New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality

[Philip the organist]

This thought struck me the other day as I was thinking (as I often do) about the church organ and reading some of people's thoughts/complaints on this forum re. Allen v Rodgers v Johannus v pipe v C.H. etc. It seemed to me that one thing which really seemed to be a difference between pipe and electronic is that pipe organs can have a variety of quirks which are probably undesirable in a brand-new digital. I have played and listened to certain organs where you can hear the solenoids and valves clacking away when you play. Then there are other tracker organs that sound like they are going to fall apart while you play and you wonder if you should go back there and hold some parts together with wire. Then there are those awful noisy swell boxes and the crescendo pedals that creak and groan as they add stops.</p>

Anyway, I was thinking that maybe the reason the new digitals are sometimes regarded as bland is because the manufacturers don't want them to sound something like like a 50-year old organ that needs to be releathered before it leaves the showroom floor, even though that is the sound most of usually have to cope with in our churches.</p>

Maybe in trying to avoid the dilapidated sound they have removed some extra bits of good character in the sound. [Poll]
</p>

This is just a theory of mine. Anyone agree or disagree or have modifications to make? Let's hear it.</p>

[soubasse32]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality

I think a little bit of this effect might be interesting.

I enjoy hearing a tiny bit of wind hissingfrom within a pipe organ, as long as it is not so loud as to affect the quietest stop. It makes the organseemlike a giant beast coming to life. When I hear that sound before a recital on a very large instrument, it builds anticipation. For me, at least.

Any extraneous sound or quirky noise can be interestingor even endearing;but if it is too obrusive or repetitive it can get very old, very fast. Would there be a button to select a different set of squeaks? [:D]

Some action noise can actually give the pipes a bit of articulation which they may not otherwise have. It is more helpful in this case if the action noise is fairly consistent across the keyboard.

Part of the thrill of playing a great old European organ is hearing the extraneous sounds that sometimes occur - it is part and parcel of the experience.

It can be very dramatic to be at the console when you and your assistant(s) are furiously latching or unlatching ventils and tirasses on a French organ; the Barker levers are clicking away like so many castanets...

The interesting thing is that most of these sounds can be heard quite clearly by an organist, but they are usually masked by the music. I think that would be rather odd to try to duplicate on an electronic. Would theadded complexity be worth it? And how desireable to the organist, if the audience doesn't quite hear it?

I suppose that is one of my criticisms of electronic organs - there are so many concepts to improve realism, butthe execution leaves so much to be desired. Duplicating the complexities of a pipe organ's soundis a daunting taks,fraught with compromises.Theoretically thebest that could ever be accomplished, is still only an approximation.

[Stefanussen]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality



I thought I'd chime in since I've got some experience with this. My Hauptwerk setup allows me to play the digital Cavaille-Coll from Notre Dame de Metz in France. This organ includes all the ventils and tirasses that SB32 mentions. I don't know about the execution with other brands, but the way this organ was wet sampled (the organ was sampled using mics placed in positions for which the organ voicing was likely optimized), the addition of the noises sounds very natural. I can turn on key, pedal, stop, swell shade, foot lever, and blower noise. With all of the noises on, the organ definitely gains some realism. While playing quiet passages, you can hear the very gentle thuds of the keys and pedals. I found this to get a bit old after a while, and turned off all the noises except blower noise (the sample set creator recommends having it on to preserve the ambiance and to prevent the pipe samples from sounding unnatural or synthetic), and the swell shade noise. I turn them on for visitors for the novelty of it all.</p>




I guess it comes down to what CC himself would have done. I image he would have done everything possible to dampen the noises we're talking about, plus, I enjoy the pure organ sound most of the time. Not to say that I don't really enjoy being able to turn on the noises for that as-authentic-as-possible sound every now and then.</p>




And just my standard disclaimer when it comes to discussion of digital organs. Any digital, will, of course, be an approximation of the real thing. However, in my case, a good pipe organ just isn't practical (or possible), so an approximation will just have to suffice. Having said that, I'm very satisfied with my digital organ.</p>

