Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)

[Austin766]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)

I don't think that there were any recordings of Virgil fox on the Royal V, but to find his recordings go to virgilfoxlegacy.com, there you will fond recordings of Virgil on the Hook and Hastings organ at Riverside before the A - S was installed. Personally if what black Beauty sounded like is any indication of what the Royal V sounded like, it may have been quite impressive in tis day, and to a degree still is, but, I personally think Black Beauty didn't sound as good as the four manual Allen. And when I think of Virgil I always think back to the video of him performing the Jig fugue on the Allen.

[Guest]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)



If the Royal V sounded anything like this:</P>


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNpJJ...5&amp;index=19</P>


I would have it refitted, or failing that, pushed off a cliff.</P>


The organ that Virgil Fox plays in this video is awful, weedy, synthetic and basically sore to the ears. Give me a decent digital anyday than this.</P>

[Austin766]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)

Bear in mind, it din't just sound that awful in that video, it also sounded bad in recordings of the Heavy Organ Concerts.

[Guest]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)



Virgil DID play the Riverside organ in May 1979 for a Farewell Concert. The things still NOT completed then were the gallery Grand Chorus. Otherwise he was pleased with the improvements and said so. The pedal formerly was all used pipes from the 1930 organ recycled. Virgil liked the all new pedal principal chorus. The old lacked foundation since the 1930 violone was redubbed principal 16 and the 1930 gt diapason had been renamed pedal contrebasse 16. The violone was buzz-sawed and a new metal principal installed in 1978 or so along with a complete chorus up thru mixtures. The 1930 gt 16 ''contrebasse'' was revoiced so that Fred was pleased. The voicer from A-S who did these jobs said the contrebasse was ''sitting in retirement'' meaning not speaking up to snuff.</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>


Recent changes at Riverside have been a complete revoicing hence nothing is left of the voicing as it was. Also the solo terz 3-1/5 is no longer listed on the specs and a fife 2 is reinstated from removal in 1966-67. A new unit holzregal 16-trumpet musette 4 has been addd to the positiv. In the 60s the swell reed chorus was revoiced away from the fiery A-S tone to a slower-speaking more mild and gentle English tone for use with the chorus.The new tuba mirabilis is dark chocolaty and smoothish. Fred didnt like the old one that was pitched in the 60s and neither did Virgil.All in all the new sound of the whole organ is quite nice even after revoicing to fit the new acoustics and so it can only have evolved for the better and not otherwise.</P>

[Guest]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)

There is video footage of Fox on the Royal V at St Mary Cathedral in frisco during an interview and the sound was wonderful what he played. The duplicate at Carnegie Hall was awesome sounding whenI heard it in an orchestral program.Subsequently in 1980 its was at Crystal cathedral and was used for Virgil's funeral.The Allen wa unimpressive at Manhattan State College in Brooklyn when I first heard Virgil play it. In its present place in harlem it is MAGNIFICENT- sounding.

[arie v]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)



Hi,</p>

I don't know where the idea comes from that Black Beauty or Royal V were such magnificent sounding instruments, compared to today's instruments. Sure they sounded pretty good in their day by virtue that they were large, and as such had some musical resources. The Black Beauty was really not much more than a stock 3 manual Rodgers expanded some, with an audio system capable of filling a big space. The Royal V and the Carnegie Hall organs were just much bigger again. Other than maybe a few experimental keyers these 2 organs would have had Rodgers standard equipment in them. What was especially weak about these organs was the speakers used - either banks of full range 12" drivers or panels of 6" X 9" cheap car radio type drivers. They were essentially the final filter, but they were kind of nasty as well in that they had poor frequency response.</p>

It wasn't until the late 70s that a fellow by the name of Bob Walker at various dealers behest, made some substantial improvements on some Rodgers organs. These were not factory improvements, but after the fact improvements. What he generally did was add extra oscillators, sag circuits, wind puff, improved the voicing of some keyers. etc. Any of these Walker improved organs sound different from factory stock organs, and to my ears sounded better. </p>

Anyways, my thought on the matter is, unless Rodgers company themselves take an interest in preserving these "interesting" organs, I don't know who else would be. Does someone on this list want to start an "organ museum"?</p>

Whether we like it or not, electronic organs, like most other electronic goods, are but a period pieces of technology. A 1970 electronic organ is always going to sound like the technology available in 1970. And interest in period technology is not that high. Most people are not interested in what a 1990 computer can do, or want to watch TV on a 1975 black and white TV. The vast majority of people are interested in the here and now or what is coming down the pipeline of technology.</p>

When you look at pipe organs and the interest in these instruments, you can tell that pipe organs are timeless. Today's technological wonders are products of progress, but at the same time lack that sense of timelessness.</p>

Arie V</p>

</p>

[Vercus]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)



Hey, Watch it! I have one of the heavy organ concerts and rather enjoy it. Yes the sound wasn't perfect, but also consider the state of recording technology of the 70s. Those were likely recorded with hanging condensor mics, which are far from ideal. All this Rodgers trashing is making me sick. I would un-subscribe from this thread, but I feel I need to stand up for an organ that is being unduly slandered.
</p>

