Forum Top Banner Ad

Collapse

Ebay Classic organs

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Allen ADC-4300DKC - Channels & Amps Questions

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Allen ADC-4300DKC - Channels & Amps Questions

    Any help with this from the "Pros" on this Forum would be greatly appreciated.

    When I got my 4300, I re-voiced it because the Great was much softer than the Swell, and obviously, the space was different. However, I've always been dissatisfied with the fact that the Swell voices, though not amplified more, are more pronounced than the Great.

    Last year when I was in the back of the organ, I made a couple of observations:
    1. There are 6 discrete channels coming out of the cage.
    2. The 6 channels are mixed down to 4 channels.
    3. There are only 4 amplifiers for the cage (2 doubles).
    4. The shared channels are both between the Great and Pedal (Channels 3/5, and 4/6).
    5. It appears this is the way the organ came from the factory.
    Channel List:
    1. Swell-Upper pitches & 2 Strings.
    2. Swell-Principals, 1 mixture, mutations, lower pitches (mostly).
    3. Pedal-32' Contre Bourdon, and some articulation as well as 1/2 of pedal stops.
    4. Pedal-16' stops (except Bourdon), 4' (except Choral Bass), & more articulation.
    5. Great-Most 8' stops including reeds and mixture.
    6. Great-16' through 1-1/3' stops and the other 1/2 of Mixture IV.
    What would happen if I "un-split" the channnels between the Great and Pedal, and amplified as well as voiced them separately? Personally, I believe it may help the sound to have 6 discrete channels rather than putting pairs of channels through the same speaker. It may also help with my voicing woes, with the 16' Pedal reed being too loud and cutting through the entire ensemble, as well as voicing some notes in the Pedal affecting the overall balance of the Great (i.e. the 8' Diapason being too boomy in the lower 1½ octave of the manuals, resulting from needing the pedal stops on that channel to be more pronounced). Channels 3/5 are using the HC-12 speakers with the rest using HC-14s or HC-15s.

    Ideas, pros, and/or cons? Thanks in advance. I've also added a photo of the channel layout so you can see it was the original. Also, will splitting those channels out cause problems with expression from the divided expression pedals?

    Michael

    P.S. I'm adding MIDI card and a Sub-Woofer card to the organ, so now is the ideal time to make changes if I am to make them at all.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by myorgan; 07-07-2011, 09:41 AM. Reason: Add Attachment
    Way too many organs to list, but I do have 5 Allens:
    • MOS-2 Model 505-B / ADC-4300-DK / ADC-5400 / ADC-6000 (Symphony) / ADC-8000DKC
    • Lowrey Heritage (DSO-1)
    • 11 Pump Organs, 1 Pipe Organ & 7 Pianos

  • #2
    Michael,

    Before you start fiddling with the amps and speakers, have you done any adjustments on the card rack. Stops there are grouped, say four or five stops which share tone generators and controls. In general I found that the Allens of that vintage could be reasonably well adjusted. There is however no note by note volume regulation possible.

    I doubt that separating the additional channels out will make all that much difference. Allen at that time just was not into clever audio channeling. Only in their custom stuff did that seem to matter.

    AV

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by arie v View Post
      Before you start fiddling with the amps and speakers, have you done any adjustments on the card rack. Stops there are grouped, say four or five stops which share tone generators and controls. In general I found that the Allens of that vintage could be reasonably well adjusted. There is however no note by note volume regulation possible.
      I was aware of that and did make some adjustments as indicated in my post. However, I attempted to leave the manuals alone and only deal with the pedals, as they were most affected by the move. I'm also going to try to add some PP-8 speakers to at least 2 of the channels to see what that does for the overall sound (hoping to brighten it up--especially in a large space).

      Just today (to make voicing easier), I created 3 different copies of the stoplist in PDF form.
      1. Channel numbers on the stops so I could readily see where they are coming out. (attached to this post)
      2. Channel & card IDs from the cage to facilitate voicing.
      3. Voicing instructions in the order the factory suggests.
      I'm hoping this will assist me in quickly making changes to the voicing or aid in channel setup so when I move the organ from place to place for performances, setup time will be (hopefullly) greatly decreased.

      My motivation for splitting the chanels would ultimately be to effectively have more discrete channels that would hopefully result in clearer sound, and better quality. Just didn't know if it had been successfully done yet or not.

