Back to the Gulbransen Organ

[james]

Andy, Jbird, and others,</P>


Do you guys like the 400 Series spinet that Gulbransen had on the market in the late 70's and early 80's before those dreadul Equinox series? I thought they were nice sounding organs, and even the Pacemaker series were great too although the latter mentioned were an all flute organ.</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>


I still am partial to the Gulbransen's made in the 60's and early 70's. I think I have mentioned the H3 is the one that really catches my eye. I wonder if thatpictureis still here on the forum of the one that looked or was finished in black or ebony as it was called?</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>


James</P>

[Guest]

Re: Back to the Gulbransen Organ



Hello all,</P>


I just spotted a T-200 spnet on my local craigslist for $25..The owner stated that it had problems. It was interesting because it had two 3 1/2 octave keyboards that wern't offset like a typical spinet. It only had 13 pedals. Such an organ would have been much better with more pedals. </P>

[Tinker]

Re: Back to the Gulbransen Organ



I did a bit of asking around after I saw a T-200 pop up on my local Craigslist. I'd had my first Rialto K for a while and thought what a "cute" instrument this might be to stick up at the cabin. I think it was the folks on this board (Andy?) that convinced me that this keyboard layout wasn't very playable. I think Allen also had a model with a similar keyboard layout that didn't fare too well in the marketplace either. The nail in the coffin as far as picking up the T-200 was that according the measurements I'd received from the seller the console was almost as big as on my Rialto K (pedals excluded).
I never did make the trip to hear it so I can't comment on the sound.</p>

Say if any of you vintage Gulbransen fans are looking for some Rialto K's I just had three of them pop up out here in Southern California. One a very nice looking ebony model with a 102 and 103 Leslie. Looks great except that the seller was looking to start at $2,000. Didn't get any bids so they're probably willing to come down from there... quite a bit I'm sure. The other was the same configuration but in walnut, a little rougher and missing the pedals. But hey this one was claimed to have participated in jam sessions out here in LA with the Doors. No price, make offer but remember it's famous ;^) Then there's a console only, no speakers for $400. I think that's way too much but if I could find somewhere to keep it and get it for $50 it might be worth having some spares around :^)</p>

All the sudden it's raining Rialto K's...</p>

</p>

[james]

Re: Back to the Gulbransen Organ



Thanks guys for your recent post.</P>


Mark,</P>


I find this most interesting since it comes from the same time frame as the H3 series. You might check this one out, and if it can't be fixed it could be a great parts organ for your President. If I had not found my Wurlitzer recently, I no doubt would pursue this one, but still have my preferences.Andy, no doubt will"chime in" soon and give some info. Mark, I saw that onCraiglist out of Dallas,Tx. Well, Andy will know by the model number. I think this is an all flute organ, butI did notice some yellow tabs on both manuals so I am not sure there if it has another tone generator for the non flute tones.</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>


When it comes to old organs we need to stick with what we like if we are going to put dollars into them getting them back into good playing shape.The tech who is working on my Wurlitzer always did like Gulbransen, and Conn was another one he seemed to favor. I don't for what reasons on the latter since he doesn't play. </P>


Tinker,</P>


How interesting! That is the way it goes, it seems I couldn't find what I was looking within a reasonable distance regarding the Wurlitzer I just acquired a month ago. I had almost given up on looking for awhile, and then two of the same came up on the same day. Both people contacted me, and then I have had a few emails regarding the kind I purchased as well as a few others which would be a close second choice. In some cases the distance was way too far.</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>


Rain can pour sometimes.</P>


James</P>

[jimmywilliams]

Re: Back to the Gulbransen Organ



James,</P>


The Gulbrasnen 400 was more or less a spinet version of the Gulbrasnen 600 console model. You can see/hear some clips of the 600 in action here:</P>


http://www.youtube.com/user/GaryMackintosh</P>


These models were the last of the models before the equinox. They semeed to be trying to go back to the pre-drawbar models of the 60s, but incorporating the latest in sound generation technology (at that time of course). IIRC these also had synthesizer voices for some of the reeds as well as a multuitude of other features, including programmable presets (not pistons though - they were "soft-touch" buttons.</P>


