Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?

[NoTalent]

I've seen listing for Allen speakers wherein they have model numbers like HC-12 or HR-15 (I might have these interchanged.). Is there some underlying charcteristic that defines an "HC" or "HR" series? Does the number, 12 or 15 in this case, signify anything, like maybe woofer size?</p>

Thanks.
</p>

</p>

[Moller Artiste]

Re: Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?

HC speakers were usedwith the Allen MDS organs and other later models. The HR series appeared when Renaissance techology was introduced or shortly thereafter. The HR series is a bit "treble" heavy and it's not wise to use them on older Allen Organs. The HR series are the best speakers Allen has offered. When used with Renaissance technology, the sound is very clear and clean. They are especially nice on the smaller Allen Organs with less amplification because the HR speakers play slightly louder, therefore they help fill the room with more sound. HRs are a bit more expensive than the HCs, but worth the price difference. If someone is purchasing a new Allen Organ that has HC speakers as standard equipment, I recommendupgrading to the HR speakers if the budget allows. More information can be found at the Allen Organ website.

[circa1949]

Re: Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?



The technical difference being that the HR are "horn driver" speakers. These are considered (ironically enough...) good for reed sounds. You could probably get a similar effect by using some used Klipsch speakers, although they wouldn't be as well matched to the organ of course.</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

</p>

[NoTalent]

Re: Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?

Thanks for taking the time to reply, guys -- I appreciate it!

[Guest]

Re: Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?



[quote user="Moller Artiste"]The HR series is a bit "treble" heavy and it's not wise to use them on older Allen Organs. The HR series are the best speakers Allen has offered. When used with Renaissance technology, the sound is very clear and clean. [/quote]</P>


I would actually disagree completely. As one who has done voicing on Allens for several years....both Renaissance and Quantum....with HC and HR speakers, I find the HC speakers to be MUCH more "clean" sounding throughout the whole compass of, say, an 8' stop. It's hard to explain, but there is something about the HR speakers that tends to accentuate harmonics that just aren't desirable in a good organ sound. I guess on a modern equalizer, it would be the "mids". And compensating for it is a real challenge in the DOVE voicing software.</P>


A Renaissance organ with HCs has a very cohesive and clean sound. The same organ changed to HRs in the same room does indeed sound more pure in the treble, but the organ as a whole has a wierd new quality that sounds --- at the same time --- more authentic, yet more fake. It's really weird.</P>


The HR speakers are also very directional -- the HCs disperse the sound more evenly. Dealers complained about this a lot. Allen has since come out with diffusers for the HR speakers that completely change how the sound is dispersed (for the better).</P>


All of that being said, if you need power, then yes, the HR speakers can indeed push out a lot more sound before getting distorted.</P>

[michaelhoddy]

Re: Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?



A big part of my background and experience is pro audio, and I remember wondering what Allen was thinking when they came out with horn-loaded compression drivers in the HR series. The sales literature was spouting all these wonderful things about improved transient response and such, none of which a typical compression driver does appreciably better than a good tweeter.</p>

The primary reasons you find horns in pro audio speakers are for directivity and for high power handling, both of which don't apply in nearly the same way in organ audio. In pro audio, you need both of these, so the downsides of horns are put up with or engineered around.</p>

In organ audio, you really don't want high directivity, except maybe for certain solo reed stops, and power handling of conventional components is plenty adequate in properly designed conventional cabinets and in an organ where the channelization is spread adequately around. In a pipe organ, very few stops are terrifically loud. It's the sum of many that makes the whole, and the same should be true in organ audio. If you can't get adequate response with your existing HC speakers, your install probably needs greater numbers of normal speakers to sound properly, not smaller numbers of louder ones. </p>

The preceding is certainly my opinion only, but every electronic organ I have played, Allen or otherwise, with the channelization spread around as much as possible through a larger number of speakers which are not tearing your head off, sounds better. Without exception.</p>

So it looks like Allen discovered the detriments of horn-loaded compression drivers (beaming, high directivity that changes with frequency, and assorted resonances and cancellations in the horn path itself) only about 25 years later than the pro audio world did.</p>

I'm no Allen installer, but I would imagine HR speakers work quite nicely on solo divisions and big reed stops, with the other ones being adequate in regular use.</p>

[arie v]

Re: Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?



