It would be more precise (if rather too long-winded) to say "backed up by my training and credentials in acoustic science."
You've chosen to be almost totally anonymous on this board. Therefore, I wonder if you would like to share with the rest of us what in your training, employment, or other life aspects support your implied claim for credibility? Learning your degrees, bachelor and post-graduate training, companies (or occupational roles) using your talents relevant to acoustic science, etc., we can all support you. Not necessary - just if you feel it would provide some context.
Thanks.
Ben
Last edited:
Hi Bach On! Thanks for the organ tidbits. I play a nice Allen electronic Sundays. Although I'm more of a pianist, I was asked and I do what I can. The organ is a traditional instrument and must reflect that in its sound I suppose. Hope your box modifications go well and you stay on here at diyaudio. Easy to get hooked. I've tried some small speakers and keep a small PA around as well. Good Luck! Greg
Degrees and personal identification have nothing at all to do with anything. Discuss the science. I've asked you several times now to answer a very simple technical question, can you prove that adding a bit of stuffing and a small leak to OP's sealed box will do anything but change the q a bit?
What did I get in return? No technical answer, but you did provide me with your resume (both your tenure as a professor and at Bell labs), you suggested that if we HAD met previously it's likely that you would have been my superior and you would have failed me in your class, for which you apologized.
All that is really cute in an extremely condescending way, but I'm here to talk about acoustics, not degrees and resumes.
Look to what I've posted for support of my credibility. If you can't point out any errors in my posts and yet still disagree with me then I guess your resume is not serving you well.
In addition to asking several times about the leaky sealed box issue, I've also pointed out serious issues with your own home system, and also asked if ANYONE including you can dispute that tightly stacking several boxes playing the same bandwidth is going to do anything but alter the frequency response when measured at a distance (farfield in the audience).
You old guys seem to love talking about yourselves and your resumes. You don't like it when anyone disagrees with you. I'm trying to have a technical conversation here, this isn't facebook. I've been around 10 years, I'm not anonymous. If you want to know me read my previous posts. They are full of technical information which stands for itself, not conjecture, opinions, and a resume listed as a claim for credibility.
Talk about the acoustic issues. If you can't do that what are you even doing here?
What did I get in return? No technical answer, but you did provide me with your resume (both your tenure as a professor and at Bell labs), you suggested that if we HAD met previously it's likely that you would have been my superior and you would have failed me in your class, for which you apologized.
All that is really cute in an extremely condescending way, but I'm here to talk about acoustics, not degrees and resumes.
Look to what I've posted for support of my credibility. If you can't point out any errors in my posts and yet still disagree with me then I guess your resume is not serving you well.
In addition to asking several times about the leaky sealed box issue, I've also pointed out serious issues with your own home system, and also asked if ANYONE including you can dispute that tightly stacking several boxes playing the same bandwidth is going to do anything but alter the frequency response when measured at a distance (farfield in the audience).
You old guys seem to love talking about yourselves and your resumes. You don't like it when anyone disagrees with you. I'm trying to have a technical conversation here, this isn't facebook. I've been around 10 years, I'm not anonymous. If you want to know me read my previous posts. They are full of technical information which stands for itself, not conjecture, opinions, and a resume listed as a claim for credibility.
Talk about the acoustic issues. If you can't do that what are you even doing here?
I'm actually really glad you brought this up, I've been hesitant to do so. A lot of people that don't understand the issues look to personal credentials instead, and assume that credentials equal infallibility.
I'm sure that all the people that have spoken out about me and claimed I didn't know what I was talking about have a pile of degrees and accolades to your credit. And yet not one of you could point out a single technical error in any of my posts. I've pointed out several errors in the posts of the people claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, and the irony is that you guys don't even understand what I'm talking about so you can't even give a technical reply.
This is really frustrating and extremely funny at the same time. Try harder. Some of you guys are not even attempting to have a technical conversation, you are just giving ill formed opinions and judgments about things you don't understand.
