Tweet
What is so special about these organs?
-
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
Check them out at www.marshallogletree.com<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV> -
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
Hi,</p>
What makes M&O so special.</p>
Well, for one thing, the amount of compromising is so much lower than everybody else's product. I will list briefly why I think they are better, and have re-defined the state-of-the-art in digital electronic organs.</p>
1) they are sample based, but they boast a different sample for every note of every stop. So no pitch shifting of samples, or multiple clones of the same tone.</p>
2) their samples are very long (somewhere between 15 and 20 seconds), in stereo. The amount of sample memory used is huge. The Trinity Wall Street organ has somewhere around 30 Gigs of sample memory.</p>
3) the number of oscillators used is huge. The Trinity Wall Street organ has over 10,000 digital oscillators. If I remember correctly, each note played ties up 4 oscillators.</p>
4) the samples they collected are of absolute superb quality. They also do very minimal processing, in order to preserve fidelity.</p>
5) they use a lot more audio channels than is typical. The Trinity Wall Street organ has 74 audio channels. Mind you that organ is 85 stops times 2 for a total of 170 stops. The speaker systems they use is of the bi-polar variety, so sound comes from the front and back of the speakers so one hears both direct and reflected sound. This makes the sound more 3-D in it's sonic presentation.</p>
6) they also have built in pipe organ residual sounds such as blower noise, action noise, swell box shutter clatter, etc. It is amazing how much this adds to overall realism. They have also modelled the behavior of the pipe organ as a wind instrument, so the tone and tuning is not static like typical digi organs.
</p>
7) their consoles are very much pipe organ quality of the highest sort. They have also added subtle delays, so the playability is that of a fine electro-pneumatic pipe organ</p>
Having heard and played their Opus 1, I can tell you that that particular organ is mind-boggling in it's success as an imitation of the real thing.</p>
Anything else.............can't think of anything</p>
Oh yes, ..................the price.............if you have to ask, you can't afford it.</p>
Arie V
</p>
</p>Comment
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
Now we know some of the technical details.<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I don't usually pay much attention to demos and sample recordings, but the M & O demos on their website are something else. The large combinations actually sound large, not just loud.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>I haven't been that impressed with a demo since the Baldwin MultiWaveform, which had a recording for each note of each stop plus an audio channel for every stop.</DIV>Comment
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
Mark,</p>
I'm not sure you got all the details correct about the Baldwin MulitWaveform organs, but they were an attempt to get away from analog oscillator type tone generation. It was basically an analog optical version of digital sampling. They had not bad tone, but couldn't get the proper startup transients, and everything on the optical disc was phase locked. They were also a reliability/maintenance nightmare. I don't think they made many of them and most of the ones they did make are now landfill.</p>
As to recordings of digi-organs, there is a new one out by Walker that is excellent. Also there are some Musicom based organ recordings that are very good as well. I do agree with you, most others, including Allen, Rodgers, Johannus, A-G, sound electronic or speakered in some form or another.</p>
</p>
Arie V</p>Comment
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
[quote user="arie v"]
Hi,</P>
What makes M&O so special.</P>
Well, for one thing, the amount of compromising is so much lower than everybody else's product. I will list briefly why I think they are better, and have re-defined the state-of-the-art in digital electronic organs.</P>
1) they are sample based, but they boast a different sample for every note of every stop. So no pitch shifting of samples, or multiple clones of the same tone.</P>
2) their samples are very long (somewhere between 15 and 20 seconds), in stereo. The amount of sample memory used is huge. The Trinity Wall Street organ has somewhere around 30 Gigs of sample memory.</P>
3) the number of oscillators used is huge. The Trinity Wall Street organ has over 10,000 digital oscillators. If I remember correctly, each note played ties up 4 oscillators.</P>
4) the samples they collected are of absolute superb quality. They also do very minimal processing, in order to preserve fidelity.</P>
5) they use a lot more audio channels than is typical. The Trinity Wall Street organ has 74 audio channels. Mind you that organ is 85 stops times 2 for a total of 170 stops. The speaker systems they use is of the bi-polar variety, so sound comes from the front and back of the speakers so one hears both direct and reflected sound. This makes the sound more 3-D in it's sonic presentation.</P>
6) they also have built in pipe organ residual sounds such as blower noise, action noise, swell box shutter clatter, etc. It is amazing how much this adds to overall realism. They have also modelled the behavior of the pipe organ as a wind instrument, so the tone and tuning is not static like typical digi organs.
