Electronic simulation of theoretical and lost organs

[David Pinnegar]

Hi!

I have always suggested that electronics are a valid tool to the pipe organ world in simulating either what has been lost or what has not yet been built . . .

Many are familiar with the work of Dr Pykett but for those who aren't,
http://www.pykett.org.uk/hear_it.htm
is extremely interesting.

I'm amused at his jibe about manufacturers imposing a wash of reverberated sound in order to cover up the inadequacy of their products . . . :-)

Best wishes

David P

[Barry Williams]

I listened with care to the samples on Colin Pykett's Website.

Whilst it is not fair to judge the results via home audio, the usual faults of electronic instruments were all too evident. 

Constantly, the initiation transients are poorly controlled, often exaggerated, and the instruments are plainly out of tune.

These basic voicing faults arise because of a lack of voicing skill.  Put shortly, the limitations are more in the ears and lack of ability of the electronic suppliers than the machine itself.  This an almost universal fault with electronic instruments.

A year or two back I persuaded the suppliers of Allen Organs in England to tune an instrument for me to hear.  (The instruments are supplied from the American factory with deliberate de-tuning.)  The result was remarkable, even on just a few stops.  At one time Makin Organs would only supply an electronic organ with a 'Rotafon' and they refused to let anyone hear an instrument without the 'Rotafon' working.  That was in the old days when the tone generation was based on the Fourier system.  (I gather that Makin Organs use sound sampling nowadays.)  The 'Bradford' system is now seriously archaic, yet some suppliers still maintain it as being the best, even though the method of tone production is inherently faulty (by reason of its synthesis of sound) and could never acheive a satisfactory result.

Sad to say, the electronic organ industry does itself no favours.

Barry Williams

[David Pinnegar]

Dear Barry

I'm sure that there are few of us who aren't in total agreement with you.

However, I heard a Pykett demonstration of a recreation of a Hope Jones, which was very interesting in giving one an idea of how the sound of the instrument worked. I posted this link here as Colin does not pretend that these sounds _are_ a particular organ but I find the concept interesting that such techniques can be part of a modelling process which of course will be all the more potent were they to be realised in real pipework.

A friend leant on me the other day to visit her Johannus Opus 5. It had ceased to function and was emitting rude noises. On a former occasion I had wiggled some connections and some chips in their holders and it had come back to life . . . As it happened, by the time I got there, the instrument had been moved around the living room and in doing so the necessary vibrations had brought it back to life again. However, the experience of playing it I found to be near excrutiating. A Twelfth broke back down an octave on the D above treble C, as did the mixtures, the Voix Celestes were wholly unreal but it suffered the usual problem of electronic organs - voicing. The stops simply did not feel as though they were regulated to give a progression through the chorus causing full organ to be wholly disappointing, no doubt not aided by poor speakers into the bargain. I don't know if that model can be regulated but certainly I wasn't impressed.

Certainly I agree with you that fourier systems can never properly reproduce, esepecially reeds, on account of inharmonicities. Fourier systems assume that all sounds are composed of mathematically correct harmonics: anyone who has tuned the bass of a piano will understand how mistaken such assumptions can be. Construction of sound using mathematical harmonics will always result in a sterilised result.

Any electronic with pretentions of _being_ a working instrument needs significant and experienced attention to detail from people with extensive experience of real instruments. Luckily such people are rare in the electronic realms . . . :)  ;) This does not detract, however, from the sort of modelling Colin has done in giving us a glimpse hinting of the sort of sounds that lost organs might have leant towards.

Best wishes

David P

[Barry Williams]

I agree.  The shortcomings of almost all electronics is the sheer lack of attention to detail in the voicing and tonal finishing.
Pipe organ voicers take many years to learn these skills, yet time and time again electronic salesmen assume that they are equally good because of their proficiency in playing organ music.

Colin Pykett's examples need to be heard 'in the flesh' rather than through small speakers, but even here there are defects that that could (and should) be dealt with.

I can never understand why electronic instruments are not put in tune.  Some salesmen claim that they are "Too clinical", yet those few instruments that I have heard in tune are vastly superior.  I think that the de-tuning (which is most noticeable on 'Bradford' systems,) arises from a failure to understand the true nature of the 'chorus' effect.

Turning to the use of electronic instruments for home practice, a friend of mine, who held a very senior position with a major manufacturer of electronic organs, says he prefers to practise on an analogue instrument.  Whilst the tone is not so accurately reproduced, the generation of tone (germanium diode transistors) gives a more realistic effect for practice.  It is an interesting comment and one confirmed by a very expereienced Allen engineer who told me that a number of professional organists own old analogue Allen organs for home practice.