I'm sure that all the people that have spoken out about me and claimed I didn't know what I was talking about have a pile of degrees and accolades to your credit. And yet not one of you could point out a single technical error in any of my posts. I've pointed out several errors in the posts of the people claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, and the irony is that you guys don't even understand what I'm talking about so you can't even give a technical reply.
This is really frustrating and extremely funny at the same time. Try harder. Some of you guys are not even attempting to have a technical conversation, you are just giving ill formed opinions and judgments about things you don't understand.
Last edited:
It is pretty ironic how much emotional waves was generated by a simple question 
In any case, one should think about the difference between sound production vs. sound reproduction. We mostly are at the latter side, and we mostly use low efficiency closed/vented/open speakers for the bottom octave. Those are not suitable for music production for a big space and big audience. Just think about why are various types of tapped/folded horns used for LF at large concert venues, where the requirements are not much different from the large space of a church. The keyword is acoustic transformation, it is the secret of high efficiency. My 2c ...
In any case, one should think about the difference between sound production vs. sound reproduction. We mostly are at the latter side, and we mostly use low efficiency closed/vented/open speakers for the bottom octave. Those are not suitable for music production for a big space and big audience. Just think about why are various types of tapped/folded horns used for LF at large concert venues, where the requirements are not much different from the large space of a church. The keyword is acoustic transformation, it is the secret of high efficiency. My 2c ...
Fundamental points are being lost in the rhetoric.
While there is passion on both sides that can be admired.
I know just a guy a little bit. He has a bit of bullish tenacity. Much to be admired when it is in balance. He is a young man that has done a lot of reading. And a fair bit of practical application of that reading.
Don't know Bach On.
I have a vested interest in this as I know pipe organs well and have studied and listened to them for over 30 years.
Almost that long on loudspeaker design to.
I have read interesting true points made. And to many misconceptions on both the acoustics of organs, and their construction. As well as the interaction of manifold loudspeaker drivers.
There is simply a lot more to what is happening in a real pipe organ than I have seen typed in this thread. And neither one of our friends has a handle on it yet.
While there is passion on both sides that can be admired.
I know just a guy a little bit. He has a bit of bullish tenacity. Much to be admired when it is in balance. He is a young man that has done a lot of reading. And a fair bit of practical application of that reading.
Don't know Bach On.
I have a vested interest in this as I know pipe organs well and have studied and listened to them for over 30 years.
Almost that long on loudspeaker design to.
I have read interesting true points made. And to many misconceptions on both the acoustics of organs, and their construction. As well as the interaction of manifold loudspeaker drivers.
There is simply a lot more to what is happening in a real pipe organ than I have seen typed in this thread. And neither one of our friends has a handle on it yet.
LOL, bullish? I'm blunt and I won't take crap from people that don't know what they are doing. Pot, kettle, my friend. I'm not going to provide links here but you've been pretty bullish yourself lately.
Do you care to point out the misconceptions or just came to say I'm wrong?
A manifold is not a loudspeaker driver, it's something a driver is attached to, and manifolds have not been mentioned even once in this thread.
This thread was never intended to be a book detailing all aspects of pipe organs.
If you want to point out which concepts you think I'm wrong about, please feel free. If you just want to step in line in the parade of people that say I'm wrong about something you aren't helping. Please point out the fundamental points that are being lost.
I know very well what happens when two sound sources that are playing the same bandwidth interfere with each other. Depending on the distance between sources and frequency they are playing they either fully mutually could or they cause sharp nulls in response. That's the only thing that happens, it's not a magical sound effect.
This is crossover 101, like first day stuff. I can show this in charts and graphs. This is extremely common knowledge, everybody knows this stuff. Everybody except diyaudio, I guess.
PLEASE explain how this is wrong, don't just come in here and say fundamental points are being lost. This is the only major point of contention. (HINT - it's not wrong.)
