Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?

[coasterfreak88]

As far as I'm concerned, M&O is a lot better than Phoenix. Their samples sound a lot purer and it sounds like a genuine pipe organ. To me, Phoenix organs sound like they're two electronic, as if the samples had too much processing. This is just my opinion. I'm just curious as to other people's opinions; that's why I put this up. If you haven't heard of M&O, they're the company that designed the organ for Trinity Wall Street.

[arie v]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?



John,</p>

Have you heard both a Phoenix and an M&amp;O instrument live? One cannot truly judge a maker's instruments by internet sound clips or even CD recordings.</p>

I would agree that M&amp;O would sound better than Phoenix, but then it should considering how much more costs. And there are a number of reasons why M&amp;O would justify it's high price, sound being one of them.
</p>

It's like comparing a Bentley (or Maybach or Astin-Martin) car to a Toyota or a Chev. All are cars, not all are super cars.</p>

AV
</p>

</p>

[Menschenstimme]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?

Perhaps it might be more like comparing a Rolls-Royce (M&amp;O) to a Cadillac (Phoenix)?

[m&m's]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?



[quote user="Menschenstimme"]Perhaps it might be more like comparing a Rolls-Royce (M&amp;O) to a Cadillac (Phoenix)?[/quote]</p>

Maybe that comparison is more apt than you realize. I have never had the privilege of even riding in a Rolls Royce, much less owning one, and probably never will do either. Possibly, some day, I might get down to Wall Street and hear the monster M&amp;O there, but certainly I will never see my way clear to buying one.</p>

On the other hand, what I have heard, on recordings, of the organ in Trinity, Wall Street, does not impress me. Hauptwerk would do as well, equipped with enough speakers and amplifiers, and at a far lower cost.</p>

Certainly, and going back to our original comparison, the Rolls Royce is about six times the price of the Cadillac, and is not six times better. I would think that the same comparison might be made between the M&amp;O and the Phoenix, and I wonder if the Phoenix, in a good-sized installation, and with more amplifiers and speakers, might just come very close to the standard set by the M&amp;O, and at a far less price.</p>

</p>

</p>

[Menschenstimme]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?



An excellent analysis, M&amp;M's!</P>


I bought a new 1985 Cadillac, kept it for 20 years, gave it to my parents in 2005 and bought a 1975 Rolls-Royce. Just by coincidence, the price of the 30-year-old Rolls-Royce was the same as the new Cadillac in 1984. Rolls-Royces are link pipe organs in that they are the "real thing" and a quality product, but require some attention and dedication. Nothing is perfect. SIGH!</P>

[Guest]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?

1. Hauptwerk
2. Phoenix
3. Marshalls &amp; Ogretree (distant last)

[davidecasteel]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?

[quote user="hauptwerkobsessed"]

1. <LI>Hauptwerk</LI>
   <LI>Phoenix</LI>
   <LI>Marshalls &amp; Ogretree (distant last)
   </LI>

[/quote]I don't have a dog in this show, but since you are bucking the tide of all opinions of M&amp;O I have seen over the months I've been on this site, I think it might be a good thing to post some justification for your opinions.</P>


David</P>

[soubasse32]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?



[quote user="Menschenstimme"]Perhaps it might be more like comparing a Rolls-Royce (M&amp;O) to a Cadillac (Phoenix)?[/quote]Since these are digital organs, perhaps it is more like comparing a photograph of a Rolls-Royce to a photograph of a Cadillac. [6]</P>


[quote user="arie v"]Have you heard both a Phoenix and an M&amp;O instrument live? One cannot truly judge a maker's instruments by internet sound clips or even CD recordings.[/quote]That is even more true for digital instruments. Whichsounds morerealistic: a recording...or a recording of a recording? [;)]</P>

[Guest]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?

