If you have difficulty registering for an account on the forum please email email@example.com. In the question regarding the composer use just the surname, not including forenames Charles-Marie.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
However, the sound of this instrument is good enough to demonstrate the superiority of well-voiced synthesis over sample-based digital organ technology - but that's a different issue.
As with any organ, the quality of the voicing is the ultimate factor - and undoubtedly, synthesis-based systems are far more complicated to voice effectively than the sample-based ones. I've seen the software for voicing the Bradford organs, and the degree of control - and hence the number of variables - is immense - and among other things, allows adjusting every harmonic against time in the "attack" phase.I'm not saying that sample-based systems can't produce good results, but I do wonder about taking sounds of pipes recorded in one environment and trying to reproduce them in another. It's perhaps significant that Copeman-Hart - generally regarded as the Rolls-Royce of digital organs - also use synthesis-based technology.
Dear TonyThis is actually one of the important reasons for the existence of this forum, so that one can voice opinions feely without upsetting controlling vested interests. On a forum devoted to sampling technology, the concept that speakers with differing idiosyncracies are an important part of voicing is a total anathema. Were there to be speakers without idiosyncracies, then there would be only one type and one manufacturer . . . and it seems pretty obvious to me that such characteristics can detract from, or be used to enhance the result. I think that they think that mentioning such things is a criticism of their technology which in which, of course, all factors are entirely controllable without requiring further control or modification at the electroacoustic stage. Some speakers fight with the fundamental requirements of reproducing organs whilst others work with the characteristic nature of organs to enhance the result.There are, of course, two purposes for using reproducing technology, one for home practice, transporting one's living environment to a specific organ in its acoustic environment, and the other for being an organ transported as an instrument into an environment in which it performs. These two purposes require different treatments in terms of recording and reproduction, and confusion between the two leads to significant misunderstandings, or perhaps even those manufacturers have an awareness of the inherent problem you point out about transporting the sound of a pipe to sound in a different environment, and don't want attention drawn to it. However, solutions are only found if problems are capable of discussion.Your comment about being able to control the attack phase of each harmonic is interesting and, potentially relevant. It is the attack that considerably assists the decision making process of the brain in deciding that a sound is real. When one hears gutteral syllables of singers through conventional studio monitors and hi-fi quality PA systems recommended by some manufacturers, one appreciates that such systems are not succeeding in reproducing reality. It's lucky for the survival of the pipe organ that most manufacturers of electronics think that perfection is in the sophistication of their systems rather than any aspect beyond mere electronic control . . . Best wishesDavid P
What is significant to this discussion is he is seeking $2 million buckaroos to build a matching pair of "touring virtual organs"...
And again, the speakers are going to be an issue - he will need to invest significant funds for that alone.