      Thanks for the reply, Arie. You're a gem on this Forum.

      Michael
      Attached Files
      Way too many organs to list, but I do have 5 Allens:
      • MOS-2 Model 505-B / ADC-4300-DK / ADC-5400 / ADC-6000 (Symphony) / ADC-8000DKC
      • Lowrey Heritage (DSO-1)
      • 11 Pump Organs, 1 Pipe Organ & 7 Pianos

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Michael,

        I would strongly support your plan. As jbird has pointed out numerous times, mixing musical notes in air rather than mixing audio signals in an electronic circuit will result in cleaner, more interesting, and more realistic sound. (Think about it--pipe organs take this approach to the extreme, and they mostly sound pretty good!) I did a simple demo of this phenomenon on my ADC 7000 (nine channels) when I was contemplating a mix-down scheme to avoid complete domination of the living room by speaker cabinets: From the factory, the two halves of the celeste stops play through different channels for obvious reasons. With this scheme, they sound vibrant and engrossing. Flipping the Mono switch on my stereo test amp to combine channels instantly made them sound dull and lifeless. It was not a matter of loudness since both speakers were playing in both cases--it was an illustration of the desirability of preserving separate audio channels for separate notes whenever possible.

        I have noticed other ADC series organs in which Allen inexplicably mixed Great and Pedal channels, presumably to reduce the size and cost of the speaker complement. I say "inexplicably" because of all the divisions on an organ, these are the two that should be given the most chance to speak broadly and independently. You would probably find your organ sounds immensely better with more channels, and certainly the ability to level the different ranks would be improved as well.

        Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that in the average setting these older organs simply cannot be finished to complete satisfaction using the BTM controls on the cards. There are too many high-Q resonances in most rooms to be able to eliminate or at least minimize the wild variations in frequency response of the organ+amplifiers+speakers system. For my own organ, I have purchased and plan to install third-octave equalizers for all the channels, and I will certainly report on the results once (if?) the @#$@#$ system ever gets completely set up. Maybe you would want to consider outboard equalizers as well since you plan to move the organ around. That way, you could set a plain-vanilla finishing on the tone generator controls and make the room-specific corrections outside the console.

        And no, splitting channels would not affect the expression. That is done on the AP cards in the card cages, so the audio leaving the cages is already under expression and ready to channel to the amps (unless an outboard tremolo generator is added).

        Don

        Comment


        • #5
          I would caution that you need to be careful with trying to correct room or speaker response with equalizers, especially graphics, unless the filters are really good and there is minimal phase shift. It's a much better approach to correct the acoustics of the room with treatments and engineering, or if in the speakers, by correcting the speakers for better and more even response. If you must use equalizers, a good-quality parametric, rather than a graphic, is just about always a better choice for the kind of work you are suggesting. Certainly, a couple judicious tweaks aren't going to hurt anything much, but because of the complexities of time-domain acoustics, it's very easy to end up farther down the rabbit hole than when you started once knobs and sliders and filters start getting manipulated. That said, I have no idea about how accurate the response of a typical Allen HC12 or HC15 speaker is, but I doubt it's exactly linear. The HR speakers seem somewhat more so.

          The best sounding audio systems PA, organ, or otherwise, my company has been involved with over the past 15 years, have always been the ones that are good speakers in properly-engineered acoustics with minimal inline processing introduced.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by don60 View Post
            I would strongly support your plan. As jbird has pointed out numerous times, mixing musical notes in air rather than mixing audio signals in an electronic circuit will result in cleaner, more interesting, and more realistic sound.
            Don,

            Did your project require an extra amplifier for the extra channels? I'm trying to figure out if I should make the investment or not. I have a double amp that was in my MOS-2 that has been repaired, but I don't think it will work for the ADC as they had different line-levels and could result in a problem.

            MichaelHoddy,

            Thanks for your input. I'm really trying to stay with Allen's speakers, crossovers, etc., with the only exception that I will be splitting the channels they combined. Since the specs were for HC-12s on Channels 3&5 (32' channel), I figure it'll be best to leave it that way and use 2 HC-12s on the discrete channels once they are split. The same with Channels 4&6 using HC-15s. That way, the cage controls and everything else can stay relatively the same except that they'll be split instead of combined. I'm hoping this means that the frequencies and how they speak will remain relatively the same when they come out of the same type of speaker, and will just have less competition for control of the speaker, thereby resulting in better sound. I can always go back if it sounds like crap!:-P I guess I'll just never know until I do it.

