Have You Forgotten Your Password or Username?

**Guest** · 08-21-2008, 07:14 AM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

like this one? http://www.allenorgan.com/www/products/q285c/q285c.asp

**Stefanussen** · 08-21-2008, 07:16 AM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

Hi Michael,

There are a lot of variables, of course, but if we're talking about a new Allen II/45 (Q285C),
my guess would be that you would be looking at more like $60K for the
initial cost. Rodgers or Phoenix, $45K. I'm not a dealer, these are
just my best guesses.

A new II/45 from a reputable builder of higher end symphonic organs, like Schoenstein would run perhaps $1-1.5M

My
homebrew III/50 Hauptwerk organ cost me ~$10K and, in my opinion,
sounds much better than a brand new Allen or Rodgers, or even many pipe
organs I've played on.

A couple recordings of the virtual organ I use:

Tuba Tune in D - C.S. Lang http://www.contrebombarde.com/concerthall/music/340

Now Thank We All Our God - Fox http://www.contrebombarde.com/concerthall/music/123

**Guest** · 08-21-2008, 10:29 AM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

I haven't yet heard a Hauptwerk organ in the flesh yet, but that recording wipes the floor of Allen, Rodgers and any other digital organ that is on the market. Impressive! I want one! [:D]

**Guest** · 08-21-2008, 03:54 PM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

Hi,

I've posted this in a similar thread, but it seems appropriate here, too.

This is a recording of a Hauptwerk organ installed in a church. The church nave is about 50 ft. wide by 100 ft. long with a peaked ceiling about 4 stories above the floor. The recording was made with two R0DE NT1 microphones placed in the middle of the worship space. So you can really hear the organ with the natural acoustics of the room, just as the congregation hears it.

http://zionorgan.com/Organs/Opus1/BWV659.mp3

The registration, as I recall:

PD: Gedackt 16', Gedackt 8'
SW: Gedackt 8', Quintadena 8'
GT: Krummhorn 8', Quint 2-2/3'

The organ has 20 channels of audio. I don't know the exact cost of the equipment, and the installation was done as a charitable contribution to the church, but I would estimate the same organ could be installed in a similar space for $30K.

To learn more, see: http://zionorgan.com/Organs/ZionOrganOpus1.htm

Bob Collins

Zion Organ, Spokane, WA

**myorgan** · 08-21-2008, 07:49 PM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

[quote user="Hautbois"]like this one? http://www.allenorgan.com/www/products/q285c/q285c.asp
[/quote]

Actually, more like this one (http://www.allenorgan.com/www/products/q265c/q265c.asp). I mentioned 45 ranks, not stops. Not to insult your intelligence, but just in case someone on the Forum does not know the difference:
<UL>
<LI>Stop--One drawknob, or one tab which controls a sound on an organ.</LI>
<LI>Rank--One pipe per note on the keyboard the stop is to speak on. One Stop may have 2-6 Ranks (i.e. a 3-rank mixture).</LI>[/list]

Of course, there are exceptions to the above description, but as tired as I am tonight, this is the best description I could muster![|-)]

Michael

**myorgan** · 08-21-2008, 08:03 PM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

[quote user="myorgan"] For a 45-rank organ (I chose that size because that's what I know), 2m/p, straight, and after the initial purchase price; what would one expect to pay in maintenance over a period of years? I've created the following chart for comparison. Feel free to add as necessary to make an accurate comparison, and thanks in advance for your help![/quote]

In case anyone was at all interested in this thread, I apologize for the Hauptwerk hijacking. So far, no one has really answered my question at all (with the exception of the prices in Nefanstussen's post. (Am I tired, or what?[|-)])

On several topics, people have debated the purchase of a digital vs. pipe organ over and over. In all the banter/discussion/arguing, no one has ever shared cold-hard facts when saying that a digital is a cheaper purchase for more organ. I'm trying to get someone from each camp to complete the chart I originally posted--perhaps revised and corrected--with actual US dollar amounts (in today's dollars) from real-world situations so the REAL price difference/comparison can be made by those interested.

With this post, I'm also trying to get at the real cost of owning each instrument over time--including repair or replacement.

This discussion is not about sound (no matter how good you think a Hauptwerk organ may sound), or about the virtue of real organ pipes over sampled digital sounds, or about whether you wear shoes or socks when playing. Let's get it down to FACTS not OPINIONS.

Thanks in advance for all who care to contribute to the information requested with facts. I'm hoping that with aggregate data, we can come up with a more accurate picture of a moving target.

Michael

**Guest** · 08-21-2008, 10:37 PM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

I didn't mean to hijack the thread referring to a Hauptwerk organ, but rather, I feel it is a viable option to a pipe organ and a digital organ from a manufacturer such as Allen. When considering the long term costs regarding installation and maintenance of a church organ a Hauptwerk organ should be considered in the mix, just as Trinity Wall Street considered when choosing a Marshall and Ogletreeinstallation over a new pipe organ.