You've been saying I'm wrong about various things now for years. I've put in the time, talked to you about these issues, and I wasn't wrong. I'm not wrong this time either. In the past we've had major issues due to the fact that you come in, accuse me of being wrong, present your full resume and years of experience instead of a technical reason I'm wrong. Seems this time is going to be no different.
Last edited:
I, for one, would welcome your input on what is happening in a pipe organ. Perhaps it will help move the discussion forward - rather than sideways.
Bach On
man·i·fold (măn′ə-fōld′)
adj.
1. Many and varied; of many kinds; multiple: our manifold failings.
2. Having many features or forms: manifold intelligence.
3. Being such for a variety of reasons: a manifold traitor.
4. Consisting of or operating several devices of one kind at the same time.
n.
1. A whole composed of diverse elements.
2. One of several copies.
3. A pipe or chamber having multiple apertures for making connections.
4. Mathematics A topological space in which each point has a neighborhood that is equivalent to a neighborhood in Euclidean space. The surface of a sphere is a two-dimensional manifold because the neighborhood of each point is equivalent to a part of the plane.
tr.v. man·i·fold·ed, man·i·fold·ing, man·i·folds
1. To make several copies of, as with carbon paper.
2. To make manifold; multiply.
[Middle English, from Old English manigfeald : manig, many; see many + -feald, -fald, -fold.]
man′i·fold′ly adv.
man′i·fold′ness n.
There is more to some words than there appears to be my friend.
And yes I am known for calling a spade a spade and not backing down when I talk to a person incapable of being wrong or making a mistake.
Personally if I had a buck for every time I was wrong I would be a very wealthy man!
You seem to know more about this than I do! And I have been working at this for longer than you have been alive!
If it was so simple you would be correct.
But it indeed is not so simple. What happens in basic theory you are quoting correctly. So you know your basic theory.
Where there is a difference between reality and theory is called the real world. Mathematical formula are used to attempt to describe what happens when two or more or manifold sound sources are being used to create a reproduction of an event.
The math falls far behind what happens in the real world.
Describing just the first octave (16 hertz) to say 4 foot pitch (top of the keyboard is roughly 1200hertz) many speakers will simultaneously sum, cancel and modulate each other depending on a huge number of physical effects. Nearest reflection points, are they stacked? Are they stacked horizontally? Do they have ports? are they sealed? As shown in one of the videos referenced passive radiators? ( Yuck I hates passive radiators)
And I'm not even going to try and talk about what happens in the high frequencies. There are a bunch of thick as mud, dry as dust papers that have been written describing the high frequency modulation effects of organ pipes in the high frequency ranges.
I have heard Allen and Rogers digital pipe organs.
They are substitutes for the real thing. And they sound like substitutes for the real thing. Granted on some limited volumes and simple registrations they can sound pretty good. It's when asked to go loud and proud that they just can't keep up.
There are distinct differences as to why.
A pipe organ is a carefully laid out arrangement of pipes. Not a thrown together mish mash. Centuries of trial and error are used as references as to what works well. And there are still available examples of what was tried in abandon to those tested practices.
The organs of the late 19th and early 20th century. They lost the art of good organ design and made playing truly polyphonic music an impossibility.
What sets apart a real organ from a reproduction of an organ is a simple principle of resonance.
You may play but one pipe. But there are hundreds if not thousands of pipes that will resonate at their fundamental pitches and their harmonics depending on their location within the windchest, and their division inside the organ.
The number of sympathetic resonances is depending on the spectral content of the pipe speaking, and it's amplitude. If it is a reed there is a whole bunch of harmonics being produced. If it is a flue or a stopped flue pipe the harmonic content is either purposely controlled or ( stopped or covered flue pipe favours the second harmonic ) left to sound as it naturally would.
Harmonics are multiples of a given frequency. As an example for easy math. An 8 foot open C left most pedal on most pipe organs speaks at about 64 hertz. The first harmonic is at 128 hertz. Second is at 256 hertz. Third is at 1024 hertz. Notice that it is a doubling of the fundamental frequency as you go up in the harmonic progression. Keep in mind that in the same rank of pipes quite close in a common windchest there are pipes that are not speaking at the moment that are now vibrating at exactly these tones. Because I am giving you octave progressions and purposely stopping the progression in the span of a normal manual.