Michael,</p>

I think you and I may have met a number of years back. At least your name sounds familiar.</p>

You are of the same mind as I on the use of horns. One thing though, it seems that manufacturers of these compression drivers make them better now overall than say maybe 20 or 30 years ago. They are less nasty sounding, have a smoother frequency response, etc. They are still very directional though. And they are very efficient and can play loud.</p>

One thing though, the Allen HC speakers were not really great sounding speakers either. I fiddled with some HC speakers in the 80s, and concluded that Allen must have designed them for their organs, or the other way around. Using these speakers on a stereo, I found them seriously wanting. For one organ project I ended up bi-amping them, got rid of most of the crossover, and they sounded better. </p>

About a year ago, a new Allen 3 manual, 80 stops, with expanded audio (plus 20 audio channels) was installed in my neighborhood. They mounted speakers in such a way, that you could almost touch them if you were on the gallery walkway. I happened to be standing right near one talking to an old buddy of mine, and someone played a big chord on a loud reed stop. The sound was loud, electronic and totally offensive to my ears. The speaker appeared to be the HR 200. I could hardly believe that this kind of sound was still being emitted from a high end digital organ in 2009. </p>

At least Allen is seeing the light recently about multi-channeling. On the larger models they improved the number of channels by up to 50%. They also now offer interleaved audio, adding even more channels and sending manual stops through 4 separate audio channels. It certainly helps to improved their sound, but to me they sound more electronic or digital than other manufacturers' offerings.</p>

AV
</p>

[jbird604]

Re: Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?



Greg,</P>


AS to the meaning of the "12" or "15" in the model numbers, they do not designate woofer size. Here are some Allen cabinets that I have used or known about in the past 30 years of dealing with them. Someone else on the forum probably has even more Allen experience and may be able to correct or supplement this information:</P>


HC-10 was the original sealed box full-range and has a 15" foam-surround woofer, a closed-back midrange (6"?) and a phenolic-ring paper-cone tweeter.</P>


HC-12, also a sealed box,was the successor to the -10 and has a similar woofer, but has a pair of 4-ohm Peerless back-chamber (cylindrical) midranges wired in series, plus a textile-dome tweeter. This model was introduced around 1980 or so, but is still sold (I think) or was until not so long ago, for use on channels with 32' pedal stops, since it has a very solid low end response.</P>


HC-14 and HC-15 are identical (to eachother I mean, not to the HC-12)except for where the crossover is located. These boxes use a 15" Eminence textile/accordion surround in a VENTED box. A single Peerless midrange (like that in the HC-12 except with an 8-ohm coil) is used, along with the same textile dome tweeter. The crossover is radically different from the HC-12, though, and this box is much more efficient but relatively weak in the low bass.</P>


HC-11 and HC-13 are (like the -14 and -15) identical except for crossover placement. These boxes are actually identical to the -14 and -15 except that the box itself is smaller and still vented, and a 12" woofer is used instead of the 15". They were often used as a supplementary cabinet on the same channel with a -14 or -15 just to boost the volume or throw the sound in another direction.</P>


There was a sealed box that had a 12" and a dome tweeter, used for volume boost with the HC-12. I think it was called the HC-9, but I'm not positive.</P>


There are also the "PP" series, which have a 4" full-range driver (with a blocking capacitor to keep most of the bass out) and a dome tweeter. They are used to disperse some sound around corners or into areas where the direct organ sound was lacking.</P>


Of course, the current speakers are the HR-100 and -200, which have a vented textile-surround woofer (12" in the 100 and 15" in the 200)and a compression horn tweeter.</P>


Other speakers along the way include the various subwoofers and the HC-18, which I have actually never seen.</P>


Maybe someone else will fill in now.....</P>


John</P>

[jbird604]

Re: Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?



