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 didn't intend the remark to trash Rodgers. I have listened to some of the Heavy Organ recordings and in my opinion, biased, bigoted, ill-advised and un-American (o.k. maybe not un-American) as it may be, the organ sounds lousy, now, yes, some of that probably does have to do with the way in which the recording was made, but some of it also has to do with the organ itself. Again, I don't intend my remarks to bash, rather I mean them as critiques.

[Guest]

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

I saw and heard Fox on Black Beauty in NYC 1975 and that setup is indescribable--the size and number of speakers was a shock. The sound was excellent as was the playing and live commentary.

[Austin766]

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

I now retract some of my earlier comments on Black Beauty, I was actually almost fooled into thinking it was pipe listening to a recording of Wachet auf, but there are still moments when the limits of the technology rear their ugly heads.

[Guest]

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



[quote user="Austin766"]I now retract some of my earlier comments on Black Beauty, I was actually almost fooled into thinking it was pipe listening to a recording of Wachet auf, but there are still moments when the limits of the technology rear their ugly heads.
[/quote]</P>


The recordings do not do any justice. You had to be there then to be blown away by Black Beauty and Fox and countless monoliths of speakers taller than a man pointed in every which way --the power was overwhelming and the pipe-like fidelity starlting.</P>

[twnelson]

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



Since I've spent a lot of time over the past several years with '60s through '80s vintage Rodgers analogs, I'll stick my $0.02 in here.</p>

First, most of the larger two-digit Rodgers classical models were all keyed oscillators. This included the 'standard' 34, 35, and 36 series, plus any customs like Black Beauty. My 36D/C (a 36 with custom audio) has a total of seven sets: unit diapason, unit flute, swell, swell celeste, choir, choir celeste, and pedal. The smaller models, like the 32 classical and 33E Trio theatre came slightly later and used keyed flute/tibia oscillators, a continuously running 'main' set for all the other unison voices, and a keyed celeste set if so equipped. The latter was always a keyed type up through the 330/660/990 series of the '70s.</p>

This group was actually had a fairly sensible model numbering system: the first digit was the number of manuals, and the second was the number of oscillator sets, although the latter excluded separate pedal oscillators if so equipped. There were also 3-digit variants with compact consoles and non-AGO pedalboards that appeared in the mid-60s, such as the 325 classical and 322 Trio theatre.</p>

Black Beauty was definitely a custom model, with 14 sets of oscillators, all keyed, and 10 channels of audio with a correspondingly large complement of speakers, some doubled. I have a copy of the spec from the original service manual that was posted over a year ago on the forum, converted to MS Word format if anyone is interested.</p>

The germanium transistor keyed oscillators used in these models exhibits a rather harsh attack as some have noted, especially on the diapasons and reeds. Perhaps it was the choice of the voicing circuits for those stop groups, but the flutes and strings we noticeably less harsh. I've been fiddling with the voicing on my 36D+35D racks to reduce this somewhat. Contemporary audiophile speakers also help.</p>

Late in this period, the first of the solid-state combination actions appeared using magnetic core memory. This was used on Black Beauty and was optional on most models up until the MICASKO series.

In the late 60s, with the advent of the silicon transistor-based models, the numbering scheme lost any of it's previous sensibility. My 660 3m has 3 sets of oscillators: keyed unit flute, continuously running main for the unit diapason and swell, and the keyed swell celeste. A 990 has at least 2 additional sets: continuously running unit gemshorn and keyed choir celeste. Some 990s may have custom factory or Walker oscillators for additional 32' pedal stops and a festival trumpet, and/or swell oscillators. The silicon oscillator models are generally considered to sound much less harsh than their predecessors.</p>

There are also a small number of 3, 4 and 5 manual customs from this era that use all keyed silicon oscillators, mounted in racks in external cabinets instead of stuffing them in oversized consoles. The original Royal V was one of these.
</p>

The 220-II 2m and 330 3m began the trend away from keyed oscillators to all continuous running, which were less expensive to build and more compact. They had a main set that ran the entire pitch range of the instrument for all voice groups, and ensemble oscillator set that provided what its name implied by providing an alternate source for certain pitches, and a celeste set. As has been noted, the 220-II is probably the nicest instrument from this vintage for its size; the 330 is just that model stretched over 3 manuals.</p>