It's those effects that I have grossly simplified that are difficult to reproduce in an electronic organ. Simplified because in every organ there is not one rank of pipes but multiple ranks of pipes. Each stop knob controls a bank of pipes that is unique to that stop. If they are pedal stops you have on a full stop 30 pipes. On a short stop say a 32 foot one you usually have 12 pipes. On a manual stop you have 52 or more pipes depending on the design compass.
On a mixture there is usually a lowest pitch designation and a Roman numeral denoting the number of pipes that speak for every key pressed. That is why there is such difficulty in reproducing the high frequency blending effects produced in a real pipe organ!
An 8 to ten rank mixture has quite a few pipes. (8 to ten denotes the sliding amount of pipes that speak when a key is pressed less pipes in the low end more in the high end) Just under 500 pipes in one stop. All tuned slightly apart on the harmonic desired.
P.S.
Horn subwoofers rule! They are the inly ones that I can easily detect pitch all the way down to 16 hertz!
adj.
1. Many and varied; of many kinds; multiple: our manifold failings.
2. Having many features or forms: manifold intelligence.
3. Being such for a variety of reasons: a manifold traitor.
4. Consisting of or operating several devices of one kind at the same time.
n.
1. A whole composed of diverse elements.
2. One of several copies.
3. A pipe or chamber having multiple apertures for making connections.
4. Mathematics A topological space in which each point has a neighborhood that is equivalent to a neighborhood in Euclidean space. The surface of a sphere is a two-dimensional manifold because the neighborhood of each point is equivalent to a part of the plane.
tr.v. man·i·fold·ed, man·i·fold·ing, man·i·folds
1. To make several copies of, as with carbon paper.
2. To make manifold; multiply.
[Middle English, from Old English manigfeald : manig, many; see many + -feald, -fald, -fold.]
man′i·fold′ly adv.
man′i·fold′ness n.
There is more to some words than there appears to be my friend.
And yes I am known for calling a spade a spade and not backing down when I talk to a person incapable of being wrong or making a mistake.
Personally if I had a buck for every time I was wrong I would be a very wealthy man!
You seem to know more about this than I do! And I have been working at this for longer than you have been alive!
If it was so simple you would be correct.
But it indeed is not so simple. What happens in basic theory you are quoting correctly. So you know your basic theory.
Where there is a difference between reality and theory is called the real world. Mathematical formula are used to attempt to describe what happens when two or more or manifold sound sources are being used to create a reproduction of an event.
The math falls far behind what happens in the real world.
Describing just the first octave (16 hertz) to say 4 foot pitch (top of the keyboard is roughly 1200hertz) many speakers will simultaneously sum, cancel and modulate each other depending on a huge number of physical effects. Nearest reflection points, are they stacked? Are they stacked horizontally? Do they have ports? are they sealed? As shown in one of the videos referenced passive radiators? ( Yuck I hates passive radiators)
And I'm not even going to try and talk about what happens in the high frequencies. There are a bunch of thick as mud, dry as dust papers that have been written describing the high frequency modulation effects of organ pipes in the high frequency ranges.
I have heard Allen and Rogers digital pipe organs.
They are substitutes for the real thing. And they sound like substitutes for the real thing. Granted on some limited volumes and simple registrations they can sound pretty good. It's when asked to go loud and proud that they just can't keep up.
There are distinct differences as to why.
A pipe organ is a carefully laid out arrangement of pipes. Not a thrown together mish mash. Centuries of trial and error are used as references as to what works well. And there are still available examples of what was tried in abandon to those tested practices.
The organs of the late 19th and early 20th century. They lost the art of good organ design and made playing truly polyphonic music an impossibility.
What sets apart a real organ from a reproduction of an organ is a simple principle of resonance.