These organs were more versitile sound-wise than the old 60s Gulbransens that I really like - but it came at a price since by this time of course there were no more individual oscillators for the tibias. The "flute filter" technology did come pretty close in generating sine waves from the TOD generator.</P>


For those that like bothn the old and new, keep in mind that the "famous" customized 3-manual Rialto K mentioned in another post wasconstructed partly froma parted-out600. So you had the best of both worlds there. Now it only it had 32 pedals...</P>


Oh, James, I did save the photo of the H in Ebony finish. Send me a PM if you want them; I never updated the web site I started working on.</P>


-jim</P>

[jimmywilliams]

Re: Back to the Gulbransen Organ



Regarding using any Gulbransens for parts, you have to be careful about some things...</P>


First, only certain organs used the individual tibia oscillators - All the lettered series from the 50s/60s(this includes the T series as well) except for the R did, as well the the Premiere (which was the last to do so). But, more importantly, the earliest Gulbransens usedPNP transistors in the generators, and later switched over to NPN. It makes a huge difference in that the positive/negative voltages produced by the Power Supply are reversed - so for instance if you had a generator from one of the very first Model E organs it would not be compatible with a later run Model E(and vice versa). The 1107 Rialto K used PNP as well. I am not certain about the 1135 Rialto K; Anybody know for sure? I THINK it still had PNP.</P>


Anything after the Premiere (for instance the President, Theatrum, Pacemaker, Paragon, etc...) used divider circuits to produce all the voices (a flute filter further down the chain was used to generate the tibias).</P>


So just keep that in mind. </P>


The T-200 was an enhanced version of the T-100; both had the non-staggered spinet keyboards.</P>

[Tinker]

Re: Back to the Gulbransen Organ



As far as transistor types goes... I skimmed the Rialto K schematics covering the 1107 and 1135 and all the transistors that I saw in the various tone generators, line amps, etc. were PNP except in portions of the 1135's electronic piano circuitry. I'm seeing NPN used in the bias supply, gates and control circuits of the piano.</p>

</p>

[andyg]

Re: Back to the Gulbransen Organ



Those 400's didn't have a huge spec, but they could make a good sound. I'm pretty certain that the 400's, the 600's and the Rialto II and Palace went back to multiple tone generators, rather than being all-flute like the Paragons, Presidents etc.</P>


Alas, they didn't sell that well in the UK, with the pound and dollar near parity. I think things would have been rather different at today's exchange rates!</P>


I remember having 'fun' with PNP and NPN when I was much younger and very much greener - messing around with electronics in the Physics Lab at school. A transistor's a transistor, right? Er no!</P>


According to the good book, the H predates the T200 by a couple of years. It never fails to amaze me how far advanced Gulbransen were for their time in the early 1960's. I can't remember them back then (honest!) and I don't think they were imported into the UK until my old boss Arthur Butler started up his own import company - late 1960's, with Paragons, Pacemakers, Presidents and three exploding Premieres!</P>


Why did they line up the spinet manuals like that? Was it to save space (a la Theatrum) or was it more to give the appearance of a console organ? The Theatrum was uncomfortable to play with its pedals too far right, but to have the upper manual moved left at the same time - that would have been even worse.</P>


Andy</P>

[james]

Re: Back to the Gulbransen Organ



Andy,</P>


Thanks a lot for your post. When I worked in the music store, and we took on the line of Gulbransen Organs, the Pacemaker series, and the 400 sereis were our first six organs to come in for the show room floor. They would not let us have two or three as I suggested. I do remember these quite well. I also remember the "touch" presets for the percussions including the chimes. All of the sounds were most realistic, and the chimes were beautiful.The 400 series were not allTibia orFluteorgans as thePacemakers, but the stops were very realistic sounding. The brass symphonizer was very nice too. We did not stock a 600 series, but could have orderedone if acustomer wanted one. I missed seeing the pistons on a spinet although they did not fuction as actual pistons on a pipeorganor any other electronic organ. Isn't it amazing at how the different companies offered similiar features, yet they used different modes of operation among the tabs to acqurie these tonalities.</P>