            Thanks, all for your input. Anyone else--feel free to chime in as I haven't done anything yet! ;-)

            Michael
            Way too many organs to list, but I do have 5 Allens:
            • MOS-2 Model 505-B / ADC-4300-DK / ADC-5400 / ADC-6000 (Symphony) / ADC-8000DKC
            • Lowrey Heritage (DSO-1)
            • 11 Pump Organs, 1 Pipe Organ & 7 Pianos

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by myorgan View Post
              Don,

              Did your project require an extra amplifier for the extra channels? I'm trying to figure out if I should make the investment or not. I have a double amp that was in my MOS-2 that has been repaired, but I don't think it will work for the ADC as they had different line-levels and could result in a problem.
              Michael
              No, the organ was built with nine channels and came to me with all nine amplifiers that were originally supplied. I was contemplating going back to four or five channels, a non-stock setup. I have since thought better of it and will be making room in my home for the necessary speaker cabinets. I am going to make one concession and mix the Contra Bombarde channel into one of the other two pedal channels to save a little equipment. I cannot see that a dedicated channel for this stop is needed in such a small space.

              I thought I read somewhere that the MOS2 outputs were at standard audio line level--it was the MOS1 organs that had the mV-level outputs. Admin knows a lot about the MOS2s; maybe he will see his name mentioned and comment.

              Don

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by michaelhoddy View Post
                I would caution that you need to be careful with trying to correct room or speaker response with equalizers, especially graphics, unless the filters are really good and there is minimal phase shift. It's a much better approach to correct the acoustics of the room with treatments and engineering, or if in the speakers, by correcting the speakers for better and more even response. If you must use equalizers, a good-quality parametric, rather than a graphic, is just about always a better choice for the kind of work you are suggesting. Certainly, a couple judicious tweaks aren't going to hurt anything much, but because of the complexities of time-domain acoustics, it's very easy to end up farther down the rabbit hole than when you started once knobs and sliders and filters start getting manipulated. That said, I have no idea about how accurate the response of a typical Allen HC12 or HC15 speaker is, but I doubt it's exactly linear. The HR speakers seem somewhat more so.

                The best sounding audio systems PA, organ, or otherwise, my company has been involved with over the past 15 years, have always been the ones that are good speakers in properly-engineered acoustics with minimal inline processing introduced.

                You raise some interesting points. Obviously, having good speakers and room acoustics is preferable to correcting the heck out of the audio using processing. On the other hand, Michael apparently will be moving his organ into venues over which he has no control and in which he will be set up for only a few hours at a time. He will not be able to ensure good room conditions or a benevolent interaction between the room and his speakers. In cases such as this, applying the necessary equalization is to my ears always far preferable to just living with the situation as is.

                The issue of phase (as opposed to magnitude) response in a linear system is complicated and widely misunderstood. Extensive testing has confirmed that humans cannot distinguish relative phases among steady-state periodic signals, so for example a musical note containing a fundamental, third harmonic, and fifth harmonic would sound the same no matter what the phases of the three sinusoidal components might be provided that the relative amplitudes were maintained. Allen Organ used exactly this phenomenon to simplify the tone generation system in their early digital organs.

                Since negative phase shift represents delay in the time domain, non-periodic signals would indeed suffer degradation from a non-zero phase response. The extent of the degradation depends on the nature of the response. A linear (but non-zero) phase response delays all spectral components equally in time, and thus injects nothing but a pure (and likely imperceptible) time delay. A non-linear phase response could have audible effects, particularly on very short-duration signals.

                Although linear phase response is the holy grail of audio, I suspect that "golden ears" are very selective in the attention that they pay to it. Since phase response of amplifiers is easy to measure and relatively easy to correct, they worry about it a great deal. On the other hand, since phase response of speakers is likely to be terrible by comparison, they conveniently ignore it. In Michael's case, his Allen HC cabinets have relatively good magnitude response by most accounts, but I have never heard a single comment about their phase response, and I suspect a plot of it would be very troubling; the salvation is that our ears tell us that the speakers sound good, so once again we can conclude that phase response is often of little importance. Extending that thought, I imagine that the composite phase response of the speaker-room system would look atrocious on paper, but our ears would likely not raise any objection to it provided the magnitude response was reasonable.