</P>
7) their consoles are very much pipe organ quality of the highest sort. They have also added subtle delays, so the playability is that of a fine electro-pneumatic pipe organ</P>
Having heard and played their Opus 1, I can tell you that that particular organ is mind-boggling in it's success as an imitation of the real thing.</P>
Anything else.............can't think of anything</P>
Oh yes, ..................the price.............if you have to ask, you can't afford it.</P>
Arie V
[/quote]</P>
Ok, now we got the salesguff out of the way (by the way the marketing on the site looks very slick and professional, too slick....) Listening to the audio from Opus 1 (why no samples of the other organs?) the organ does sound a bit one dimensional, the tuning seems too perfect and the pedals have little gravitas...which is the same for most other digital organs too. So what is actually different, apart fromblinding us all with the appliance of science?</P>
The Fugue of the Bach as obviously been sped up via a MIDI control, obviously to try and impress.As to the price, it is probably expensive, I wonder if the other organs they have built are using the same amount of speakers and processing hardware and are as expensive. We cannot tell, because there is no way to compare.</P>
It is still only an imitation of a pipe organ and time will tell if this organ manufacturer is actually offering something superior or rather it is relying on it's slick sales techniques just as ALL the other digital manufacturers do.....</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>Comment
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
Arie,<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The Baldwin demo record wasn't the best, with horrible distortion on the Carillon de Westminster track. Much of it was interesting, though.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The big brochure claimed that servo-controlled lasers read two optical samples per note, the redundancy for accuracy. I realize that the attack had to be attached to the steady state, but the chiff was still better than any digital at the time--and superior to analog. They claimed that each note was separately tuned. How did they do that? Anyway, the individual voices sounded more accurate than any analog, but with a much better chorus than a 1970's digital and the vast majority of analog organs.</DIV><DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>There have been a few on ebay. Perhaps my demo record and brochure would fetch more on ebay than the organ itself. </DIV>Comment
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
The other organ that comes to mind as being a cut above the usual was the Allen Classic I. It was quite expensive at the time, so those who shopped organs with their eyes were probably much more impressed with a three manual console with 75 lighted drawknobs than a musically-satisfying organ of just nineteen stops.<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>The M & O website gives some suggested smaller organ specifications. How much would those cost? Somewhere on the site they also suggest the possibility of unit practice organs.</DIV>Comment
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
[quote user="Choirmaster"][quote user="arie v"]
Hi,</P>
What makes M&O so special.</P>
Well, for one thing, the amount of compromising is so much lower than everybody else's product. I will list briefly why I think they are better, and have re-defined the state-of-the-art in digital electronic organs.</P>
1) they are sample based, but they boast a different sample for every note of every stop. So no pitch shifting of samples, or multiple clones of the same tone.</P>
2) their samples are very long (somewhere between 15 and 20 seconds), in stereo. The amount of sample memory used is huge. The Trinity Wall Street organ has somewhere around 30 Gigs of sample memory.</P>
3) the number of oscillators used is huge. The Trinity Wall Street organ has over 10,000 digital oscillators. If I remember correctly, each note played ties up 4 oscillators.</P>
4) the samples they collected are of absolute superb quality. They also do very minimal processing, in order to preserve fidelity.</P>
5) they use a lot more audio channels than is typical. The Trinity Wall Street organ has 74 audio channels. Mind you that organ is 85 stops times 2 for a total of 170 stops. The speaker systems they use is of the bi-polar variety, so sound comes from the front and back of the speakers so one hears both direct and reflected sound. This makes the sound more 3-D in it's sonic presentation.</P>
6) they also have built in pipe organ residual sounds such as blower noise, action noise, swell box shutter clatter, etc. It is amazing how much this adds to overall realism. They have also modelled the behavior of the pipe organ as a wind instrument, so the tone and tuning is not static like typical digi organs.