Of course, if one uses the home instrument for playing as well as practice it is a different matter.  In that case accurate tone is essential.

I played a large Hauptwerk that a friend of mine owns.  The reverberation was overwhelming.  It was fun to play, but I would have found it distracting in intense practise.

BF, L & BM and I used to own a Johannus.  It served us well until one day she proclaimed "That thing has got to go!"  She insisted we get a real one and you all know the rest of the story.  We were most helpfully advised by Hector 17 (congratulations to Hector and Mrs Hector on the arrival of twins,) whose wisdom ensured that we got an instrument that would fit into an ordinary house yet be large enough to be interesting to play.

Barry Williams

[David Pinnegar]

Dear Barry

I'm not sure that Colin Pykett's demonstrations are striving to be perfect but even in their inadequacy demonstrate the spirit of what a pipe specification might achieve. . .

The in-tune out of tune issue is very intriguing.

On the Londonderry Makin, the Swell and Pedals use a different master generator from the Choir and Great and there is an imperceptible difference between the two - but it probably adds a little. The disadvantage of the 1990s vintage of commercial instruments is probably a loss of top frequencies (probably above 10kHz or so) and it's this that really detracts, particularly on full organ.

In putting the organ repertoire on the concert platform at Hammerwood Park, the instrument gains from having multiple sources using multiple technologies. The original tuning of the Makin is dependant on temperature, going up to 12 cents sharp in winter temperatures. If one does not adjust the other sections of the instrument, the combination sounds awful but in tuning I normally separate the units by a cent or so from each other. An interesting thing happens, however, when one puts the non Makin sections into an unequal temperament (they are intended not only to extend tonal resources but also to provide Baroque facilities) and forgets to reset them when uniting the whole instrument together again. Some notes are very near to equal temperament whilst others deviate. It's not on a mere singular occasion that someone has commented that it adds to the illusion of a large instrument . . .

Meanwhile I have used another trick to overcome both problems of tuning and lack of highest frequencies - I have derived "octave couplers" for the 12 channels of the original Makin instrument at octave, quint and superoctave pitches. These not only re-supply the topmost frequencies but the octave is gently detuned. Used judiciously, they make a very great difference to full organ on the original instrument. The coupler stop is the bottom right on the Great on the right hand side and on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hARaveymVI it looks as though the couplers are in use there . . .

(It would be great to welcome you, and friends (perhaps you might encourage Mr and Mrs Hector to come [if thay can juggle outings with their welcome new arrivals] who I think knew the Londonderry instrument), to the concert by John Clark Maxwell on 6th March, 4pm.)

On the matter of analogues, we are looking forward to Marc Naylor performing at Hammerwood at the end of May. For this occasion, he will probably stick to the concert organ, but at some stage he might be tempted by the Percy Vickery organ which is analogue http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WlwMCW8f-w and in the hands of anyone who knows how to register it produces a remarkably good effect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWhaL-hkjhg

It's for this reason that analogue instruments should not be spurned and not automatically converted to Hauptwerk.

However, the Vickery instrument is an example of intimate design and voicing of an organ analogue by a player with complete knowledge of the pipe organs he was seeking to model.

For various reasons, whilst of course we favour pipe instruments I felt that the instrument referred to on http://www.organmatters.co.uk/index.php?topic=240.0 was worthy of preservation.

What do we admire? In terms of scale of effort of building, ingenuity, musical success and good sound, there may be electronic installations that are worthy of respect.

In being able to pay hommage to such instruments, however, people should not be misled in putting all commercially produced products onto the same platform: the instrument that my friend asked me to look at the other day used a circuit board no larger than that which would fit into a child's keyboard . . . and arguably produced a result that might possibly be only barely better.

Best wishes

David P

[Barry Williams]

Dear David,

Thank you for this. 

It is vital that there is a discussion about these things.  Electronics are not going away and, in some circumstances, can revitalise a parish's music.  (I think of a couple of cases where the parish has never had a pipe organ and there has been no room or finance for such an instrument.  A small and well-regulated electronic instrument has transformed worship for the faithful.)  In my capacity as Diocesan Organ Adviser I take as much trouble over electronic instruments as I do over pipe organs.  (A matter over which certain suppilers and installers are less than happy!)

