going to bother to recycle an ipod for example. (I mean on theB2B side, I'm sure consumers could be tought to throw them in their recycle bin.) So consumer electronics of say, less than 8"X8"X4" inches should have had the no-lead requirement.Anything bigger? They should have justcreated a new recycling stream for it, to recover the lead. (as it is, some communities already have appliance recycling) Of course(!), the military gets to exempt itself so that THEIR electronics can go on being ultra-reliable! Another approach would have been that certain manufacturers get to exempt themselves, but when you buy their product you receive a notice that legally, you must recycle its circuit boards at the end of its lifespan.</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>

[davidecasteel]

Re: highly theoretical excursion



No, no, you didn't say anything wrong. This is just an example of the US and UK being divided by a common language. Here is one American dictionary's definition of "homely":</P>


home·ly adj. home·li·er, home·li·est</P>

1. <LI>Not attractive or good-looking: a homely child.
   <LI>Lacking elegance or refinement: homely furniture.
   <LI>Of a simple or unpretentious nature; plain: homely truths.
   <LI>Characteristic of the home or of home life: homely skills.</LI>

Although definition #4 does describe what you probably intended (the normal UK meaning), most in the US would think of meaning #1. In general, it means "plain, bordering on ugly". A lady here would NOT like to be called "homely"--it would not be a compliment.</P>


I think most on this board are probably aware of many of the differences in meanings and word usage between those in the US and the UK, but I thought perhaps it was worthy of a mention (reminding us all that you were from the UK).</P>


David</P>

[nullogik]

Re: highly theoretical excursion

[quote user="davidecasteel"]

nullogik is in the UK, where "homely" does not have the same meaning that it does here in the US--over there, it is more like "homelike". </p>



David</p>

[/quote]</p>

Woops, did I say something wrong?[:$] </p>

You are correct when you say I mean "homelike". What meaning does it have in the US?
</p>

[jbird604]

Re: highly theoretical excursion



LOL, David. Yes, I understood "homely" in the British sense and not in the less flattering US meaning! Actually our sanctuary is a bit "homely" in the US sense, in that it is almost unadorned except for the plants and greenery.</P>


We are a Baptist church, and yes, that is the baptistry right smack in the middle up there. Wish the photo showed the details, as there is a very nice but very plainwooden cross hanging in there, showered with light from the sides of the baptistry. Actually a very attractivefocal pointfor thechancel (to use a Methodist term).</P>


John</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>

[davidecasteel]

Re: highly theoretical excursion



[quote user="nullogik"]By the way thats a lovely homely looking Church you have there. Are the organ speakers located behind the panels adjacent to the wreaths of flowers on the wall?
[/quote]nullogik is in the UK, where "homely" does not have the same meaning that it does here in the US--over there, it is more like "homelike". </P>


Did you say that was a Baptist church? If so, I'd expect that big space between the wreaths would be the Baptistry.</P>


David</P>

[arie v]

Re: highly theoretical excursion



circa1949,</p>

You are correct in saying one difference from the MOS 1 and 2 organs to the ADC was that they used more waveforms across the keyboard to define a stop. I believe on the early ADC models, they still had a number of stops with only one waveform definition. Even so, as the various iterations of ADC models came out, the waveform data was extremely short. As you say, Allen used processing to try to make the sounds behave like organ sounds. Even the MDS models had short sample data, although the put more samples (maybe waveform data is a better description).</p>

Even with the newer models, like Renaissance and Quantum, Allen still favours short sample length combined with heavy processing. At least that is the feeling I got playing a recent Q300. Even in the Renaissance and Quantum models, I find stops that sound much like their namesakes sounded 20 years ago. I don't believe that Allen uses samples that are even anywhere near a second long today, except maybe in their Elite organs.
</p>

To me the Allen sounds are quite different from the long loop samples found in Hauptwerk. They sound like recordings played back. The best Hauptwerk has a much more visceral quality to it.</p>

As to longevity of electronics today, I suggest you read up on RoHS and weep(if you don't know what that means Google it). Besides moving around massive amounts of data, which can go flaky, the new hardware is not likely to last as long due to RoHS (reduction of hazardous substances). While in general it will not present a problem, over years you will find more problems with cold solder joints, tin whiskers (caused by crystallization of the solder materials) causing partial or complete shorts. Another problem with new electronics is the technician cannot repair them in the field, because of surface mount technology. So you need board swapping to repair. So it is important for manufacturers to maintain a good stock of replacement boards for a long period of time. It will be interesting to see which manufacturers will support product after it is say over 20 years old. Most electronic products are not supported by manufacturers more than say 7 to 10 years. Allen organs from the 80s I would consider very reliable and a safe bet to still be working in another 10 or 20 years.</p>

AV
</p>

</p>


</p>

[Austin766]

Re: &quot;New&quot; organ for my church (again!)

