Grand Orgue -- exactly what does one need to get started?

[jbird604]

I know we have some members who use Grand Orgue, and I'm exploring the idea. A cursory Google search for answers doesn't turn up much in the way of "plain English" guidelines or a good "Quick Start" for GO.

At this stage, I'm curious to hear from actual users about "minimum requirements" -- i.e., "what kind of computer should I buy" -- looking at touch-screen laptops, but not wanting to buy the wrong thing.

My console is MIDI-ed up (keys, pedals, pistons, expression, but not the stops), and I have a good USB-to-MIDI adapter. Have amps and speakers and other audio equipment. I've done a little experimenting using my existing laptop, but the processor and RAM are barely adequate, and it lacks a touch-screen, so a dedicated VPO computer is on my wish list.

Browsing online, I see a refurb Dell laptop with an i5 processor, 16 GB RAM, and a 240 Gig solid-state hard drive, Windows 10, three 3.0 USB ports. Total cost about $650, pretty low for a touch-screen unit with this much RAM. I realize this would be sub-par for an up-to-date Hauptwerk system, because everybody over there recommends 32 GB RAM and at least an i7, but is this unit sufficient for a small to medium size GO setup?

BTW -- I am a satisfied Windows 10 user, not really wanting to try Mac or Linux, though I wouldn't rule it out completely. But I'm comfortable with Windows 10, and get acceptable performance from the free version Hauptwerk setup on Windows that I've been playing around with using some small sample sets.

[tbeck]

John, if you're thinking of using HW with 6 channels, then 16GB is definitely not enough. You'll want 32GB.

For my setup, I have a desktop with an i5 and only 12GB. For most of my sample sets, this is sufficient. I only use two channels. Also, for the larger sample sets, I use memory compression. So the samples are compressed at load time and then decompressed while being played. This increases the load on the processor, of course, but it hasn't been a problem for me. Also, using compression, you can only use "linear" interpolation as opposed to "polyphase", which is supposedly better. My old ears can't hear the difference, so it's no problem for me. Also, GO has what it calls "presets." So for a given sample set you can create various configurations. So for example, on one preset I might choose not to load certain samples which I won't use in a particular genre of music I'm playing, whereas another preset will load those but not others. I know this is not ideal, but I'm working with what I have right now.

I also use Linux, but I understand the Windows version gives good results, and the touch screen monitor works better than in Linux, from what I've heard. I don't have a touch screen monitor. So in short, I think that configuration is fine for a medium GO setup. It could also possibly work for a medium HW setup, depending on how many channels you want to use and the size of the sample set you are interested in.

In either case, there is plenty of expertise here to help you get going. It would be nice to give back to you for a change.

Tom

[jbird604]

Thank you, Tom. That's exactly what I wanted to know. If I go with this particular refurb laptop, it maxes out at 16 GB RAM, but if you're getting by with 12 GB, then I'll certainly be happy with 16. I can surely load the stops I'll need for my practicing, especially since I'll only have two manuals & pedals for now. Nice to know that GO has those "presets" for choosing which stops to load. I know I'll find that useful.

I'm sticking with two audio channels, at least for a while. Much of my playing will be with headphones anyway, and I'll have to use my existing set of speakers to start with. A simple two-channel system, or a 2.1 system once I get the 2.1 amp I've ordered.

I knew you were a GO user, and hoped you'd get in on this thread. Perhaps what you and I can has out here will be of benefit to other GO users in the future. That's what this forum is all about!

[tbeck]

John, I hope you won't be disappointed. In general, I believe that HW is preferable to GO. I continue to use GO for a few reasons: it's free and open source, and my budget doesn't really stretch to HW and expensive sample sets, I don't want to use windows for various reasons and HW doesn't run under Linux.

However, for my purposes and ears, GO is perfectly acceptable. I'm thrilled every time I play. Would I like to have HW? Probably. But I'm ok with what I have now.

[musicmaker84]

HW is overrated while GO is underrated.

Love both platforms and both fulfill their respective purposes in my setup.

With Grabowskis free sample sets for GO one gets everything on a silver platter to start out in the world of VPOs.

Also, I prefer the smaller sets because I loathe long loading times.

In addition, JBird604, please consider jOrgan, too and if it's only as an experimental setup.

[tbeck]

I used to use jOrgan as well, but I don't think the sound engines available come anywhere close to GO or HW. And it's not that easy to install and get up and running.