Mr Hector knows much about these things and I hope, when he and his wife have recovered from their new arrivals, that he will feel able to join this discussion.

Yes, BF, BM & L and I would love to visit Hammerwood House and it would be splendid to bring Mr and Mrs Hector.

Yours most sincerely,

Barry

[revtonynewnham]

Hi

I've seen and played Colin Pyketts instruments - yes, inevitabl there are faults - the small room & speakers see to that before even thinkging about voicing!  Which instrument did yiu hear?  He has a 3m analogue organ as well as the digital sampling test bed.  Both are impressive - for what they are - but nothing can compare to real pipes moving real air in a decent acoustic.

Every Blessing

Tony

[Barry Williams]

Dear Tony,

Thank you for your reply.  I only heard the instruments on the clips as presented on the hyperlink.  Whilst this is not a fair method of appraisal, it does nevertheless enable one to gain an impression of tuning and basic defects of control.  Indeed, they would almost certainly be far more prevalent if heard in a larger acoustic. 

I agree.  The amount of air moved by pipes is so much greater an electronic can never compare.  That may be the reason that so many organist opt for two or three extended ranks in the home.  (The cost is about that same as a new electronic.)

Yours sincerely,

Barry

[David Pinnegar]

I agree.  The amount of air moved by pipes is so much greater an electronic can never compare.  That may be the reason that so many organist opt for two or three extended ranks in the home.  (The cost is about that same as a new electronic.)

Dear Barry

Yes - an interesting point. The instrument that I was "leant on" to exercise some magic wiggling of wires was to be displaced . . ., I discovered, by a three manual electronic of the same make. I rudely dared to ask the price . . . and for £9k in a room not much larger than 8ft x 12ft, I would agree with you that a small beautifully voiced pipe instrument could give a significant amount of pleasure, should the voicing of the big beast be of equivalent quality to that of the humbler instrument it displaces.

I have written before on the tragedy of the 18th century pipe organ at the Methodist Church on Alderney which was replaced by a 3 manual Johannus now in derelict condition and with a piano at its side . . . However, although it's an analogue instrument, having crept in and tried it, it having been left on, avoiding the odd cipher and easing the siezed up keys of the Swell manual, it was apparent that tonally the instrument had significant potential. Bearing in mind that its replacement is a piano, I have left notes trying to contact the priest there to say that I will happily service it and get it going again, but had no response :(

I hope that there is enough subject area on this forum for visitors to know that our hearts are in pipe organs and pipe organ building . . . and I am often embarrassed to be mentioning electronics. However, your comment that the subject needs a place where such things can be discussed and we have seen on numerous posts particularly to which Eric has contributed from the USA the extent to which electronics have kept the desire for organ music alive, to be reinvigorated by a pipe instrument sometimes at a later stage.

It's for this reason that I do not regard discussion of electronics to be damaging to the cause of pipe organs. After three decades experience of electronic installations, their successes, their failures and their part in causing pipe instruments to be reinstated, perhaps more enlightened decisions will be made by those responsible for making choices in the future.

Certainly it's a matter of horses for courses. Whilst an organist of an unenlightened kind might want the glamour of lots of manuals and a virtual cathedral console to drive, a later generation will be stuck with it and Tony's post http://www.organmatters.co.uk/index.php?topic=239.msg2014#msg2014 applies.

By way of contrast, for example, in the local church at Hammerwood, an instrument of only 6 or 7 ranks serves remarkably well even in the rather large building with a good Diapason, a very bright 4ft and an oboe. Whilst the organist laments the lack of a Trumpet, and whilst a hybrid addition in that direction would serve well, no-one would contemplate displacing the very effective modest pipe instrument for an apparently glamorous electronic. The pipe organ has served over 100 years and will serve for foreseeable centuries in the future . . .

On the other hand, an instrument intended in the short term to demonstrate the possibilities of the repertoire, of an experimental specification or temperament is an entirely alternative requirement . . .  Possibly few churches can honestly say that such a requirement is their brief . . .

Best wishes

David P

[twanguitar]

I'm a bit sad to see Barry Williams, a Diocesan Organ Adviser if I am correct, seeing fit to criticise the tonal quality of any musical instrument merely on the basis of a few mp3's on the web.  So I'm also glad to see that he admits it is unfair!  (I'm talking about Dr Pykett's website incidentally).  At least our good friend Tony Newnham does so having apparently seen and played the efforts in question.  David Pinnegar is also more objective, but then he has spent a great deal of time, effort and no doubt money in attempting to get right into the heart of the matter.  Maybe he also has heard them in the flesh for all I know.