-Jon</p>

[quote user="Austin766"]Bear in mind, it din't just sound that awful in that video, it also sounded bad in recordings of the Heavy Organ Concerts.
[/quote]</p>

[Vercus]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)



Arie,</p>

I agree with what you have said about pipe organs being timeless, that is definitely true. Just consider a baroque tracker! However, at the same time, I do enjoy the older organs, and I hope I am not alone in this. I have mentioned many times on this forum that I hope my first classical organ to be a Rodgers analog. Or theater organ for that matter.</p>

I think they still hold up pretty well. Yes the sound is more basic compared to later analogs or digitals, but there's a certain fundamental simplicity of their circuits that makes them easily serviced and reliable. At least I'm thinking that would be the case.</p>

I can see where speaker upgrades could be an improvement for it. They did at least use tweeters with the 6x9 cabs. Either motorola piezo types, or JBL bullet types for the better ones. Those JBLs were good tweeters and are still being made today. I have no knowledge of their subwoofers. Full range 12" drivers does seem ghastly. Kind of like guitar speakers.</p>

Still they must have done something right, because I liked the sound of the Bach Heavy organ album I have in Carnegie Hall. Sometimes when he used a lot of brightwork it may get to be a bit much, but there's an easy solution for that.</p>

When he played Air on a G String, it stays pretty mellow and soft the whole way, and sounds so lifelike. It really sounded full, rich, and defined like a pipe organ would, rather than sort of "smearing" together like a digital organ might. Somehow analog organs seem to allow you to hear more definition between stops when they are blended. You can hear what stops are where. Where as digital organs seem to present one blended sound and you can't tell what's going on.</p>

That's just my take anyway. As shown, we have many opinions on here, as you would expect.</p>

-Jon</p>

[robmcw]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)

I agree with you too. I would rather have an older Rodgers analog. I enjoy the sound of those instruments. Yes there are some nasty recordings of Black Beauty but when the instrument was properly set up, the organ really sounded great.
I have been told I have 'some kind of romantic notion' about these instruments.
Well I'm not impressed with Rodgers digital sound at this point. Its sounds OK, but your right about the 'smear of sound'. I'd give it a couple of years. Let Roland develope a better DAC and rethink their loops.

[arie v]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)



Jon,</p>

Well you are certainly in the minority of those who want or like old analog organs. But think about this positively. You can pick these old organs up for very little money now. However, if you are interested in one, here is a little advice. Stay away from those that have a tripper combination action. Cannot be fixed as parts are not available. Stay away from models such as Columbia, Jamestown and maybe even the early Scarborough. These models (with numbers such as 75, 100, 125, etc) generally had very little in terms of musical resources. About the best one they made in the 70s was the 220-II. A solid 2 manual organ. The 330 was a 3 manual organ but, the Great and Choir were the same thing. The 550 and 660 did the same thing. So unless you got a custom 3 manual, you basically got a 2 manual organ spread out over 3 manuals.</p>

Also, there were dealers out there who basically disliked what came out of the factory. So they changed the filtering, speaker cross-overs, etc. No doubt this improved the so-called "American Classic" sound of the Rodgers factory organs. This would indicate that the dealer was seriously interested in the organ as a musical instrument.</p>

I want to start a new thread about Hector Olivera on a Rodgers.</p>

AV</p>

</p>

[radagast]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)

[quote user="arie v"]


I want to start a new thread about Hector Olivera on a Rodgers.</P>


AV</P>
<P mce_keep="true">[/quote]</P>
<P mce_keep="true">Ok. Go ahead.</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>

[Vercus]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)



Hey Arie,
</p>

Thanks for the advice, that helps a lot! One thing- what is tripper combination action? How will I know that an organ has it?</p>

Your mention of the duplicate great and choir on the 330, 550 and 660 kind of rained on my parade as those were the ones I was most interested in..LOL. Doh. I'd be curious to know how many ranks of oscillators these organs had?</p>

Also, another question- what are keyers? I heard somewhere else that when analog organs have limited oscillators, they use different keyers or keying to get different sounds out of the same rank. I'm curious how this works. I seem to remember hearing about this on the later ones like the 890, etc. Did this exist on the 70s ones, or were they pretty basic?
</p>

As you can tell, my knowledge of analog organs is still somewhat basic. I guess what I'm trying to find out is a basic synopsis of the 70s ones versus the 80s ones.</p>

Thanks a lot guys! Also, I apologize if my first post on this thread was inflammatory. I was seriously bummed out and stressed when I wrote that and I guess it caught up to me and once I got going it just snowballed. I really didn't stop to breathe for even a second when I was typing that. Times have been rough right now.</p>

-Jon
</p>

[Menschenstimme]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)



Hi Jon/Versus!</P>


Regarding tripper combination action: This is the "hold in the piston and set the stops" that was once standard equipment on Austin and Reuter consoles, as well as Klann and some others. It was a very clever design which worked nicely when it left the factory. But when it started aging or got out of adjustment it was down hill from there. If you find an analog electronic instrument with this system (Saville, Rodgers, Conn, Hammond Grand 100, etc.), it will probably be the Klann system. Even if you could find parts, once these systems get old, they become quite recalcitrant and frustrating.</P>