[quote user="davidecasteel"][quote user="hauptwerkobsessed"]

1. Hauptwerk
2. Phoenix
3. Marshalls &amp; Ogretree (distant last)

[/quote]I don't have a dog in this show, but since you are bucking the tide of all opinions of M&amp;O I have seen over the months I've been on this site, I think it might be a good thing to post some justification for your opinions.</p>


David</p>

[/quote]</p>

Do you think so? Good for you....
</p>

[thevanderploegs]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?



[quote user="soubasse32"]Since these are digital organs, perhaps it is more like comparing a photograph of a Rolls-Royce to a photograph of a Cadillac.[/quote]</P>


LOL! That is perfect.</P>

[Guest]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?



Soubasse32 said:</p>

That is even more true for digital instruments. Whichsounds morerealistic: a recording...or a recording of a recording? </p>

At an organ club meeting at my house, one of the attendees said "A digital organ sounds like a recording of an organ" while listening to my pipe organ. He has Hauptwerk which is widely regarded as one of the best digital organ simulations. So Soubasse32 is right on the mark.
</p>

[m&m's]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?

[quote user="AllanP"]

Soubasse32 said:</p>

That is even more true for digital instruments. Whichsounds morerealistic: a recording...or a recording of a recording? </p>

At an organ club meeting at my house, one of the attendees said "A digital organ sounds like a recording of an organ" while listening to my pipe organ. He has Hauptwerk which is widely regarded as one of the best digital organ simulations. So Soubasse32 is right on the mark.
</p>

[/quote]</p>

I will grant your proposition that a pipe organ sounds better than a digital, if what you are looking for is pipe organ sound. certainly nothing beats the original, in this case.</p>

But I don't have room for a pipe organ, I don't have the finances for it, and I sure don't want the headaches of owning one. I can very well live with my Hauptwerk installation, especially since I get to design it myself. And it is nice to have an organ that doesn't need constant tuning, and doesn't suffer from ciphering notes.</p>

[soubasse32]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?



Well... I suppose electronic organs are justified in certain cases. [:)]</P>


Somethinginteresting I've noticed:a recording of a pipe organ never sounds as good as hearing it in person; whereasa recording of an electronic organ is often better (more convincing) than hearing it in person. I've heard some pretty impressive recordings of digital instruments.</P>

[m&m's]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?

[;)][;)][quote user="soubasse32"]

[quote user="Menschenstimme"]Perhaps it might be more like comparing a Rolls-Royce (M&amp;O) to a Cadillac (Phoenix)?[/quote]Since these are digital organs, perhaps it is more like comparing a photograph of a Rolls-Royce to a photograph of a Cadillac. [6]</p>

[/quote]</p>

Hardly applicable. You can't play a picture. </p>

A better comparison is between polyester and wool. Wool may be the genuine thing, but not all of us can wear wool all the time. A pair of pants that is made from micro-fiber (polyester) is less expensive, and holds its press better.</p>

[quote user="soubasse32"]</p>

<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 12px; ">Well... I suppose electronic organs are justified in certain cases. </span></p>

[/quote]</p>

Thank you for your grudging permission.</p>

[nullogik]

Re: Phoenix vs. Marshall and Ogletree: Which is better?

[quote user="m&amp;m's"][;)][;)][quote user="soubasse32"]

[quote user="Menschenstimme"]Perhaps it might be more like comparing a Rolls-Royce (M&amp;O) to a Cadillac (Phoenix)?[/quote]Since these are digital organs, perhaps it is more like comparing a photograph of a Rolls-Royce to a photograph of a Cadillac. [6]</p>

[/quote]</p>

Hardly applicable. You can't play a picture. </p>

A better comparison is between polyester and wool. Wool may be the genuine thing, but not all of us can wear wool all the time. A pair of pants that is made from micro-fiber (polyester) is less expensive, and holds its press better.</p>

[/quote]</p>

You people are so funny. How much further can these analogies go! [:D] Digital/Pipe, Rolls Royce/Cadillac, Polyester/Wool...</p>

Thanks for cheering up my afternoon.
</p>

</p>