You may play but one pipe. But there are hundreds if not thousands of pipes that will resonate at their fundamental pitches and their harmonics depending on their location within the windchest, and their division inside the organ.
The number of sympathetic resonances is depending on the spectral content of the pipe speaking, and it's amplitude. If it is a reed there is a whole bunch of harmonics being produced. If it is a flue or a stopped flue pipe the harmonic content is either purposely controlled or ( stopped or covered flue pipe favours the second harmonic ) left to sound as it naturally would.
Harmonics are multiples of a given frequency. As an example for easy math. An 8 foot open C left most pedal on most pipe organs speaks at about 64 hertz. The first harmonic is at 128 hertz. Second is at 256 hertz. Third is at 1024 hertz. Notice that it is a doubling of the fundamental frequency as you go up in the harmonic progression. Keep in mind that in the same rank of pipes quite close in a common windchest there are pipes that are not speaking at the moment that are now vibrating at exactly these tones. Because I am giving you octave progressions and purposely stopping the progression in the span of a normal manual.
It's those effects that I have grossly simplified that are difficult to reproduce in an electronic organ. Simplified because in every organ there is not one rank of pipes but multiple ranks of pipes. Each stop knob controls a bank of pipes that is unique to that stop. If they are pedal stops you have on a full stop 30 pipes. On a short stop say a 32 foot one you usually have 12 pipes. On a manual stop you have 52 or more pipes depending on the design compass.
On a mixture there is usually a lowest pitch designation and a Roman numeral denoting the number of pipes that speak for every key pressed. That is why there is such difficulty in reproducing the high frequency blending effects produced in a real pipe organ!
An 8 to ten rank mixture has quite a few pipes. (8 to ten denotes the sliding amount of pipes that speak when a key is pressed less pipes in the low end more in the high end) Just under 500 pipes in one stop. All tuned slightly apart on the harmonic desired.
P.S.
Horn subwoofers rule! They are the inly ones that I can easily detect pitch all the way down to 16 hertz!
There's really only one major point of contention here, and that's what happens when two sound sources playing the same bandwidth interact. It's an extremely well known phenomenon, at 1/4 wave or less distance you get full mutual coupling, at more than 1/4 wave distance you get altered frequency response due to cancellation nulls and the frequency response is different depending on where you stand and measure.
This is extremely well known, it's easy to look up, I've offered to show charts and graphs, any decent crossover simulator can show this effect, but no one seems interested in facts or common sense.
It is not a sound effect that makes speakers sound like pipes. It's just an altered frequency response.
I'll be very happy to leave this conversation but I'm not going to back down on this extremely simple FACT. Once people stop disagreeing with this, or at least provide some type of evidence that this is not a solid FACT I will leave and you guys can talk about other aspects of organs at your leisure.
If you are hoping someone with a technical background that understands acoustic is going to step in and give a technical reason why I'm wrong, it isn't going to happen, because this is fact.
Do the absolute least that's required, look up how sound sources interact, do a bit of research, stop arguing with me OR present a technical counterargument. That's all I ask and I'll leave. This isn't any kind of fun anyway.
Yes but using a word that has a common meaning in the context of audio and intending it to have an alternate (although technically correct) meaning just confuses things.
Math can describe everything in the physical world just fine. If you can't describe the problem adequately you are missing variables in the equation. That's not a shortcoming of math or theory, it's a lack of consideration of factors.
I looked at pictures of hundreds of different pipe organs. They are all laid out differently. I didn't see any two that looked the same. The pipes are all over the place. OP even said there was no acoustical reasoning for the pipe layout. He gave several OTHER reasons for the way they are laid out, but none of them had anything to do with acoustics. And just looking at them, you can tell a LOT of them are laid out just to be visually appealing.
SO you have pipes acoustically interfering. There's no rhyme or reason to the pipe layout, so every organ will sound different. My point is that there is no need to reproduce this type of interference with the speakers to make them sound like pipes.