[Guest]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality

[quote user="Philip the organist"]


</p>

Anyway, I was thinking that maybe the reason the new digitals are sometimes regarded as bland is because the manufacturers don't want them to sound something like like a 50-year old organ that needs to be releathered before it leaves the showroom floor, even though that is the sound most of usually have to cope with in our churches.
</p>

[/quote]</p>

A digital doesn't have to imitate a pipe instrument in terrible condition to sound realistic -- which would hardly be a good idea.  </p>

Take a listen to this instrument's demos -- with a quite complex wind model:  http://www.sonusparadisi.cz/organs/forq/history.0.asp</p>

Sadly, the Hauptwerk wind modeling system is not available to users in the US because of patent issues (thanks to our VERY special friends at Rodgers.  Time will eventually exact its revenge, however). </p>

 </p>

[jbird604]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality



Looks like the nays have it, and that's good for me. Certainly no pipe organ builder would want his new organs to sound like some old wheezing clunker. But we are all aware that electronics tend to sound "sterile" if they are too "perfect" in certain ways.</P>


For example, it's been obvious for decades that a certain degree of "out of tune-ness" is desirable. Allen, Rodgers, Conn, and others gave us that in their analog organs by having a separate oscillator for each pitch, and it was inevitable that some of them would be slightly out of tune (octave-wise) no matter how carefully the tech tried to tune them. And that sounded "better" in some way than the "perfect" octave tuning of divider-type organs such as the old Baldwin's, Thomas, etc.</P>


Later Baldwin organs had "perfect" tuning potentiallyusing aTop Octave Synthesizer (TOS)chip, but used a complex system (which they called "rate scaling")to shift the master frequency of several separate TOS chips to produce a perfectly stable "imperfect" tuning! This too sounded much better than their smaller, cheaper organs with a single frequency-locked TOS chip.</P>


Allen and Rodgers both came up with ways to introduce some degree of "random motion" or "harmonic activity" into their analogs, basically noise circuits that modulated the oscillator's output in a subtle way. Allen's digital organs had this effect built-in, and now, of course with all organs using sampling, the "jitter" and slightly erratic pitch of the sampled pipes will be reproduced quite faithfully.</P>


Allen's MOS digitals, poor as they are in the low-end models, sounded muchbetter at the high end because they used multiple separate computer systems, each with its own computer clock (which sets the tuning basis). These computer clocks would be very subtly out of sync, producing the slight out-of-tune-ness we expect to hear in a pipe organ, and therefore soundedmore pipe-like!</P>


But as far as artificially creating big ugly pitch sags, gasping for air, sputtering, creaking, groaning, clunking actions, annoying blower noises,etc. -- leave that out, far as I'm concerned. I'm much more interested in hearing authentic harmonic structure in the tones and stable (though not "static") pitches.</P>


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

[Guest]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality



I think the best digitals should emulate new (fully working) pipe organs, not dilapidated, neglected pipe organs.</p>

I don't accept the idea that a lack of such problems is what makes digital bland. New pipe organs don't usually sound bland, and they don't (or shouldn't) suffer from any of the problems mentioned.
</p>

[Philip the organist]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality

I entirely agree. I guess it must all depend on which pipe organs the manufacturer of the digital decides to sample.

[radagast]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality



I read an article a long time ago by Lawrence Phelps. In the article he talked about pipe organ builders who intentionally designed pipes to sound like old pipes. I can't remember the exact details but he described an aging pipe that developed a "gulp" at the beginning of the note. In time, this was thought to be the way it was supposed to sound, and pipe organ builders began to imitate this with new organs. I have the article at home somewhere if someone wants me to find it. I think it was in the Diapason magazine around 1983.</P>


Marshall &amp; Ogletree also sample extraneous sounds including the blowers powering up in order to add to the realism.</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>