                A related issue is the matter of the type of filter that is used to apply correction. You recommend parametric over fixed, and I agree that parametric filters can be easier to set up and can apply more precise correction. However, a bank of parametric filters and a graphic equalizer that have exactly the same overall magnitude response will have the same phase response. (This observation flows from another result of linear system analysis that says the magnitude and phase responses of a system are not independent--in fact, one can be deduced from the other except for special "degenerate" cases.) So from a listener's standpoint, one type of filter is not inherently better or more pure--it was just easier to adjust in a given situation.

                Since the phase and magnitude responses of a linear system are related, one could in fact argue that applying equalization to correct the magnitude response is automatically improving the phase response!

                Michael, I stand by my recommendation to consider outboard equalization for your organ. I surely would not want to open up the cages at every set-up trying to fix room acoustics. Remember, the BTM controls in the cages are just--you guessed it--FILTERS (and not particularly sophisticated ones at that). My experience in very difficulty sound environments is that fixing the magnitude response of the system with a good octave, half-octave, or third-octave equalizer will make a night-and-day difference in a matter of minutes. Maybe it's just a personal quirk, but I find that I can adjust an equalizer very quickly by playing back virtually arbitrary program material provided it covers the frequency range in question. In other words, I do not need to play back pink noise, or a frequency-swept level tone, in order to perceive which frequency bands need correction. I imagine others more musical than I have this ability too.

                Don

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi Michael
                  I remember sort-of my 4300 was 4 channel with 4 speakers but could, according to my dealer, be expanded to 6 primarly for better pedal....Adding a woofer would increase your base responce. Maybe not as noticed in a smal home setting but you plan to tour in a limited way, this instrument if I remember? More channels = more stuff to move but in a big room the bass end of things would be improved.
                  I also remember that the pedal 16 foot principal faded considerably approaching bottom "C" ..Now I was comparing at the time to a Casavant practise instrument here in THunder Bay .The dealler said that could not be adjusted in my Allen pedal scheme. I note on my MDS Protege that the pedal principal bottom end is much more like the Casavant, not fading...only my ears are fading grin!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The issue of phase (as opposed to magnitude) response in a linear system is complicated and widely misunderstood. Extensive testing has confirmed that humans cannot distinguish relative phases among steady-state periodic signals, so for example a musical note containing a fundamental, third harmonic, and fifth harmonic would sound the same no matter what the phases of the three sinusoidal components might be provided that the relative amplitudes were maintained. Allen Organ used exactly this phenomenon to simplify the tone generation system in their early digital organs.
                    Don,

                    The trouble here is that we are not talking a single fundamental with a few harmonics, we are talking about the interaction of a whole bunch of fundamentals and their harmonics interacting with each other across a number of stops, through electrical summing, and then the interaction of of multiple channels of audio in acoustical summing. Phase linearity is probably never a practical reality in an electronic organ because the filter geometry (all-pass) combined the sheer numbers of them needed is overwhelming and expensive. Nonetheless, I don't believe this means giving up all hope is the answer either- indeed, Allen's composite-summing theory in the MOS organs didn't sound very good, and they abandoned it as soon as the technology improved and the cost per TG came down in the ADC organs.

                    I am not suggesting anyone avoid equalizers entirely, indeed, I have installed organs with outboard EQ channels added, just that the average third-octave PA equalizer is a pretty ham-fisted tool for room and speaker correction unless you go for an amazingly good one- both in terms of filter bandwidth and the geometry of the circuits themselves. But if it works for you, who am I to question it?

                    Obviously, it's your organ, and if whatever you do makes sounds better, then it is better!

                    Michael,

                    I think the short answer is if you have the ability, space, and budget add extra channels and amps, do it. I've never heard an Allen (or really any electronic) that didn't benefit from more channels and speakers- in your case, at the least, breaking the Pedal out from the Great will clean up some IM distortion when things are really cooking.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by michaelhoddy View Post
                      Don,

                      The trouble here is that we are not talking a single fundamental with a few harmonics, we are talking about the interaction of a whole bunch of fundamentals and their harmonics interacting with each other across a number of stops, through electrical summing, and then the interaction of of multiple channels of audio in acoustical summing. Phase linearity is probably never a practical reality in an electronic organ because the filter geometry (all-pass) combined the sheer numbers of them needed is overwhelming and expensive. Nonetheless, I don't believe this means giving up all hope is the answer either- indeed, Allen's composite-summing theory in the MOS organs didn't sound very good, and they abandoned it as soon as the technology improved and the cost per TG came down in the ADC organs.