[Leisesturm]

Some time ago we needed a cheap PC and I was checking Craigslist. We found a local guy selling refurbished desktops and laptops. Since then we have bought two more from him. The computer I am on right now is a Dell desktop. Nothing fancy. i5 processor. We asked for 8G RAM instead of the 6 it came with and he asked for $20 more but in the end just threw the extra RAM in for nothing. I asked him how much to build a VPO computer and he strongly recommended Mac OS. But he would do a Windows 10 build with 32G for $250. John, if you could not find a local refurb guy on Craigslist I think you could do worse than use our guy. If he wouldn't ship one to you we have a UPS store that could do it. Even with that cost (what could it be? $50+ for ground) added on, you are well under $650.

[myorgan]

Many businesses are on a trade-in program and have their computers switched out every 3-4 years. If you can identify a vendor in your area who does that, perhaps you can get something good. I know in my State, the computers are sent to State Surplus for reprogramming and resale.

Michael

[musicmaker84]

I'm eyeing the Amazon recommended Dell and HP refurbs on, well, Amazon. They come with good specs and warranty and include Windows 10 as well. Also, instead of dishing out $$$ for fancy audio USB modules, old fashioned (but recent models) soundcards run circles around on-board sound. Can recommend SoundBlaster Audigy line as well as Asus Xonar line.

[m&m's]

Tiger Direct has good deals on refurbished computers, and these are office machines that have come back from leases. They are good machines-I'm typing on one now, that I have had for at least five years.

[Admin]

John, if you're thinking of using HW with 6 channels, then 16GB is definitely not enough. You'll want 32GB.

Let me clarify a possible source of confusion. The amount of memory required is dependent upon the sample set being deployed, not the number of audio channels configured for a setup. The confusion arises from the fact that some sample sets are recorded in a multi-channel format, with channels for organist, nave, and surround locations. In that case there are separate samples for each of these locations, and all of the samples need to be in memory if all these locations are used; however, you can elect not to load the surround samples, etc. in order to conserve memory.

The number of audio channels for your system does not affect your memory requirement whether your have a single mono channel or the Hauptwerk maximum of 512 channels.

An i5, 16GB system is adequate for most sample sets, except for the large surround sets with long reverb times which can chew up 2 to 4 times as much memory.

Personally, I'm not fond of the sample sets with long reverb times and have never had a problem with the 16GB memory limitation of my system.

[tbeck]

Sorry for the confusion. I didn't state it quite properly.

[Admin]

I don't know much about this product, but I suspect it's Grand Orgue optimized and customized for Windows. Most of the sample sets available for it are also available for Grand Orgue.

[tbeck]

I've never heard of this product before. I didn't log in and I don't know what their pricing policy is, but I recognized some of the sample sets as being free from other sample set makers. Others, from the wording, are cobbled together from demo sample sets. I'm not sure I would want to pay for something that is available for free.

Ok. After checking, the free sample sets from other providers are listed with credit, at least the Grabowski Friesach sample set.

Also it only runs on Windows. I think this is telling. From the website: "At present due to technological deficiencies in Apple and Linux based platforms we are unable to offer the software on these platforms without a considerable degradation in performance and functionality..."

What a ludicrous statement.

[j reimer]

I also am no authority on this product. But they say somewhere that they do not use release samples. That indicates I think that their program cannot be GO in disguise.

[iPlayKeys]

I know this is an older thread, but I just thought I would share my experience with the maker of this software. I wouldn't recommend even trying it, even it it's good. The person that wrote this software is quite rude. He was posting about this in the Grand Orgue group on FaceBook a while back. When I questioned why he was posting about a different VPO platform in a group that's supposed to be dedicated to Grand Orgue and suggested that the general Facebook VPO group would be a much more appropriate place for him to advertise his option he became quite rude and even threatened me with legal action (probably not wise, as I work for a law firm for my "day job" but whatever). And as tbeck mentions, this person's distain for anything not Windows is very telling. I don't expect for it to be around long with someone like that at the helm.

[quantum]

jOrgan is fantastic for lower end hardware. Once you get it setup, it works beautifully and is very reliable. I think a lot of the criticisms with jOrgan, are not with the software itself, but are a result of a lack of documentation.

For control surfaces, I use a Tablet to remote control the VPO computer. It means I can continue to use an older reliable (non touch) system as the VPO computer, while adding touch functionality. When not playing the organ, the tablet can be used for other things as well, like reading sheet music.