[quote user="arie v"]


Why is it, that when it comes to organs, there is always this little niggly thing called money come into play............</p>

AV
</p>

[/quote]</p>

I don't know how many of the members of this forum will remember, but in the thread on questionable stop names, one of them was Vox Pecuniae, a stop which speaks very loudly and with great authority. It would seem that money is what makes the world go 'round....
</p>

[jbird604]

Re: highly theoretical excursion



Yes, I have the Hautbois stop in the swell, and I was noticing yesterday how smooth it sounds. A really nice stop, and I suppose it's the same as the one you'd get on MADC with the card. That's a nice thing about MADC card readers. My partner plays on an MADC 3100 and his card voices are noticeably better than mine.</P>


The tone card voices of my ADC are definitely not as good as the built-in spec. For example, the "Prinzipal 8" card is supposed to be used to test the level of the USTG-5 boards that produce the Alterable voices. Installing that voice into one of the alterables produces a steady state tone that is quite similar to the spec Prinzipal, but obviously lacking the characteristic attack and random motion that help make that Prinzipal so nice.</P>


However, the reeds produced by the card reader are very good, if not excellent, and the Chrysoglott is outstanding. Other percussions are less successful. And as we've both mentioned, the flute cards leave something to be desired, as the fuzziness of the low-resolution waveform is really apparent in the flutes. (I suppose that's the source of that noise anyway.)</P>


Thanks, Nu, for the compliment about our sanctuary. We do enjoy it. It's intentionally rather plain, but we have a "flower lady" who enjoys coming up with new floral displays almost weekly.</P>


Yes, the organ speakers are located behind the fabric panels in the walls just above the choir. Unfortunately, as I've noted, there are no "chambers" behind them, just a vast array of speakers mounted on panels screwed directly to the studs. There is a wide open room behind these panels, which acts as an "infinite baffle" for the woofers. The bass is just awesome, has to be heard to be appreciated. </P>


The picture doesn't show it, but the panels are a little bit "splayed" at different angles, as are the panels on the opposite side, so the sound doesn't just shoot out of there like a cannon, but is widely dispersed. There are also a pair of speakers in the floor that aim at the walls to provide even more dispersion and diffusion of the sound.</P>


John</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>

[circa1949]

Re: highly theoretical excursion



Yes I agree Nullo, it's a beautiful console that looks great in the church.</p>


As I understand it, then, ADC and MDS, just like MOS, were "single
waveform" sample systems -- no long samples stored, just single
waveform data from which the tone is reconstructed. Then, when
Renaissance came long Allen began to do what other makers had done for
a while -- store actual one or two second samples of each stop (and
multiple samples per stop across the keyboard range).</p>

No, I would say MDS was a multi-waveform system. Although, from studying the patent they filed in '89 or '90, my guess is they used a variety of techniques to cut corners both on the memory required and the processing power required (although, being a discrete logic system, it wasn't as though each soundboard was going to need a CPU, but rather a lot of circuit traces!) For example, for the steady state, instead of actually storing 5 seconds of a true steady state, they stored a signal that represented the modulation that occurs to the steady state, then randomly select points within this sample for the various notes played. So, essentially a type of compressed multisample. That's why it didn't quite sound as good as Renaissance. This is exactly what the only detailed MDS recordings I have sound like to me. (some dude in Michigan who was trying to sell his 3 manual MDS organ made them back around 2004, he directly connected the organ to mixer, a reverb unit, and the recorder.)
</p>


So Renaissance is more akin to Hauptwerk, though not as intensive
since it doesn't actually have a sample for every note of the scale.
But Renaissance does allow for note by note voicing.
</p>

Yes this is the key difference, Renaissance did offer "note by note" voicing, even though it still interpolated between samples of a given rank's notes. The way it probably did that was, again, to really store the difference parameters of each note versus the base sample.
</p>


I believe Arie once remarked that he felt the hardware of the older
systems, such as ADC, might actually outlive Renaissance because of the
simplicity. (Forgive me if I misquote you, Arie.) I tend to think that
too. It seems that the current systems of all the major builders are on
a bit of shaky ground -- a bit like computers running on Windows or
Linux or something -- not something to bet the farm on.</p>

Well that's definitely my thinking as well. Those old through hole boards will last til the "cows come home". Also, as the designer of the ADC system said on the yahoo group, they used totally standard components except for just a couple custom chips, and of course the EPROM memory is custom programmed but only a power surge or nuclear attack could erase that! So in theory, oh, let's say you have a capacitor go bad (unlikely as most of them are ceramic capacitors) and kill a PMI DAC08 chip, you can just put another PMI DAC08 chip in. Of course, that doesn't mean a PMI DAC08 will be easy to find...for all we know Allen owns 90% of the world's spares LOL.
</p>


