transistor vs. digital

[Guest]

Hi! I'm new in this forum and I had some questions that were still not answered after lots of research. I want to know what is better pricewise and soundwise. Transistor or digital? I want to upgrade the Baldwin 5a model organ we have to an Allen transistor or digital organ. I read on the Allen website &lt;https://www.allenorgan.com/www/compa...eum/trans2&gt; that one critic said: <font class="storetext2font">"The great Aeolian-Skinner (pipe) organ was a sound proper for so festive a moment.", when really the "Aeolian-Skinner pipe organ was the Allen TC-4 transistor organ at Lincoln Center in New York City. Is that how realistic a transistor organ sounds? At our church we have an </font><font class="storetext2font">Aeolian-Skinner pipe organ that sounds fantastic. Does anybody agree with the quote I posted? Or would a digital organ be better? Thank you so much!
</font>

[arie v]

Re: transistor vs. digital



Kappelmeister,</P>


Goes to show you that some critics have cloth ears! A TC-4 from the 60s, is not going to sound anything like a true Aeolian-Skinner pipe organ.</P>


As to sound, there are those who maintain that the transistor oscillator organs from Allen (at least if they were not the all flute type) sounded better than the early single computer digital organs from Allen.</P>


It was not until about the mid 80s, that Allen organs improved over their early digital ones. The early digital organs were designated MOS-1 and then MOS-2. In the mid 80s they introduced the ADC organs. Around 1990 they introduced the MDS series organs, which think are still fine instruments, even by today's standards.</P>


AV</P>

[Guest]

Re: transistor vs. digital



If I may add a little clarification here:</P>


The transistor analog organ replaced the vacuum tube organ with the same basic design in that tones were formed by filteringor combining waveforms. Transistors are rugged and operate much cooler than vacuum tubes. The digital part was simply an improved method of doing this. Instead of individual oscillators, the designer can use a top octave generator ic and dividers to generate the rest. It is a major cost saving development and requires no tuning but suffers many shortcomings.</P>


The major change came with the Allen MOS series organs which utilized a digital computer ic (Rockwell) in a circuit which replays time domain samples of actual pipe organ tones. Of course these sounds are highly processed to minimize memory and speed requirements, both of which were in short supply. It should be noted that for a number of years Allen owned the patents and agressivly pursued violators. Yamaha was the only successful competitor at that time since their samples were stored in the frequency domain and did not interfere with Allen's patents. Many lawyers became wealthy from lawsuits filed at that time.</P>


After Allen's patents ran out, most organ manufacturers changed to the stored sample technique since it is economical, high quality, and easily adds attack and decay waveforms.</P>


Funny, pipe organ builders never had these problems, even today pipe is usually superior but quite more expensive.</P>


My Allen R311 with 7 ranks of pipe! Love it! [H]</P>


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

[back52887]

Re: transistor vs. digital



Almost anything would be an improvement over a Baldwin 5A. The old Behemoth is surely not working well still, is it? [+o(]In a spacious and acousticly live hall/Sanctuary, any Well amplified organ sounds better, even a Hammond (Did you hear about the Hammond vs Pipe organ law suit in the late 30's and the test by so- called experts?) </P>


If you are looking for something cheap in the era of the early Allen digitals, the Last Analog Rogers, IMHO, are better sounding than the Allens.</P>


Lee</P>

[jbird604]

Re: transistor vs. digital



I started to say earlierwhat Lee justsaid . . . almost anything will be an upgrade over that 5a. Not to say that it hasn't served you well. And you may be enjoying it as a practice organ. But you will be very surprised at the difference if you upgrade to almost any old Allen or Rodgers.</P>


Also agree that Rodgers analogs are nice, and may have endured a little better than the corresponding Allen analogs. Transistor Allens, such as the TC-4 and its lesser siblings, the TC-3, TC-3S, and TC-1, do sound very good and can be very pipelike in a good acoustical setting. But many of them that I see any more are pretty run down. Those with "whind" are often in serious need of repair. Another drawback to analog Allen is the use of single ranks to create multiple stops, such as "Diapasons become Violas" and "Flutes become Stopped" etc. These controls actually increase the usefulness of the limited number of ranks, but can be rather non-intuitive to the player who is accustomed to registering a pipe organ or more conventional electronic.</P>


But do look around. There are a lot of good organs available these days. Churches are trading in organs less than 25 years these days in order to get MIDI and various other trinkets. But these 1980's era Allen and Rodgers organs are mostly quite acceptable for practice use, even as starter organs in churches.</P>


Good luck.</P>


John</P>