I heard and played Pykett's simulations a couple of years ago when they were demonstrated in a church, and have to say it was a most impressive and thought-provoking experience.  As David said above, nothing he said that day remotely implied they were perfect, indeed at one point he modestly downplayed them to the level of "it's all just a bit of fun".  Actually, he has achieved considerably more than that.  But one thing I remember was triggered by David's mention of the late (and great) Percy Vickery.  He also was there, and gave a quite remarkable rendition on the simulated Wurlitzer at the age of nearly 90.  Apart from grumbling that the thumb pistons were the wrong colour on the console (!), he turned to the audience at the end and said "I've really never come across electronic tibias this good before".

I gather Dr Pykett is usually happy to entertain visitors, so maybe Barry might consider asking whether he could pop along and see (hear) for himself so that future criticisms are more soundly (no pun) based?

TG

[revtonynewnham]

Hi

I respect Barry's comments.  I may not necessarily totally agree with him!  We all have our own backgrounds and pre-conceptions.  Barry is certainly not anti-digital organs - they have their place, but are no real substitute for the real thing.

I think that it's a pity that the electronic organ builders didn't try and develop a different type of instrument rather than an inferior copy (some early electronic instruments did try to do this - e.g. the Theremin & Trautonium to name but 2.  I guess, as usual, it was down to market forces.

The concept of a "pipe organ substitute" isn't restricted just to electronics - there are examples in the reed organ world as well - including a couple of large 3m examples.  All being wqell, I'll be playing an item or two on one at Saltaire on 19th March.

Every Blessing

Tony

[Barry Williams]

Thank you for your response. 

I had hoped that I had qualified my comments to make it very clear that I was only referring to those defects that were clearly audible through that very limited audio medium to which I was directed.  I assumed (and in this I may be incorrect,) that defects clearly audible through the limited medium would also be audible 'in the flesh'.  It is possible that they may not be, but it is difficult to see how, for example, an instrument could be out of tune on the MP3 and in tune 'in the flesh'.

As Tony says, I am not opposed to electronic organs per se, where the need can be proved and I have much experience of them in the Diocese where I advise.  However, I  have been sadly disappointed by the quality of the tonal finishing in many cases. 

Occasionally the tonal finishing has been improved, for the instruments clearly have the potential.  What is lacking is the skill to do so and that is not surprising, for one would not expect a salesman to be a voicer.

I have felt for many years that the electronic organ industry lacks the skills to use its technology to the full potential.  This has been proved many times by the improvements that can be made in the instruments with proper regulation and tonal adjustment.

Barry Williams

[David Pinnegar]

I have felt for many years that the electronic organ industry lacks the skills to use its technology to the full potential.  This has been proved many times by the improvements that can be made in the instruments with proper regulation and tonal adjustment.

Hi!

Thank goodness the electronic manufacturers don't have the skills necessary for their wares satisfactorily to displace pipe organs.

However with the right expertise and application, even what are now regarded as backward technologies can give satisfying results. I was amused on one of my YouTube videos when someone asked if my concert instrument was electronic only as a result of what he heard in the last note!

It would be great to see you on Sunday! Should be good!

Best wishes

David P

[KB7DQH]

I hope that there is enough subject area on this forum for visitors to know that our hearts are in pipe organs and pipe organ building . . . and I am often embarrassed to be mentioning electronics. However, your comment that the subject needs a place where such things can be discussed and we have seen on numerous posts particularly to which Eric has contributed from the USA the extent to which electronics have kept the desire for organ music alive, to be reinvigorated by a pipe instrument sometimes at a later stage.

And this scenario is likely to play out in Somerset...

Seehttp://www.viewfrompublishing.co.uk/news_view/9470/16/1/crewkerne-organ-fund-waits-behind-roof-repairs

andhttp://www.thisissomerset.co.uk/news/Church-pull-stops-order-digital-organ/article-3285302-detail/article.html

and the relevant thread in the "Organs in Danger" board on this forum ;)

Eric
KB7DQH

[KB7DQH]

My previous post is in reference to a specific case but I am sure that one could apply sample-based reproduction technology to replicate an instrument "on its last legs" but still in condition to be sampled,
to provide some musical facility until such time funds become available for the restoration of the instrument that provided the original samples...