                      I am not suggesting anyone avoid equalizers entirely, indeed, I have installed organs with outboard EQ channels added, just that the average third-octave PA equalizer is a pretty ham-fisted tool for room and speaker correction unless you go for an amazingly good one- both in terms of filter bandwidth and the geometry of the circuits themselves. But if it works for you, who am I to question it?

                      Obviously, it's your organ, and if whatever you do makes sounds better, then it is better!

                      Michael,

                      I think the short answer is if you have the ability, space, and budget add extra channels and amps, do it. I've never heard an Allen (or really any electronic) that didn't benefit from more channels and speakers- in your case, at the least, breaking the Pedal out from the Great will clean up some IM distortion when things are really cooking.
                      This is the part of the huge ADC Models Service Manual related to the ADC 4300.
                      May be it will be useful.
                      Attached Files

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Fascinating discussion here.

                        Some time ago, I came to the conclusion that in the average setting
                        these older organs simply cannot be finished to complete satisfaction
                        using the BTM controls on the cards. There are too many high-Q
                        resonances in most rooms to be able to eliminate or at least minimize
                        the wild variations in frequency response of the
                        organ+amplifiers+speakers system.


                        Very true...to make them (most any e-organ) sound superb in a small room requires detailed adjustments. With my ADC-1140 that has even less controls than a full cage organ, although the sound was satisfactory the built-in articulation - which could at least be turned off - was way too loud and chirpy in a small room. It was clearly "factory voiced" for a church/auditorium, which is after all exactly what it should have been voiced for. Same with the overall voicing, for example mixtures were too loud for a small room. Not to forget, either, Don is that the ADC phase distortion issue you identified correctly (I called it an aliasing issue at the time) is much more noticeable with a speaker 3' from one's ear than one 30' from one's ear! Since it's "just" phase distortion in theory (sort of like the theory Earth could be struck by an asteroid right now) couldn't someone could design an ASIC to replace the PMI DAC08 that would resample the sound "correctly" and avoid the problem...? Anyhow, let's hear it for the later ADC models...as multiple posters here have said, they could sound great in churches at least.

                        Minor side note that I'm mystified by the asymmetric distribution of voices on the voicing chart. For the ADC-5000 & ADC-5300 voicing charts, for example, there's a bit of that but it's overall more balanced. My interest is strictly academic so there's no need for someone to remove their tone cards on my account, but I wonder if TG card containing 16A/16AA is identical to 15A/15AA? This would imply it uses more than twice as much memory to generate a "8 Gemshorn" as it does to produce an "8 Trompette". Certainly possible I suppose. UPDATE: now that I look at the technical info. pdfs, I see that they are all TG8 boards which can hold the same amt. of memory. I wonder why there was this lopsided distribution...maybe they had some leftover TG8s of an older design that used slower memory chips or whatnot! One gets the impression from Walter G. that they were sometimes designing the organs around what was available and/or surplus to requirements...for example waiting to do the "stored samples" card system until a cheap, high speed 256K eprom came on the market, i.e., certainly they could have done it sooner using more chips or a bigger board, but waited until it could be done very cheaply. (probably part of why they are still around...lol)
                        What was a "DG" board indicated as optional along with the TT4 "Brass Choir"? I know EG=envelope generator, FG=frequency generator, TG=tone generator, TT=custom samples board, KA=key assigner, MA=master assigner (?), AV=alterable voice controller, AP=expression...
                        Last edited by circa1949; 07-11-2011, 08:07 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by DrSound View Post
                          This is the part of the huge ADC Models Service Manual related to the ADC 4300.
                          May be it will be useful.
                          DrSound,

                          Thank you so much for the PDF files. They are incredibly useful to me. However, they all reflect that from the factory, Allen intended the 4300 to be 6-channels from the cage, but 4-channels to the speakers. I'm sure I can always revert back to the original configuration if what I try doesn't work out, however, I'm into predictable results rather than experimentation with my primary practice instrument.