</P>
7) their consoles are very much pipe organ quality of the highest sort. They have also added subtle delays, so the playability is that of a fine electro-pneumatic pipe organ</P>
Having heard and played their Opus 1, I can tell you that that particular organ is mind-boggling in it's success as an imitation of the real thing.</P>
Anything else.............can't think of anything</P>
Oh yes, ..................the price.............if you have to ask, you can't afford it.</P>
Arie V
[/quote]</P>
Ok, now we got the salesguff out of the way (by the way the marketing on the site looks very slick and professional, too slick....) Listening to the audio from Opus 1 (why no samples of the other organs?) the organ does sound a bit one dimensional, the tuning seems too perfect and the pedals have little gravitas...which is the same for most other digital organs too. So what is actually different, apart fromblinding us all with the appliance of science?</P>
The Fugue of the Bach as obviously been sped up via a MIDI control, obviously to try and impress.As to the price, it is probably expensive, I wonder if the other organs they have built are using the same amount of speakers and processing hardware and are as expensive. We cannot tell, because there is no way to compare.</P>
It is still only an imitation of a pipe organ and time will tell if this organ manufacturer is actually offering something superior or rather it is relying on it's slick sales techniques just as ALL the other digital manufacturers do.....</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>
[/quote]</P>
What recording were you listening to, Choirmaster? All the CD recordings I have were played in real-timeby an organist. I have played the Opus 1 in person when it was in Chicago last summer, and I can tell you the pedals have PLENTY of gravitas. I can also tell you that in person it is quite impressive. They have two consoles, one was built by Ruffatti. If you think the tuning is too perfect (which I don't) it can easily be changed to suit your taste.</P>
In regards to recordings of other instruments, they are scheduled to do a recording of Opus 2 this year. And you can hear a recording of the Ruffatti/M&O combo organ in S.C. by buying a recording from the church.</P>
I would add to Arie's description of it that they also sample the length of the pipe as well as the speaking portion. They have some proprietary program that massages the samples to get the best sound. The company actually is run by two guys who are big Rodgers dealers in the eastern U.S. who started this as an experiment to see how realistic a sound they could get with cost as no object.</P>
Bill</P>Comment
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
[quote user="radagast"]The company actually is run by two guys who are big Rodgers dealers in the eastern U.S. who started this as an experiment to see how realistic a sound they could get with cost as no object. [/quote]</P>
Aftera certainpoint it seems to be afolly - spending so much money to imitate something that can be found elsewhere.</P>
It's sort of like spending millions toengineer an artificialtomato.[:S]</P>
Science run amok! [:P]</P>Comment
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
[quote user="soubasse32"]
[quote user="radagast"]The company actually is run by two guys who are big Rodgers dealers in the eastern U.S. who started this as an experiment to see how realistic a sound they could get with cost as no object. [/quote]</P>
Aftera certainpoint it seems to be afolly - spending so much money to imitate something that can be found elsewhere.</P>
It's sort of like spending millions toengineer an artificialtomato.[:S]</P>
Science run amok! [:P]</P>
[/quote]</P>
Well now their experiment is a business they are running in addition to their continuing representation of Rodgers. There are two ways to look at this I suppose:</P>
1) With Marshall & Ogletree, you can get 99% the sound of a real pipe organ at half the price, withrelatively little maintenance compared to the real thing</P>
or:</P>
2) Why not get a digital/pipe combination organ? You will have real pipes on some of the stops, and less price than a Marshall & Ogletree organ.</P>
On the other hand:</P>
The digital stops on a lesser pipe/digital combo will not sound as good as Marshall & Ogletree organ. And you will have the initial cost and maintenance of the real pipes as well as needingextra space.</P>
On the other hand:</P>
Well you can all get the idea. The debate can be endless.</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>Comment
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
With that kind of money involved for a digital organ I could without *swell box shutter clatter, action noise and blower noise*. Seriously, thats a stupid use of digital organ *bandwidth*.<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV>My $0.03 cents worth.......</DIV>Comment
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that for the money you spend on an M&O you might as well buy the real thing. Besides the fate of technology in general is obsolesence. </P>
And as Soubasse32 said, "it's sort of like spending millions to engineer an artificial tomato." </P>
All of this effort to replicate the real thing. In the end it will always be a facsimile. Granted a very good facsimile, but a facsimile nonetheless. And as with most things in life, I think people generally prefer the real thing, the genuine article. I know there are folks out there who really like digital organs, so I'm not trying to offend anyone, I'm just expressing my own personal preference. </P>Comment
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
[quote user="arie v"] they also have built in pipe organ residual sounds such as blower noise, action noise, swell box shutter clatter, etc. It is amazing how much this adds to overall realism.[/quote]</P>
Oh, the artificial tomato comes withits ownfruit fly![6] Of course, it is tohelp enhance the overall experience. [;)]</P>
For me, it would only remindme of whatI amreally missing. </P>Comment
-
Re: Marshall & Ogletree
[quote user="stentordiaphone64"]With that kind of money involved for a digital organ I could without *swell box shutter clatter, action noise and blower noise*. Seriously, thats a stupid use of digital organ *bandwidth*.
<DIV><BR class=khtml-block-placeholder></DIV>
<DIV>My $0.03 cents worth.......</DIV>
[/quote] </P>
Totally agree. I think it comes down to clever marketing and gimmics to being attention to their brand. Look at all the digital organ makers. They all claim to have something, a special concept name to make their product supposedly better than anyone elses. M & O are no different in this respect. Nothing beats having a real pipe organ. Everything else even in 2007 is a pale imitation.</P>Comment
Comment