Bach On -
The clouds are departing and the sunlight is coming through. Is it the fresh smell of empirical testing?
Do you feel fully informed about testing methods that would satisfy this polemical crew (or even 10% of us)? Would you like this distinguished forum to offer suggestions?
Perhaps all together too sociable a suggestion for many here who cherish their anonymity.... but would you welcome a committee of members to visit you when you're done?*
Ben
*Funny thing, on my motorcycle forums, folks love to meet up and ride together. For sure, much to learn by hearing other peoples' systems... when their deeds match their words.
Last edited:
Hi Bach On,
Post #439: "...is there a reason the port opening cannot be in the top..."
It should work fine. My guess is that the bottom would couple a bit better, and would add a little length (which in the final tuning can be removed from the total length of the vent). If clearance is not an issue, do you have room to put another box on top? Just for future reference.
I'll attach a sketch I made of the 6" and 7-3/8" solutions. My mind works (well, if it does) more visually, so just something to look at. I would recommend a 3/4" round-over @ both ends, but the world does not end if you just give it a quick try without. You could attach the port to scrap particle board, than you attach that to the box, may make it easier to get a good seal.
And Mark is correct the port can be placed outside the box too.
Also, I would not be afraid to try the big duct version w/ a second driver in the box. Let's remember, it's an experiment.
Regards,
Post #439: "...is there a reason the port opening cannot be in the top..."
It should work fine. My guess is that the bottom would couple a bit better, and would add a little length (which in the final tuning can be removed from the total length of the vent). If clearance is not an issue, do you have room to put another box on top? Just for future reference.
I'll attach a sketch I made of the 6" and 7-3/8" solutions. My mind works (well, if it does) more visually, so just something to look at. I would recommend a 3/4" round-over @ both ends, but the world does not end if you just give it a quick try without. You could attach the port to scrap particle board, than you attach that to the box, may make it easier to get a good seal.
And Mark is correct the port can be placed outside the box too.
Also, I would not be afraid to try the big duct version w/ a second driver in the box. Let's remember, it's an experiment.
Regards,
Meh, some of the pipes sound like they have it built in, ofc not being an organist, I have no idea.
That sounds reasonable, we'll go with that
The effect I mean is the one that sounds a little like the leslie effect, so it might very well be that.
Vibrato and tremolo are similar, but not quite the same. Vibrato has to do with changing pitches. Tremolo has to do with changing intensity (volume). But many use the words interchangeably.
In music, many terms are in Italian. So you often see tremolo written as tremulo.
Feel free to correct. But this is MY understanding.
Bach On
In music, many terms are in Italian. So you often see tremolo written as tremulo.
Feel free to correct. But this is MY understanding.
Bach On
Mine too, although there is some overlap (there may be some vibrato in tremolo). But vibrato is a varying of pitch (especially when applied to voice). With strings vibrato is a left hand thing, and tremolo is done with the bow. Neither existed on the organ until quite recently, when amplitude tremolo was added as an "effect" on electric or electronic instruments. That's MY understanding, anyway . . .
Here is my simulation with the above values. Sorry, it is in metric. The sensitivity is less than specified.
Actually, I think I read that several of Bach's organs at Leipzig had some sort of tremolo. A device was added to the wind chest that could cause the air pressure to go up and down regularly. It was purely mechanical back on Bach's day. This device produced a tremolo effect. It's also possible that the pitch changed as the air going the pipes was changed. Some organs had more than one wind chest - say one for the Grea t, and another for the Swell divisions. So the tremolo device could be applied to one division, but not affect sounds from the other division (separate keyboards and pedals are referred to as divisions). Our organ just has one wind chest. And the tremolo applies to all voices - which I don't care for. One advantage of the new sound engine we're getting is that vibrato (which I think is more pleasing) can be added to an electronic solo stop on one division (say, the Swell) while accompaniment played on the Great and Pedals (pipe or electronic) has no tremolo/vibrato.
Things like the Hammond Leslie speakers and the Gyro speakers of Allen did something that was a little of both. The tremolo happened as speakers were turned to us and away from us. But the pitch also changed a bit because of the Doppler effect. Maybe it should be called vibratulo.