If done carefully one could evaluate the success or failure of one technology versus the other...  and on this basis funding from unlikely sources for both projects could be obtained... provided one  can convince enough private funding sources in the "Science and Technology" economic sectors and similarly can engage the "Arts" and "Historic preservation" communities likewise...

Me thinking outside the box again :o ;D

Eric
KB7DQH

[Barry Williams]

The second newspaper article referred to paying £35,000 for an electronic instrument.

I have  heard instruments at that price and could not tell the difference between them and less expensive models.  In respect of one much acclaimed and very expensive instrument I found it vastly inferior to instruments costing less than £10,000.

Perhaps they have found a new supplier whose quality exceeds anything ever produced before.

Barry Williams

[KB7DQH]

My guess, and this is a guess... is the "non-pipe substitute" specification vastly exceeds the tonal resources of the failing pipe instrument :o

Or has been specially treated to operate in cold, damp environments ;D

For that kind of ca$h one could throw together one heck of a (Hauptwerk) toaster with "all-new material"... 

With "surplus" or donated electronics one could put together an APPROPRIATE "stand-in" for far less...
and money more appropriately spent on  preventing further deterioration of the pipe instrument so that when funding does become available there will still be enough of the instrument left to restore.

Eric
KB7DQH

[David Pinnegar]

Dear Eric and Barry

I agree with both of you!

When an instrument has failing action on its last legs which can be coaxed into operation, certainly sampling the organ at that stage to replicate it would seem to be a great way of tiding over till the repairs can be done. The chances are that it's not going to be quite as good as the original . . .  ;) but herein lies a problem: for unimaginative people will simply think that the "pipe" organ represented by its elctronic analogue is bad and unexciting . . . so it could work to negate enthusiasm for having a pipe organ at all.

However, as I write I'm listening to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe_eJ60PmtM which demonstrates just how effective a digital instrument can be. But to achieve this to the point at which the hairs can be caused to stand up at the back of the neck needs great attention to detail.

I mentioned before the importance of speakers and discovered today that although tonally I recommend speakers with paper cones . . . this afternoon in servicing the instrument for Sunday's concert, I discovered that the Tuba stop was not sounding properly on account of the paper having absorbed water and the foam cone mountings having disintegrated from dampness in a corner. I replaced the speaker with a Tannoy with a plastic cone and . . . surprise surprise . . . the Tuba sounded plastic!

On a commercial installation without an "organ curator", one would have to simply install the best available . . . and end up with a stop that sounds as plastic as most electronics sound . . .

However, I can assure anyone thinking of coming on Sunday that the Tuba is now back in full fettle and working once again the in the spirit of H&H  . . . I have serious tinnitus in one of my ears as a result of voicing it to prove it . . . !

Best wishes

David P

[dragonser]

Hi,
there are some interesting comments here about mp3 files, I will be investigating when I get a chance and will report back.....
mp3 doesn't  use lossless  data compression so it will certainly make some difference.
But exactly what differences are another matter !
I can't make the Concert on Sunday unfortunately but I hope it is a success.
regards Peter B

P.S  sorry to know about the tinnitus.

However, I can assure anyone thinking of coming on Sunday that the Tuba is now back in full fettle and working once again the in the spirit of H&H  . . . I have serious tinnitus in one of my ears as a result of voicing it to prove it . . . !

Best wishes

David P

[KB7DQH]

The Dreaded mp3 file... My experiences with attempting to archive pipe organ music using this format have usually met with utter disaster.  Whatever one does, I would NOT use the LAME .mp3 encoder that one can download for free and supposedly works with Audacity.  I have had the best luck by encoding the analog audio into .wav files with 44.1Khz sample rate and 32bit floating point encoding.

From these files I can usually burn a decent CD I can play in the CD changer... and actually listen to.

I will have to do further investigation into the file conversion utility that came with a video downloader...  One of its features allows one to "strip" the audio tracks from a posted video and encode these as .mp3 files... and these actually produce something that  so far at least, can be tolerably listened to, and, seem to convert into decent CD's...  That is, if the audio level heading into the encoding process at the uploader's end doesn't exceed the maximum level and clips... In the Digital world once the A/D converter hits "all ones" the next level up is "all zeros" :o >:( ;)

At some point it would be interesting to try and measure the actual dynamic range employed by Youtube and see what actual compression takes place and at what levels...  and see if "what's left over" could be "stretched" effectively with something as useful and "ancient" a technology as DBX(R)
noise reduction ;D  Got one of those around here somewhere... Oh yeah... hooked into the Tascam 32...

Eric
KB7DQH