Even if this was a requirement, and even if the pipes were laid out to interact in an acoustically beneficial manner, stacking a bunch of speakers in a tight stack is NOT going to replicate this beneficial interaction. Where is the acoustical engineering that determines the speaker placement? If pipes are carefully laid out to interact in specific ways as you suggest, how is a random clump of speakers going to accurately reflect that? It's not even possible for 8 speakers to simulate the spacing and interaction of hundreds of pipes that have radically different bandwidths and spacings. To suggest they can even come close is pure folly. To suggest it's a requirement is purely misguided.
There might be a few very old organs that actually did attempt to lay out the pipes for acoustical reasons. They would be very few and far between. I'm guessing OP's organ is not one of them. If the pipes are laid out randomly and the interaction is NOT beneficial, by definition it's an oversight or even a problem. Randomly stacking a bunch of speakers together is the same type of oversight or problem. AND since the pipe layout is random to begin with, stating that the interaction (which just changes freqeuncy response) is a requirement is very misguided.
Everything else in your post is about harmonics. This is really not on point. Yes there are harmonics. Yes the harmonics cause interactions too. This doesn't matter. The point is that pipe organs are NOT set up with pipes laid out to cause beneficial interaction, if this were true they would all look the same. And even if they were laid out carefully, a random stack of speakers clumped together is definitely NOT laid out carefully to provide beneficial interaction. In fact the interaction is random by definition if the speaker placement is random, and it's hardly a requirement, since all it does is change frequency response.
At the very least, you have confirmed that I have the theory right. Now we are getting somewhere. No one else did that, the people arguing with me don't understand the theory. Now we just need to go a bit further, confirm OP's pipes are laid out randomly (not for acoustically beneficial interaction), confirm that a random clump of speakers would not provide acoustically beneficial interaction, and confirm that the interaction is not required anyway since it's just changing frequency response, and doing that randomly is actually a problem, not a requirement.
I am pretty sure DSL sound systems sound like the real thing, not just products from organ companies. And I seriously doubt DSL is just clumping speakers randomly so they can interact and interfere with each other just for the sake of having a magical sound effect that in reality just changes the frequency response. I'd wager that in a DSL system the speakers are well spread for spacious sound and you probably won't find a random clump of speakers playing the same bandwidth anywhere in the system. They use real acoustic theory in engineering, not strange myths.
Last edited:
It is pretty ironic how much emotional waves was generated by a simple question
lcsaszar is a genius (that's a way of saying, "I was just about to post the same thing...."). I was thinking of a new thread "Lessons from the 16Hz thread".
But (here is point #1): despite my urging previously, there is no home for discussions of acoustics at DIYaudio, except incidental to speaker building. That should be fixed because acoustics (which is often shorthand for psychoacoustics) really matter in making sound. Most of Toole's essential book is about space and psychoacoustics.
The profound points raised by lcsaszar need airing. In the context of this thread, we see the organ crowd considering speakers that make good organ music. On the other hand, the sim crowd (some of whom seem to "know" organs only because they've read deeply about them) say sound is sound is sound.
For sure, big questions here. Around the Karlson builders, I like to say I've never made sound more profoundly like a cello than my 1956 15-inch Karlson box. But that would be a meaningless thing to say to people who live and die by the equations of Thiele.
What is the difference between making sound qua an instrument versus making sound that passes the "down the hall test*?
Needs a new thread and maybe a new forum too.
Ben
*if you are listening from down the hall of your home, would you believe Diana Krall is really singing in your living room; nobody would ever be so bad a judge of sound to think you could mistake Diana Krall's sound on today's equipment when in you living room... so down the hall is a much easier bar to cross. Maybe, just maybe, I've mistaken my hifi for a little cellphone with an electronic "bell" even with my trick electrostatic speakers. That's as close as I've come to passing the test even down the hall.
Last edited:
mwmkravchenko
Ah, me thinks I sense a bit of a pipe purist. ;-)
Yes. The weakness in many electronic organs has been tutti playing (lots of sounds being played at the same time). The addition of more channels has - IN MY OPINION - SOMETIMES improved the sound. But good voicing is essential (and sadly too rare) in any organ installation.