But I digressed; you asked how to identify the system. You change the piston settings by pushing the piston and holding it in and then click the stops into the new registration that you want. You feel the resistance and the clunk while you are doing this. The clunk is because you are "reprogramming" the trippers into their new positions. Once you have encountered one of these, it is henceforth rather obvious.</P>


This should not be confused with modern, solid-state systems, including the Peterson Duo-Set, which in addition to the SET button, allow you to also hold-and-set as described above.</P>


Hope this helps!</P>


Good luck!!</P>

[arie v]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)



Jon,</p>

I think the tripper question has been answered. A more reliable action was the earlier Rodgers setter board, a big pull out drawer with numerous little switches on it.</p>

As to what I wrote earlier, most 3 manual electronic organs were nothing more than 2 manual organs with the Great/Pedal resources also on the Choir or Positif. Conn did it, Rodgers did it, I believe Allen did too. Only the custom organs may have had a separate 3rd manual division.</p>

As to how analog organs were constructed there have been a number of ways. The cheap way was dividers, using a high frequency oscillator producing square waves and filtering down by octave division. The meant a phase and frequency locked sound, that when filtered had a propensity to sound "clarinety" Better was the independent oscillator way. Gave a better natural chorus. There were 2 ways here, one was constantly running oscillators, and the other keyed oscillator. I think Allen used both, AOB used keyed oscillators as well as Saville. Rodgers used constantly running oscillators, with keyers.</p>

Basically the Rodgers system works this way. You have your oscillator running. In order for anything to sound, a transistor keyer turns on the note which is fed by the oscillator. The oscillator provides the basic waveform at a certain pitch. The keyer take this waveform and feeds it through a filter circuit, which tone colours it. Besides, doing this the keyer also allowed for shaping the way the sound comes on (attack transient) and the release. The earlier Rodgers had 2 or 3 or more ranks of oscillators. From there they had one or more keyers per rank of oscillators. And like most other organs of the day, they were heavily unified. So the earlier Rodgers tried really hard to compete with Allen and to a lesser degree with Saville.</p>

But as the company grew, they also wanted to expand their customer base. So around 1970 you saw a shift in emphasis, you began to see organs with less and less hardware, but with as big or bigger stop lists. So all the little models I mentioned earlier from the 70s, only had a single rank of oscillators, and if they had a celeste rank it was just a phase shifter. They also had maybe 2 or 3 keyers (different tone colours). Principals all sounded the same, same with the flutes. These organs had little musical value in my opinion.</p>

From the mid 80s to the end of the analog era, Rodgers did improve the tonal quality of their instruments. At least I think so. They had circuits better mimicking air sound, randomness, chiff etc. Even the smallest instruments sounded somewhat interesting. The larger ones again had an extra rank or 2 of oscillators, separate keyers for Sw and Gt. The 3 manual organs, again if they were fairly small were basically 2 manuals spread out over 3.</p>

To me anyway, for sound the last of the Rodgers analog organs were the best. Most of the Rodgers organs from the 60s were extremely well built. Look for instruments with the setter board combo action if you are interested in these. The consoles, like the Allens of the time were basically pipe organ like in quality. The amps and speakers most likely need some work by now. The other thing, Rodgers used electrolytic capacitors on the keyers in the startup part of the circuit. These will be way out of spec. by now, giving the sound a somewhat burp-on quality on the attack.</p>

One last thing. Rodgers Corp. is not particularly strong in supporting these old analog organs. You can get schematics I would think, but tuning cores, tripper action parts, certain ICs from the 70s and 80s they do not have. Avoid MIKASCO organs (from the early 80s) altogether. No one at Rodgers seems to know much about them. </p>

I'm sure John Birdsong, the famous organ tech from Arkansas can write you a book on these old beasts.</p>

AV</p>

[MarkS]

Re: Rodgers Royal V (Virgil Fox's big 5 manual Rodgers analog, since converted to digital)



Just a few corrections, comments, and opinions:</P>


I've never seen an Allen with continuous running oscillators. They were always keyed oscillator with mechanical switching, Reisner maybe. Rodgers usually used continuous oscillators but some (32B, 660, etc.) seemed to use a keyed flute generator plus a continuous main. It would have been easier to create the flute chiff (under license from Allen!) using keyed oscillators. The 35D may have been all keyed, the stoplist would allow it.</P>


I wouldn't have considered Black Beauty to be similar to a stock model. At the time I believe it was claimed to have 18 generators, but my count is more like 14, based on the stoplist. That would be entirely possible with keyed oscillators. We were told that it used vacuum tube amps and electrostatic speakers. My brother, a ham radio operator, came unglued at the thought of the engineering complexity in the audio system. I recall that it had two large, wooden loaded-horn type speakers, although they were not identical. (You can see one in the background of photos from the Mike Douglas tv show appearance.)</P>


Hearing this organ in a 5,000 seat auditorium, a small, dead theater, plus a very small organ shop standing next to the speakers, the sound seemed all brash and blat. It was a shock for those of us accustomed to the smoother, bland tone of the large Allen Customs of the day.</P>