The old hardware-only systems, even MOS, seem to me like they're
going to basically last forever, which might be unfortunate in the case
of MOS!</p>


I too think the older systems were quite effective in creating
diapason tone. After all, if you have the basic waveform to work with,
then you have a system for using that waveform to output it at any
chosen frequency, then "jitter" it with random noise so that it sounds
somewhatlike a continuousrecording of a pipe, and give it an attack
and decay envelope roughly similar to that of a pipe, what more could
you ask for?</p>


That technique was pretty well developedby the ADC era, even at the
beginning. So I'm pretty happy with all the stops of this ADC. Even
flutes and reeds are quite pretty, at least until you play the top-most
octave. I think my ADC job is going to be as satisfying to my ears as
most of the Renaissance installations I hear around here.</p>

"Flutes and reeds are quite pretty" - oh yes, they definitely can be. My point was just that, on my organ at least (and using the tone cards, which on an MADC organ actually have the same resolution as the built-in ADC samples) the most successful tones are a diapason chorus with a mixture. It is sort of the "porridge that is just right" for the ADC system. The ADC4000 had a hautbois stop right? That is one of my favorite MADC tone cards, so I assume it sounds just as good on the ADC organ. Of course a hautbois should be fairly smooth, so it doesn't matter as much that it doesn't have the incisive attack of a trompette.</p>


</p>

Thanks again, guys, for all the comments. Really enjoying the dialogue.</p>

Thanks for sharing the organ with us!</p>

</p>

</p>

[nullogik]

Re: highly theoretical excursion

[quote user="jbird604"]

Some amateurish photos I took of the console after getting it installed at my church:</p>
<p mce_keep="true">[/quote]</p><p mce_keep="true">Interesting to see Allen were still using the Chapel console in the ADC era. Thats the same console type I have for my TC-3S. I love old Allen consoles of that era, they were incredibly well built using nice chunky pieces of timber. Even the latest Allen consoles don't appear to be as robust as these old Chapel style consoles are.
</p><p mce_keep="true">My father suggested that my TC-3S might make a nice roll top writing desk [:O] "Scarilege", I said!</p><p mce_keep="true">By the way thats a lovely homely looking Church you have there. Are the organ speakers located behind the panels adjacent to the wreaths of flowers on the wall?
</p>

[jbird604]

Re: highly theoretical excursion



Here's a console I WISH I could have at church. It's a Wicks in a local church and what I love about it is the built-in music desk! I can actually see the hymnal without changing glasses. Alas, I'm not likely to run across a free Wicks like this any time soon.</P>


</P>

[jbird604]

Re: highly theoretical excursion



Some amateurish photos I took of the console after getting it installed at my church:</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>


</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>


</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>


</P>

[jbird604]

Re: highly theoretical excursion



All this technical info is very interesting, circa. Helps me understand to some extent the differences among the various Allen models. </P>


As I understand it, then, ADC and MDS, just like MOS, were "single waveform" sample systems -- no long samples stored, just single waveform data from which the tone is reconstructed. Then, when Renaissance came long Allen began to do what other makers had done for a while -- store actual one or two second samples of each stop (and multiple samples per stop across the keyboard range).</P>


So Renaissance is more akin to Hauptwerk, though not as intensive since it doesn't actually have a sample for every note of the scale. But Renaissance does allow for note by note voicing. MOS, ADC, and MDS never had that, of course, because the system did nothing except createa tonefor each note on demand from a common waveform recipe, and the system was not sophisticated or fast enough to store and read note by note voicing data, even if there had been sufficient memory to store it.</P>


I believe Arie once remarked that he felt the hardware of the older systems, such as ADC, might actually outlive Renaissance because of the simplicity. (Forgive me if I misquote you, Arie.) I tend to think that too. It seems that the current systems of all the major builders are on a bit of shaky ground -- a bit like computers running on Windows or Linux or something -- not something to bet the farm on.</P>


The old hardware-only systems, even MOS, seem to me like they're going to basically last forever, which might be unfortunate in the case of MOS!</P>


I too think the older systems were quite effective in creating diapason tone. After all, if you have the basic waveform to work with, then you have a system for using that waveform to output it at any chosen frequency, then "jitter" it with random noise so that it sounds somewhatlike a continuousrecording of a pipe, and give it an attack and decay envelope roughly similar to that of a pipe, what more could you ask for?</P>


That technique was pretty well developedby the ADC era, even at the beginning. So I'm pretty happy with all the stops of this ADC. Even flutes and reeds are quite pretty, at least until you play the top-most octave. I think my ADC job is going to be as satisfying to my ears as most of the Renaissance installations I hear around here.</P>


Thanks again, guys, for all the comments. Really enjoying the dialogue.</P>


John</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>