[jbird604]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality



Lawrence Phelps authored a paper or short booklet that went out to all us Allen Organ salesmen back in the 80's in which he discussed the evolution of electronic organ tone. One story that I recall from itconcerned an incident that occurred during his early work at Allen with analog oscillator organs.</P>


They had set up a demo organ at the factory with a rank of pipes and a rank of electronic (analog) diapasons playable from the same keyboard. Customers could compare the two by switching them on and off separately. The point was to show the similarity of the Allen principals to real pipes.</P>


There was also a row of empty holes in the pipe chest and a tab on the demo keyboard that engaged the valves under them, in preparation for installing another rank of pipes at some point.</P>


The story goes that one customer happened to engage the Allen oscillators along with the empty pipe holes and was playing with great delight. He was certain that he was hearing the real pipes, and could not be convinced that the OTHER sound was the pipes.</P>


Phelps' point was that the noises and air sound of the empty holes combined with the steady tones of the oscillators created a tone quality that the customer associated with "real pipes" -- even more "real" to him than the actual rank of pipes!</P>


The lesson: electronic organs are more convincing if certain "noises" are introduced. And that was the origin of Allen's random motion and wind effects that they began to use on analog organs. Later on, in the late ADC era, they added noise-making circuit boards to their digital organs to further heighten the realism.</P>


But my vote is still "no" when it comes to extraneous non-musical noises.</P>


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

[Guest]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality



Marshall &amp; Ogletree also sample extraneous sounds including the blowers powering up in order to add to the realism. </p>

Do M &amp; O have a sound for a penny being pushed into a slot to 'power up' Cameron Carpenter too?
</p>

[jbird604]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality



Cameron is like the Energizer Bunny. He just keeps going and going and going and going . . . . no external power source required.</P>


John</P>

[Guest]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality



I think there's a difference between modelling/simulating all aspects of realistic organ sound, and adding extraneous "deficiencies" that some pipe organs may possess and that may, to some ears, add character. Certainly the Allen story above only goes to show that the original analogue simulation wasn't an accurate representation of organ sound, because it simply didn't sound like air in a pipe. Obviously it's a complicated business, and adding some extra character may help fool the ear, but I think it would be a short-lived effect. For all the delight a slightly out-of-tune cromorne might give you initially, I'm pretty sure it would be grating in the long-run! </p>

To knowingly introduce the kind of effects that would be considered undesirable on a pipe organ makes no sense to me, but to accurately simulate the kind of effects that make good pipe organ sound what it is (whatever they may be) should be the goal. Of course, even identifying such effects is a non-trivial task!!
</p>


</p>

[OrgansR4Me]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality



Jbird makes reference to the Allen organ development termed "whind". One of my treasures is an Allen Custom Carousel from the late 60's that included that feature. I first heard the carousel line on WGN chicago TV when cable TV was first supplemented by big city "Super Stations" (Ted Turner's claim to fame was the Atlanta Super Station).</P>


I.M.H.O. the carousel console models were the pinacle of the analog technology. Mine is the french provincial home model and it looks and plays great 40 years later. So I would agree with the theory that variation is necessary in effective sound production, but to copy the flaws of aging instruments would be going a bit too far.</P>

[soubasse32]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality

If electronic builders really want"real" they should program an occasional cipher, or havea reed pipe fly off speech. [;)]

Of course they would also need sampled soundsofan organist's foosteps retreating into the chamber, and sounds of a pipe being coaxed back into service (along with the requisite banging noises and muttering sounds). [:)]

[Guest]

Re: New Theory to discuss--Digital Organs--Realism vs. Quality



My lil ole Viscount has a volume control for "Pipe Noise" which is supposed to simulate 'wind'. It's not that good though. It sounds a bit like 'white noise'. I don't use it often.</p>

It would fun if the 'start up' noises at random could include:</p><ul>[*]car spluttering ignition[*]motorised lawnmower[*]a cow mooing[*]rocket launching[*]"Giddy up girl!"[*]"Piss off! I can't bare any more of that Messiaen!"[/list]