These latter two models also introduced time-shared keying, which simplified the keying and coupler circuitry and allowed for a transposer.</p>

Subsequent models in the very late 70s and early 80s introduced the MICASKO system: MIcroprocessor Controlled And Serially Keyed Organ, based on a Z80 CPU. The first series, typically referred to as MICASKO-A, was a disaster, with many, many problems. In the mid-80s, the much more reliable MICASKO-B series replaced it, and frequently the -A models were retrofitted. The number of oscillators was often very limited except on the very high-end 3 or 4 manual models, but the number of keyers was increased significantly to attempt to 'deunify' the instruments and eliminate the classic 'dead note' problems. My 760 2m has only two sets, main and celeste, but is equipped with separate keyers for great and swell voices, plus separate 8' and 4' diapason keyers for each division as well. It also has a digital version of the activity circuit commonly used in this vintage to attempt to improve the ensemble. It sounds decent for an organ of its size, plus it came with factory MIDI!
</p>

The reason I like my 660 is that 1) it's a decent sounding 3m practice organ that was cheap, fully functional, and is easy to maintain, 2) the console is built like a brick ****house, but isn't the extra-height, 40" deep monster used on the 330/990 models, and 3) can easily be added onto externally with other Rodgers or Walker components, or have MIDI added. I can replace everything except the oscillator coils with off-the-shelf equivalents. The mag core combination action still works perfectly.
</p>

-- Tom</p>


</p>

[arie v]

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

[quote user="MarkS"]


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. </p>

[/quote]</p>

Mark,</p>

You sure about this tube amp and electrostatic speakers on Black Beauty? Rodgers never built tube amps or had tubes in their organs that I am aware of. They began by building transistor organs right from the beginning. I doubt that in the 60s that the combination of tube amps and electrostatic speakers would have given Virgil Fox the volume he would have wanted.</p>

AV</p>

[Vercus]

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



Hey Austin766,</p>

Are you talking about the Carnegie Hall recording? I just recently played the same one. Wachet auf does sound very good. I also thoroughly enjoyed Arioso. To me, that was the track that came closest to simulating pipes. I have to admit to being fooled for a while too! That album exemplifies everything I love about these organs.</p>

-Jon</p>

[quote user="Austin766"]I now retract some of my earlier comments on Black Beauty, I was actually almost fooled into thinking it was pipe listening to a recording of Wachet auf, but there are still moments when the limits of the technology rear their ugly heads.
[/quote]</p>

[Vercus]

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



After reading Tom's (twnelson) post about Black Beauty having 14 sets of oscillators and a regular 660 only having 3 I can't help but wonder if I would be disappointed with a regular Rodgers? That seems awfully limited. I guess when you've heard something with so many tonal resources and variety, I can't help but think that a 3 generator instrument would sound very limited. Doh.</p>

By the way Tom, I would definitely be interested in the spec sheet for the Black Beauty. If you could PM me or e-mail me, I can give you my e-mail address and if you could e-mail it to me, I'd be quite grateful!</p>

-Jon</p>

[twnelson]

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



The answer is... it depends [:)]. My 660's limited resources currently benefit from the use of 3 Behringer Virtualizer DSP2024s that provide room modeling capabilities beyond simple reverb, allowing me to spread the sound field from the 5 standard output channels around my 16x24 vaulted ceiling living room. I think it sounds surprisingly good for what's under the hood (or rolltop).
</p>

Enhancements are in-process with real additional resources from a 330 rack set plus a Walker 990 enhancement rack to provide completely independent swell and choir, respectively. Somewhat like the analog electronic equivalent to adding ranks to a pipe organ when you don't have the space for the real thing. I'm currently working on a new digital control system for the resulting beast that will also have a MIDI interface.
</p>

Even starting with the basic 660 capabilities, the ease of adding MIDI to this vintage would allow expansion well beyond the analog functionality.</p>

-- Tom</p>

</p>

[Austin766]

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

I was listening to a recording made at the Winterland in San Francisc in 1972.