Probably halfof the initial installation of a virtual pipe organ is in the customization of the sample set and voicing the organ for the room it's installed in. So when I quote a figure of 30K, that's about 10-15K for audio equipment, 5K for the console (more for drawknobs), and about 10K of expertise.

The maintenance possibilties include dying midi boards, amplifiers, crossovers, digital to analog converters, etc. Equipment fails and only time will tell what the "average" failure rate may be.

A 45 rank HW organ should have 16 - 24 amplifier channels, so there's 8 to 12 2-channel amps which could fail at any given time over the course of many years. And given the fact that most audio equipment (even Pro Audio) is manufactured in China or somewhere, the possibility of failed soldering is a given.

As far as speakers, some of the speakers we use are "vintage" organ speakers from the 1960's and they still outperform some of the new studio monitors in terms of sound quality. 

A failed amplifier (which would bring down two channels and up to 6 ranks) would cost $200 - $500 depending on the make, i.e. Behringer v.s. Mackie. A failed DAC which would bring down 8 channels would cost $250. A failed sound card which could bring down the whole system cold cost between $500 and $1200.

There is also the regular maintenance such as cleaning keyboard contacts, etc. Which don't necessarily cost materials, but must be performed by a qualified organ tech every couple of years or so.

**Guest** · 08-21-2008, 11:28 PM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

Aloha Michael,

Thanx for taking your time in asking good questions - especially costs over time & repair/replacement.

Cheers,

K-Phone

**nullogik** · 08-22-2008, 12:01 AM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

[quote user="Stefanussen"]

Hi Michael,

There are a lot of variables, of course, but if we're talking about a new Allen II/45 (Q285C),
my guess would be that you would be looking at more like $60K for the
initial cost. Rodgers or Phoenix, $45K. I'm not a dealer, these are
just my best guesses.

[/quote]

I'll have to look at my price lists (I'm not a dealer by the way), but I think the Rodgers and Allen are very similar in price throughout the complete range, I doubt the Allen would be $15k more than the Rodgers, or the Rodgers as much as $15k less than the Allen. 

As for Phoenix, its difficult to price their stuff as they don't really have "set" price lists - perhaps Clarion, a recent Phoenix customer, could price a Phoenix of Michael's spec. 

We're also forgetting about the European makes like Viscount, Ahlborn Galanti, Johannus that still are still somewhat cheaper than the US products and are comparable. If someone could find the nearest spec Viscount or another European model, I'll have a look at my price lists.

**jbird604** · 08-22-2008, 04:53 AM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

Michael,

You've started an interesting discussion and cut to the heart of the cost issue. Wish I could give you some firmer figures, but what I can tell you comes from 33 years experience in the organ service business, though my experience with real pipe organs is rather limited.

Let's make some assumptions, to help with the figuring. Let's assume that we're talking about a 30-year period in the life of a new organ, pipe or digital. Thirty years is probably about the average useful life of a digital, not because they truly wear out in 30 years, but because the typical church will start to think of the organ as "old" about that time and will see the organ's inevitable age-relatedproblems (which may not be that many) as agood reason to replace it, and get the latest features to boot.

Thirty years of usage may also be a critical time for a pipe organ as well. Certainly pipes and chests and blowers and such won't be "worn out" at 30 years, but the console may well show considerable wear, key contacts may become a little dicey, the pipes may be in need of a thorough cleaning,and there will have been enough advance in the technologies of capture and control systems that the pipe organ may be due for an "update" at that age. Also, an entire generation will have passed musically, and an organist may have come on the scene who wants a different voicing, some alteration of the stop list, etc. Again, a good age for updating and modifying.

(That last paragraph may get me some sharp rebukes, but I think my assumption is fairly close to the truth in the case of most pipe organs. True, some pipe organs are of such stature that it would be heresy to consider re-voicing after only 30 years, but we're talking about the "typical" situation.)

When I was a salesman, it generally cost about one tenth as much per rank to do a digital versus pipe. I don't know if the ratio has changed over the years, but we can use it as a fair assumption.

Some of the items in your chart probably don't mean as much as you'd think at first. For example, the heating and cooling issue. While it is true that a pipe organ cannot be perfectly in tune at any temperature other than the exact temp at which it was tuned, that doesn't mean the church MUST be held at exactly 71 degrees F. 24/7. 

It is harmful to anything made out of wood, leather, felt, rubber, and other natural materials for the temperature and humidity to fluctuate wildly. So IMHO it is wise for a church to keep their buildings heated and cooled 24/7 within reason, whether there is a pipe organ or not. One can set the cooling to come on only if the indoor temp rises above (let's say) 83 degrees F. And set the heating to come on only when the temp drops below 55 degrees F. This should prevent damage to the pipe organ and will make it easy to bring the sanctuary to a comfortable temp for worship services as long as the thermostat is set a couple of hours before the service begins.

What's good for a pipe organ is just as good for the digital (and for the pews, other furniture in the room, and everything else), so I'd make the same recommendation. Therefore, the cost of heating and cooling is really not any different. And it doesn't cost a church very much to keep the buildings within this reasonable temp range.