                          I did find it odd, however, that the picture provided shows the toe studs for Tutti I and Tutti II, but nowhere in the PDF files are they mentioned as toe studs--only pistons. I'm sure I could tie into the piston wiring and add the toe studs, but again, that's a change I'll make over time. The pistons are so far over, I don't have time to reach with my hands during a piece (when they're mostly used). The toe studs will be MUCH MORE HELPFUL!

                          I also neglected to mention that one of the reed switches on the manual has been intermittent (at one end). I have the replacement, but was looking for the schematics so I can get at it easily, and as intended. The drawknob console is a bit more cramped than the tab console would be. Also, because the Great is so close to the roll top cover, someone before me had (partially) broken a key when raising the roll top. I need to be able to raise the center tab assembly and Swell so I can get at the Great to replace the offending key (I also have the part for that).

                          I didn't mention it in previous posts, but I am also adding MIDI card, as well as the Sub-Bass crossover card to drive a B20 speaker for the 32'. I plan on making all these changes one at a time rather than wholesale. That way, I can step back one change at a time if I'm not pleased with the sound. Did I mention I'm into predictable results?;-)

                          You all have been a tremendous help with this. I really appreciate everyone's input--even though I might not have mentioned you by name or responded directly to you. You've been great!!!:->

                          Michael
                          Way too many organs to list, but I do have 5 Allens:
                          • MOS-2 Model 505-B / ADC-4300-DK / ADC-5400 / ADC-6000 (Symphony) / ADC-8000DKC
                          • Lowrey Heritage (DSO-1)
                          • 11 Pump Organs, 1 Pipe Organ & 7 Pianos

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by circa1949 View Post
                            Minor side note that I'm mystified by the asymmetric distribution of voices on the voicing chart. For the ADC-5000 & ADC-5300 voicing charts, for example, there's a bit of that but it's overall more balanced. My interest is strictly academic so there's no need for someone to remove their tone cards on my account, but I wonder if TG card containing 16A/16AA is identical to 15A/15AA? This would imply it uses more than twice as much memory to generate a "8 Gemshorn" as it does to produce an "8 Trompette". Certainly possible I suppose....
                            As I look at the chart of which cards each stop are on, it strikes me that most of the stops that are of fundamental pitches are located on those boards. For example, on the Swell, it's the 8' Gemshorn, Voix Celeste, Salicional, and Flûte Bouchée that are in pairs on one card. However, it's the upper pitches, or stops with less fundamental that are in larger groups of 6 on the other card (i.e. Trompette, Cymbale III, Sifflöte, Tierce, Flûte à Bec, Flûte à Fuseau on one ½ of the other card, with Clairon, Chimes, Basson, Mixtur IV, Nasard, and Principal Conique on the other ½). This pattern repeats itself moreso on the Great than the Pedal as well. Food for thought.

                            Originally posted by circa1949 View Post
                            What was a "DG" board indicated as optional along with the TT4 "Brass Choir"? I know EG=envelope generator, FG=frequency generator, TG=tone generator, TT=custom samples board, KA=key assigner, MA=master assigner (?), AV=alterable voice controller, AP=expression...
                            Since the DG board appears to be paired with the TT board (custom samples), I wonder if it may have something to do with the Optional Brass Choir or 2nd voices available on that instrument? If not, maybe it just stands for Digital God!;-)

                            Michael

                            P.S. Had another thought. Could the DG have been MIDI?
                            Way too many organs to list, but I do have 5 Allens:
                            • MOS-2 Model 505-B / ADC-4300-DK / ADC-5400 / ADC-6000 (Symphony) / ADC-8000DKC
                            • Lowrey Heritage (DSO-1)
                            • 11 Pump Organs, 1 Pipe Organ & 7 Pianos

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Michael, I think you have hit on a good plan, but I too am not sure what should go in between (the mixer, etc). I have the ADC-4900, for which you may recall I went through similar voicing woes last year. Not sure there will be enough similarity to be of any direct use to you, but for those who just want to reminisce these were the two main links where JBird outlined the cryptographical channeling schemes, including the S-100 amp for the pedal (I have 9 speakers, but 8 of them are paired main/antiphonals operated by tabs, so the 6 channels are really mixed down to 4 + 1 and the latter is basically a low pass bass channel):

                              http://www.organforum.com/forums/sho...l=1#post200098

                              http://www.organforum.com/forums/sho...l=1#post200329

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X