[MarkS]

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



Tom: Thanks for the descriptions of the various organs, especially Black Beauty. Now it is understandable why there was that persistent "blat" to the sound.</P>


Arie: Rodgers claimed to have only built all-transistor church organs (they were the first), but at that time I remember the Rodgers folks saying that Black Beauty had electrostatic speakers and vacuum tube amps; I can't say whether it was true or not. It was a demonstration by William H. Barnes in a Rodgers dealer's showroom or warehouse so we were right in the midst of the speakers, but, alas, I didn't see inside the speakers or view the amps. I found out later that electrostatic speakers could wreak havoc with some transistor amps,so it would seem plausible. (Remember the Quad electrostats, the "Dangerous Speaker.") However, the amps and speakers would have been very delicate for travel.</P>

[Admin]

Black Beauty Specifications



The complete Rodgers Black Beauty specifications are in the Classical Organ Specification forum here:</P>


http://organforum.com/forums/thread/1179.aspx</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>


Includes oscillator rank descriptions.</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>

[Guest]

Re: Virgils Royal 5



I'd like to offer my personal experience regarding Virgil's remarks and feelings about the Royal V. I spent a lot of time with Virgil in San Francisco during the time of the St. Mary's organ festival put on by Ted Worth. The reason was that I was Virgil's physician and discovered his cancer during that visit. </P>


What I personally heard him say was that he was very disappointed with the Royal V because it kept breaking down and was very unreliable. As the time went on and he became increasingly exasperated with the Royal V, he began to think about an alternative. That is when he went to Markowitz, threw down his money and said-make me an organ! What an uproar ensued in the organ world.</P>


After listening to his new Allen several times, I thought he would have been much better off trying to be patient with Rodgers and working out the problems. As we all know, Virgil wasn't known for patience and he spent the rest of his life playing that Allen.</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>

[jbird604]

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



Jon,</P>


I doubt you'd be terribly disappointed with the sound of a stock Rodgers analog, particularly a really old one such as a 22 or 32, or 220, 330, 660, 990 or one of the very last MICASKO-Borgans such as the 890, 900, 925, etc.</P>


Obvously there are all kinds of preferences, and some might say an Allen analog of the same age is better. I don't know, just different. One thing about Allen analogs, no "blat" in the attacks. Attacks are almost too slow in the low pitches!</P>


Personally, I like the MICASKO-B organs better than the so-called LTG organs of about the same era, which were sort of a second-line series. On the LTG organs you can't level every stop drawn from a unit rank independently, as you can on the MICASKO organs. Rodgers used their most advanced reed keyers and filters on the MICASKO models too,with asound that rivals the best digital reeds, to my ear.The LTG organs also used the cheaper and less stable pot-tuned oscillators for the lowest octaves and celestes. A few very cheap models used pot-tuned oscillators throughout.</P>


But the huge analogs like Black Beauty, though they had more ranks of oscillators, weren't that different in tonality, if at all, just more of the same. The big difference between good-sounding analogs (including Rodgers, Allen, and a few others) and bad ones is the use of independent oscillators for each pitch, as opposed to the much poorer master oscillator/divider system used incheaper and less serious organs.</P>


As someone else mentioned, there was a period when the Rodgersproduct was cheapened with huge crops of stop tabs backed up by very little inside. Some of those organsmight be calleddisappointing, but none are just awful, to me anyway. Even the 740 and others of that era with a single rank and celeste done only by a phase-shifter can sound OK in a good acoustical setting. I've played a few of them and been quite pleased.</P>


Rodgers got diapason tone pretty well from the beginning, and their concept was simple -- chop off the bottom of a sine wave. Allen did much the same thing in their analogs. The later Rodgers principals include chiff and puff, which are enhancements, but no real change in the basic tone color.</P>


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

[Vercus]

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



Hey John,</p>

Thanks for the advice and detail. I do think I would enjoy one as well. I still hope and plan to make my first classical organ be a Rodgers analog. Sadly right now I'm in no position to get one, as I not only can't afford one, but I likely wouldn't be able to afford to move it!</p>

-Jon</p>