I know that speaker re-coning was a big issue when you got your MOS2 Allen, and you had a bad cone on the ADC6000. However, if the climate considerations above are observed, I think speakers cones should last 30 years. But if they should need re-coning at only 15 or 20 years of age, as you know, that is not a really big cost issue. A few hundred dollars should cover all the woofers in any normal-size digital organ.

The pipe organ probably will not need any re-leathering during the initial 30 years, or any other major maintenance if it is a quality organ from a reputable builder. It may need that after 60 years, and may even need total renovation at that age. In fact, I have heard it said that at the age of 60 it may well cost as much to bring an organ back to like-new condition as it cost to build it in the first place -- due in part to the expected inflation of costs, but also due to thehigher expenses of renovation versus new work.

IfI were to fill in your chart (and I'd have to know how to do that first), I'd put down the intial price of the pipe at $750,000. Thirty years worth of annual tuning would beperhaps $150,000 based on 2 or 3 tunings per year.(We get about $1,000 for me and my partner to tune a 25 rank organ once, and your hypothetical organ is twice the size, so I'm thinking $2,000 per tuning.) Barring major problems that would be the only costs over a 30-year period in the pipe organ's life, for a total of $900,000.

Intial price of the digital $75,000. That would get you apretty "deluxe" 45-rank Allen or Rodgers, with more channels and speakers than the stock models, but I'd sure go for that over the standard configuration at that price.No annual maintenance, but you can almost count on some kind of service issue cropping up every few years. Let's assume that this digital has 6 different service problems over its thirty year life. Four of these problems are minor and cost only $500 to fix each. But two of them are major, involviong exchange of expensive computer boards, and run $3500 each. That's $9,000 in maintenance costs, for a total cost of ownership for thirty years coming to $84,000.

At the end of 30 years, you'd need to assess the remaining value of your two instruments to get a fair comparison of the cost of ownership. Let's assume that the pipe organ is still in excellent condition except for needing its console renovated and a new capture action. Even with these faults, it is probably still worth about halfas much as it cost,since it will need a total rebuild in another 30 years. So your actual "cost" of pipe organ ownership is the annual tuning which we've figured at $150,000 plus the depreciation (half the cost) of $375,000. A total cost of ownership over 30 years coming to $525,000.

The digital has fully depreciated and is now worth nothing at all. So the cost of ownership over 30 years is the entire $84,000 that you've spent.

Pretty dramatic difference, and your mileage may vary.The elephant in the room, however, is this --we are not even consideringthe "satisfaction" or "experience" of owning and playing real pipes vs digital. They are different and the experience would be different, but that's another matter for another thread.

What do you think of that?

John

**Guest** · 08-22-2008, 06:39 AM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

a now retired organ firm indicated to me that for insurance purposes a pipe organ had a significantly longer life span than 30 years more like double that or better

**soubasse32** · 08-22-2008, 08:54 AM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

$1,000 sounds pretty high for an organ tuning, unless you touch every pipe in the organ.

The most typical tuning involves touching up the reed stops, and tuningthe handful of flue pipes that might need it. That is often all that is needed, and it helps keep the tuning cost down. I might do a complete tuning once a year or once every two years. If the organ is exposed to wide temperature swings a complete tuning might need tooccur more often.

**Menschenstimme** · 08-22-2008, 08:54 AM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

Pretty dramatic difference, and your mileage may vary.The elephant in the room, however, is this --we are not even consideringthe "satisfaction" or "experience" of owning and playing real pipes vs digital. They are different and the experience would be different, but that's another matter for another thread. What do you think of that? John

Indeed:

About 30 years ago, Rolls-Royce ran an ad suggesting that if you bought a new Rolls-Royce and maintained it well, it would be the last car that you would ever need to purchase and thus over the next 40 years (or whatever), it would actually save you money. This would probably be correct if the alternative was purchasing a new Cadillac every 5 years and paying all of that depreciation repeatedly. But I digress.

The point being that having a pipe organ is somewhat like driving a Rolls-Royce. You really do not do so for practical or "economical" reasons, but more for the satisfaction of having the best and enjoying the aesthetics of the experience. Literally, ars gratia artis.

[:)][D][<:o)]

**Stefanussen** · 08-22-2008, 09:19 AM

Re: Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

[quote user="myorgan"]

So far, no one has really answered my question at all (with the exception of the prices in Nefanstussen's post. (Am I tired, or what?[|-)])

[/quote]

Ack! That's my name, and I would consider it courteous to go back and correct known typos, as would anyone else. I'm sorry that you feel your thread got hijacked, but as Bob pointed out, the subject of Hauptwerk is not nearly as irrelevant as you make it sound. I would think that Hauptwerk organs should have a proment place on any organ comparison based on price since they give some amazing results for unheard of prices, and that's all I was trying to demonstrate. Both Bob and I have provided hard numbers for you based on our experience, and that's what you asked for, isn't it?

Welcome To The Organ Forum

Have You Forgotten Your Password or Username?

How To Recover Your Username and Password

Forum Top Banner Ad

Ebay Classic organs

Announcement

Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

Pipe vs. Digital Cost Comparison

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Hello!