[you795a]

I use jOrgan, Grand Orgue and Hauptwerk. I do agree that jOrgan is reliable and easy to use once you set it up, just like the others. I does use less resources. I agree also that there should be more documentation on it. Over all, I can't really say which I like to use better.

[jbird604]

I appreciate all the input in just one day! In my many years of dealing with computers, I've mostly purchased refurbished units. I'm sold on that concept and will certainly look around locally, as well as on the sites that specialize in these systems.

And you all are giving me some great ideas. I will start out with a VERY basic setup, but hope to get more elaborate as time goes by. So I'll be returning to this thread to check out some of the creative ideas you've offered here.

I was involved in jOrgan years ago, when I MIDI-ed one manual of the Rodgers analog in church, and set a big CRT monitor with an add-on touch-screen sensor on a table next to the console. The old computer was so slow I could only draw 3 or 4 stops at a time, but it was nice to add a lovely celeste and some authentic chimes and Festival Trumpet and some other cool stuff to that tired old organ. That was 15 or more years ago, and I've totally forgotten how to configure a jOrgan setup, but I know that it has come a million miles since the old days, and is a serious contender in the VPO world.

Cost of course has to be considered on each item, more so I approach full retirement. Of course I did, after all, sell my last two or three FINE home organs for good money. But COVID's market crash sure deflated my retirement account! And I'll be studying each purchase rather carefully. Thus, an adequate computer is important, and I want a touch-screen monitor even though that costs extra.

But HW 5 is probably off the table, considering the price. So GO may be my best choice, which is why I started this thread. Thanks again for all the help!

[myorgan]

Well, John. I'm just one voice, but I think people are glad to finally be of assistance to someone who has helped them so selflessly over the years. Thank YOU!

Michael

[quantum]

The computer hardware of today is far ahead in terms of ability, than current software packages ask for. It is only certain scenarios than really need the latest hardware. Purchasing refurbished or off lease computers is a very wise choice.

I'll echo myorgan in recognizing the help that you have given over the years.

[AllenAnalog]

As I recall, I got these jOrgan links from posts on this Forum a while back. I put them in my bookmarks so rather than searching for the original threads on here I'll just post them:

https://jorgan.info/

https://stratmaninstruments.wordpress.com/

[quantum]

Here is the jOrgan Info Base. It is mostly made up of material that was on the MediaWiki
https://jorgan.info/base/Home.html

jOrgan Discovery site (linked above by AllenAnalog) is a great resource for those looking to get started using jOrgan.


It is much easier to get started in jOrgan now, then it was 5 to 10 years ago. The ease of customizing a disposition to tightly integrate with your physical organ console is fantastic. However, I still think some of the more advanced workflows which truly would allow jOrgan to shine are in serious need of documentation. Things like jOrgan LAN, and usage in tandem with JACK for shipping audio and MIDI to other applications or even over the network for additional processing.

[tbeck]

There is still, in my opinion, an issue of the quality of the available sound engines. I agree that it is easier to make or customize a disposition visually than GO but I don't think there is one disposition that holds a candle to a GO or HW sample set.

[quantum]

I agree that more work needs to be done with sound engines used with jOrgan. However, jOrgan was designed as a organ relay, not an all-in-one solution. One needs to use a sound engine in tandem with jOrgan in order to get sounds out of it, and with that means that the end user has a choice of which sound engines to use. The default, Fluidsynth, is easy to get going for a new user, but is not by any means the only solution - jOrgan doesn't have to use soundfonts as it sound source. I recall discussions about using things like Kontakt or even GrandOrgue and HW as a sound source (unfortunately these setups are not thoroughly documented).

That said, the majority of publicly available dispositions use soundfonts. Creating sample sets is a labour intensive process, and many of these people give freely of their time and skill and generously make their work available. IMO, it is possible for the default Fluidsynth engine to come very close to producing sound comparable to GO if soundfont creators were to increase the amount detail in those soundfonts. Things such as long samples at 12 per octave, and sample resolutions such as 96kHz 32 bit. But with this increase in resolution brings an increase in computer resources, and time needed to make a sample set. So the thing that gives jOrgan and its currently available dispositions appeal to low speced hardware, is also part of what is holding it back in terms of sound.

[rjsilva]

Just for your info jbird, I use GrandOrgue with the Freisach sampleset on a computer with 8GB of ram, 8 output channels, and never have issues. I just make sure it loads it in 16bit resolution. Additionally, I originally used it on a 2018 Mac Mini with an i3 processor with no performance issues.