In the movie, "The Wizard of Oz", the Cowardly Lion uses tremolo at the beginning of his song, "If I was the King of the Forest". Generally, most singers are trained to sing with vibrato - where the pitch moves ever so slightly above and below the pitch center. Too much is unpleasant to me. Few professional singers are taught to sing with tremolo.
Bach On
Last edited:
Yes sir.
The ability to introduce a flutter in pitch was available on many organs in Bach's time. The Germans did it by divisions usually. Each division having it's own windchest in the Werkprincip method of construction.
I was bit by the organ bug as a child (8) and really got into it in my early teens. Had no exposure to it from any available church or other building just had an innate interest in it. That led to my borrowing books from all over the country via an interlibrary loan program in the early 80's. Long before the internet! In my personal library I have most of the available English books on building pipe organs and in PDF I have a few in German and parts of Dom de Bedos in French.
And I have read them all.
You give a quite accurate description of what I have learn to.
I'm constantly amazed at what was both discovered and practised by artists and craftsmen so long ago. And then the generation that was so self impressed that they threw it all away. Then the last two generations of builders who have been humble enough to say we were wrong and learned from the master again.
I have in my music collection 5 organ cycles by Bach by different performers, 4 cycles by Buxtehude again by different performers, and smatterings of Pachelbel , Bruhns, Telemann. Franck and Widor as well.
I review from time to time on this website:
Classical Music CD, DVD & SACD Reviews | Classical Music Sentinel
Awesome, thanks for this.
Might have to plan an outing to pick up some new discs this weekend
The way I look at it, all this design and construction stuff is in the service of the music in the first place.
I lika dah music!
Couldn't afford the good stuff as a youngin, but knew what it could do. And similar to my friend just a guy was to stupid to know that I couldn't do it. Tenacity has it's fruitage proven by it's works. I managed despite myself to actually learn a thing or two over the past 30 odd years.
And more importantly, I have enjoyed quite a bit of the learning process.
I lika dah music!
Couldn't afford the good stuff as a youngin, but knew what it could do. And similar to my friend just a guy was to stupid to know that I couldn't do it. Tenacity has it's fruitage proven by it's works. I managed despite myself to actually learn a thing or two over the past 30 odd years.
And more importantly, I have enjoyed quite a bit of the learning process.
Hi Y'all,
I'm enjoying the discussion about organs and music. Thank you.
I have a question for Icsaszar though:
Which driver are you using in your simulation from Post #452?
From the manufacturer's data sheet for the Dayton ST385, and using Hornresp recalculation feature I get:
fs = 18.80 hertz
Qes = 0.33
Qms = 8.31
Vas = 300.90 litres
Qts = 0.32
the rest you can see from the Input screen in my simulation, e.g.: Post #434.
Just trying to make sure that I have the correct T/S parameters.
Small variations should not matter, but you have a considerably larger Vas=545litres, and a lower fs=15.46, that's too much of a difference for my liking.
Regards,
I'm enjoying the discussion about organs and music. Thank you.
I have a question for Icsaszar though:
Which driver are you using in your simulation from Post #452?
From the manufacturer's data sheet for the Dayton ST385, and using Hornresp recalculation feature I get:
fs = 18.80 hertz
Qes = 0.33
Qms = 8.31
Vas = 300.90 litres
Qts = 0.32
the rest you can see from the Input screen in my simulation, e.g.: Post #434.
Just trying to make sure that I have the correct T/S parameters.
Small variations should not matter, but you have a considerably larger Vas=545litres, and a lower fs=15.46, that's too much of a difference for my liking.
Regards,
I'd love to see a reference on that, to see how it was done. I have somewhere seen reference to ranking paired but detuned pipes, so the beat produces a tremolo effect. Never heard or seen it though (and definitely off-topic here, since you'd never see it on a 32' stop
).Ps. and back to topic . . . yes, you would certainly benefit to a longer throw driver in that box in addition to the port(s).
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.