I've participated in several discussions with people who share your beliefs. And there is, no doubt, some truth that the resonance of the many pipes resonating contributes to the "magic" of a pipe organ. But my church doesn't have the budget or the space for the pipe version of what we want.
You said this,
"A pipe organ is a carefully laid out arrangement of pipes. Not a thrown together mish mash. Centuries of trial and error are used as references as to what works well. And there are still available examples of what was tried in abandon to those tested practices.
The organs of the late 19th and early 20th century. They lost the art of good organ design and made playing truly polyphonic music an impossibility."
This may be true. Or it may be that we have gone back and viewed it with adoring eyes and ears as the "golden years of organ building". Through Masters and their apprentices, perhaps some builders practiced accepted standards that sounded better. OR perhaps the success was SOMETIMES a matter of luck. And maybe only the best organs were preserved and have survived. I'm not so certain that all the organ builders of the 18th century were as skilled and gifted as others.
When I took counterpoint, I was told that the rules we learned came from a detailed analysis of what "rules" Baroque Masters like Bach practiced. But I found myself wondering if these were hard and fast rules in those days, or just what those Masters thought sounded best?
One of my pipe purist friends has urged me NOT to add digital voices to our modest Estey organ. He says it will completely change the character of the organ.
Perhaps that would cause me to pause and reconsider if our Estey was one of the best of the organ builder's "art". But I don't think it is. It's a small organ that fit a niche market in it's day. It has only one 16 foot stop and no voices in the 2 foot range without over use of couplers. It may be that it's a pipe dream on my part to believe we can blend the digital with the pipes in a way that works. But we're going to try.
As a young organist, I well remember the temptation to try to play with confidence to make people think I had confidence. The other way to say this is, "If you can't play good, play loud."
Advancing years and experience has modified my taste and playing habits.
I've said this before - though not here - I totally reject the idea that even the worst pipe organ sounds better than a digital organ (or a hybrid).
JAG - you've asked most recently if we aren't going to talk about the science of acoustics, what are we doing here?
And you've probably noted that what I just wrote contained no reference to science, math or the acoustical principles you cherish. But what I wrote is about is something I cherish.
Sorry.
Bach On
Ah, me thinks I sense a bit of a pipe purist. ;-)
Yes. The weakness in many electronic organs has been tutti playing (lots of sounds being played at the same time). The addition of more channels has - IN MY OPINION - SOMETIMES improved the sound. But good voicing is essential (and sadly too rare) in any organ installation.
I've participated in several discussions with people who share your beliefs. And there is, no doubt, some truth that the resonance of the many pipes resonating contributes to the "magic" of a pipe organ. But my church doesn't have the budget or the space for the pipe version of what we want.
You said this,
"A pipe organ is a carefully laid out arrangement of pipes. Not a thrown together mish mash. Centuries of trial and error are used as references as to what works well. And there are still available examples of what was tried in abandon to those tested practices.
The organs of the late 19th and early 20th century. They lost the art of good organ design and made playing truly polyphonic music an impossibility."
This may be true. Or it may be that we have gone back and viewed it with adoring eyes and ears as the "golden years of organ building". Through Masters and their apprentices, perhaps some builders practiced accepted standards that sounded better. OR perhaps the success was SOMETIMES a matter of luck. And maybe only the best organs were preserved and have survived. I'm not so certain that all the organ builders of the 18th century were as skilled and gifted as others.
When I took counterpoint, I was told that the rules we learned came from a detailed analysis of what "rules" Baroque Masters like Bach practiced. But I found myself wondering if these were hard and fast rules in those days, or just what those Masters thought sounded best?
One of my pipe purist friends has urged me NOT to add digital voices to our modest Estey organ. He says it will completely change the character of the organ.