One model I left out of that listing that is significant -- the HE-2 box. This "high efficiency" speaker was used specifically for a festival trumpet application, best I know.</P>


Onsome MDS organs (andI think some Renaissance too), there would be a relay on the channel that had the big 8' trumpet in the swell or maybe some other division. When the "Festival Trumpet" stop was drawn alone in that division, the relay would be engaged and the audio of that channel only would be re-directed into the HE-2 cabinet. Because of its extremely high efficiency, that channel's volume would be hugely increased. The mid-range peakiness of the box's response would also accentuate the "reediness" of the stop.</P>


When any other stop was drawn in the same division, the relay was de-activated and the division played through its normal HC cabinets.</P>


A variant of this scheme was used in some older instruments,in the MOS and ADCeras. A stop labed "En Chamade" was placed in one of the divisions (in larger instruments only, which had separateaudio for each division). Engaging this stop would switch in one or a pair of HE-2 cabinets, and that would make the reeds in that division (or card reader voices, if present) very loud.</P>


I believe this speaker is still being used in current production, so there may be even some Quantum organs that use it to project the Festival Trumpet.</P>


Just thought this one was worth a mention.</P>


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

[michaelhoddy]

Re: Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?

[quote user="arie v"]

Michael,</p>

I think you and I may have met a number of years back. At least your name sounds familiar.</p>

AV
</p>

[/quote]</p>

Arie,</p>

</p>

I'm sure we met sometime in the nineties when you were at Classic in Markham. Incidentally, Classic's organs and also my experience with AOB in the eighties are what have done more than anything to reinforce my staunch belief in lots of audio channels for organs.</p>

[Rick Powers]

Re: Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?



Dear John, et al</P>


"One model I left out of that listing that is significant -- the HE-2 box. This "high efficiency" speaker was used specifically for a festival trumpet application, best I know."</P>


Exactly.</P>


When the Renaissance 330 was installed in Pequot Chapel in 1999, a speaker [in a custom built enclosure] was placed high-up under the rafters on the entrance wall. I wasn't knowledgeable enough then to understand thenomenclature of the various speakers [19 total] installed, but I imagine this one is an HE-2 because its sole purpose is to sound the E. M. Skinner Tuba Mirabilis when no other stops are drawn on the Choir division.</P>


The Tuba Mirabilis as presented by that speaker is considerably louder than normal. And it is very impressive.</P>


Interestingly, while drawing any other Choir stop will return the Tuba to the front at normal volume, drawing the MIDI on the Choir will not; probably because the MIDI voices speak through the Swell speakers.So it is possible to have one additional supporting voice speak from the front while theTuba speaks in all its glory from the back.</P>


Also, the Allen representative at that time, Gregg Turner, who sold us the organ[and who also writes books about historic railroads], informed me that Allen had just purchased a speaker company in the midwest; so I imagine the speakers we have in the Chapel were purchased from an outside vendor, but shortly thereafter Allen started makingtheir own speakers "in house".</P>


Rick</P>

[NoTalent]

Re: Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?



<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>Thanks again for all the replies.</FONT></P>


<FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>If you had to choose between the -14/15 and -12for general use, which would you choose? I get the impression that the HC-12 would be slightly better, especially if 32' stops were involved. Would the -12 make a good pedal division speaker; i.e.as the only speaker for the pedals?</FONT></P>

[jbird604]

Re: Allen HC vs. HR Speakers?



The -12 is definitely the one to use on any channel with a 32' stop. The -14 and -15 have very little output in the range of 32' pedal fundamentals. They are OK, however, for pedal channels with 16' stops, though Allen normally inserted a "bass lift" circuit ahead of the amp in those cases, since these boxes are definitely a bit shy in the low bass, at least compared to the -12. As to using a single -12 for the entire pedal division, that would be OK in a small room, though I believe most all Allen models have the pedals split into two channels, so you'd have to re-engineer the audio routing.</P>


The only drawback of the -12 is that it is considerably less efficient throughout the mid and treble regions, so it will sound comparatively "dull" or "bass-heavy" compared to the others. That is why Allen normally used the -12 only for the 32' channel and -15 or -14 for the other channels.</P>


To be fair, though, Allen did in fact ship many organs with -12s on all channels in the early days of theADC era, because the -14 and -15 were introduced sometime early in the ADC era, but not until after perhaps hundreds of organs had been shipped with the -12 boxes.</P>


Regardless of which unitsyou use, you will want to voice each channel individually to sound best with whatever speaker is attached.</P>


One caveat worth repeating -- do NOT mix the HC-12 with a -14 or -15 on the same channel (same amplifier output). Not only are the efficiencies very different, but the phasing of the various drivers is different, and cancellation or comb-filtering of frequencies will occur.</P>


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