Gulbransen did not do too well in our area for some reason although we advertised a lot especially featuring at howarealistic"Piano" stop was available on our organs. We sold Thomas organs which really did move at times, and I guess because of L. Welk as well as they were so popular at that time. Our competitor sold Baldwin and Wurlitzer.</P>
<P mce_keep="true"></P>


James</P>

[jimmywilliams]

Re: Back to the Gulbransen Organ



Andy,</P>


None of the Gulbransens after the Premiere ever used the individual tibia oscillators again. Those were the original Peterson invention; when CBS took over I think they were more interested in putting their Seeburg technology into the organs. In any case the TIOs were very heavy, bulky, and expensive to manufacture. For them to add additional features/speakers/etc. to the console, the TIOs had to go.</P>


Keep in mind that even on the later "all flute" organs you mention, not ALL the voices were composed of sine waves. For instance, in the President, the Harpsichord, Piano, and Pedals are not synthesized from flute tones. All voices start off with the same Top-Octave-Divider generator - which produced some sort of square/sawtooth wave. In fact the generators were always on and generated every pitch at all times - they were just shunted to ground until a key was pressed (very different fron the old tibia oscillators that only turned on when a key was pressed). From there they were either filtered for individual specialized voices, or filtered into sine waves for the flute tones. In most of the "flute-only" models you mention, all of the starndard voices on the manuals were composed of sine waves/flute tones, but the special ones (piano, harpsichord) were not. Some variants did not have the piano/harpsichord circuitry at all. In most cases pedals went through a separate filter. On the later models with the synthesizer (for reeds/brass/etc.) that module may have been a separate "generator" altogether - I think. I'll have to check the schematics. I am not as familiar with these later models; it would be fun to work on one.</P>


-jim</P>

[crossyinoz]

Re: Back to the Gulbransen Organ



G'day All,</P>


According to my info the last of the Gully's to use individual oscillators was the 5118 Premiere in the early 70's and even then it was in tandem with dividers. Must have been a "last of the mohicans" excerise, as everything else I can find from nearly a decade before it and everything after in the analog era were dividers; by that I mean Pacemaker, Paragon, President, Theatrum,Palace, 400,s, 600's, etc.</P>


Everything you say, Jim about the top 8va divider &amp; square wave production rings a few antipodean bells - Before my ex employer was taken overand had to change its name to something Japanese starting with "Y" we were Oz distributors for Gully &amp; Leslie even snared the odd[*-)] Fender Strat, Twin Reverb, Rhodes piano, Rogers Drum etc. for our "Y" dealers throught the CBS connection. </P>


Kam-pai,</P>


Ian</P>

[JCDrotos]

Just acquired a Gulbransen Model E, all transistor, organ.

How do I lift the keyboard? I need to replace a broken key on the lower manual. I think the metal key mechanism got bent when the key was broken.
Thanks
JCDrotos

Those 400's didn't have a huge spec, but they could make a good sound. I'm pretty certain that the 400's, the 600's and the Rialto II and Palace went back to multiple tone generators, rather than being all-flute like the Paragons, Presidents etc.</P>


Alas, they didn't sell that well in the UK, with the pound and dollar near parity. I think things would have been rather different at today's exchange rates!</P>


I remember having 'fun' with PNP and NPN when I was much younger and very much greener - messing around with electronics in the Physics Lab at school. A transistor's a transistor, right? Er no!</P>


According to the good book, the H predates the T200 by a couple of years. It never fails to amaze me how far advanced Gulbransen were for their time in the early 1960's. I can't remember them back then (honest!) and I don't think they were imported into the UK until my old boss Arthur Butler started up his own import company - late 1960's, with Paragons, Pacemakers, Presidents and three exploding Premieres!</P>


Why did they line up the spinet manuals like that? Was it to save space (a la Theatrum) or was it more to give the appearance of a console organ? The Theatrum was uncomfortable to play with its pedals too far right, but to have the upper manual moved left at the same time - that would have been even worse.</P>


Andy</P>