Perhaps that would cause me to pause and reconsider if our Estey was one of the best of the organ builder's "art". But I don't think it is. It's a small organ that fit a niche market in it's day. It has only one 16 foot stop and no voices in the 2 foot range without over use of couplers. It may be that it's a pipe dream on my part to believe we can blend the digital with the pipes in a way that works. But we're going to try.
As a young organist, I well remember the temptation to try to play with confidence to make people think I had confidence. The other way to say this is, "If you can't play good, play loud."
Advancing years and experience has modified my taste and playing habits.
I've said this before - though not here - I totally reject the idea that even the worst pipe organ sounds better than a digital organ (or a hybrid).
JAG - you've asked most recently if we aren't going to talk about the science of acoustics, what are we doing here?
And you've probably noted that what I just wrote contained no reference to science, math or the acoustical principles you cherish. But what I wrote is about is something I cherish.
Sorry.
Bach On
Hi Mark,
It does not really matter, but I noticed a mistake that I have made previously too:
Post #290: "...An 8 foot open C left most pedal on most pipe organs speaks at about 64 hertz. The first harmonic is at 128 hertz. Second is at 256 hertz. Third is at 1024 hertz..."
The fundamental frequency is also called the first harmonic. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/funhar.html
Anyway, we are getting somewhere in the description of the instrument in question. Now, if we could just persuade the OP to put a decent driver into his cabinet, and port it properly.
Regards,
It does not really matter, but I noticed a mistake that I have made previously too:
Post #290: "...An 8 foot open C left most pedal on most pipe organs speaks at about 64 hertz. The first harmonic is at 128 hertz. Second is at 256 hertz. Third is at 1024 hertz..."
The fundamental frequency is also called the first harmonic. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/waves/funhar.html
Anyway, we are getting somewhere in the description of the instrument in question. Now, if we could just persuade the OP to put a decent driver into his cabinet, and port it properly.
Regards,
Anyway, we are getting somewhere in the description of the instrument in question. Now, if we could just persuade the OP to put a decent driver into his cabinet, and port it properly.
Regards,
+++++++++++++++!!!!!!111!!!1111one!11111
OK. I've said more than once that our sound engine will send some sounds (pipe ranks) to one set of speakers and other sounds to another set of speakers.
So speaker pair 1 might be playing be playing the same pitches as speaker pair 2. But the overall collection of overtones, partials, and wave shape will still be different from what is sent to speaker pair 2.
So a question: are both of those speaker pairs playing the exact same bandwidth at the same time?
Bach On
Last edited:
The jury is still out on what the OP is going to do. He has accepted that a port is needed. But many posts indicate the view that even with a different driver, the homemade box will probably be inadequate for the task of producing 16 hz. at volume.
Bach On
DSL generally does arena sound systems, THX theater stuff, church sound systems etc. That Matterhorn sub was built for the military as they know what it does, how it works and the military won't sue them if it destroys a building. Most of the high output DSL tapped horn subs used for PA don't go below 20Hz. The tapped horn that does is not really high output so is more "building friendly"
They could build a 16Hz tapped horn that has 140dB output--however, that level can damage buildings, blow out windows and hurt people. A lawsuit waiting to happen so it is in their best interest to avoid such a niche' market.
I've read some threads in the AVS Forum where folks DIY massive 18 and 21 inch horn subs and run them at thousands and thousands of watts. They break the drywall, fracture toilet mounts, damage doors, crack windows, break light bulbs and sheer door hinges from the pressure. They go back and replace broken things, redesign the room and give it another shot.
This would explain why such things as the Stereo Integrity 24" subwoofer is purely a DIY effort--you build it, you break the building...your fault! You can bet the companies that make subwoofers that go down to 12 to 15Hz warn you to check the room, don't run 32 of them in the room and save the children.
To get sound levels in the church at 16Hz begs the question of--can the building withstand the pressure without damage over long periods of time?
Another option is M Force by Powersoft--get the 40" version with a built-in 13,000 watt amp to get it going. A 40 inch cone with 3 inches of stroke should move some air.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48-JUX-P4bg
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.