Ponderings
You already have a 15" in a 14 cubic foot cabinet--tune that for 35Hz and up to get some output out of the thing then build a subwoofer that does "one note" or say 16 to 32Hz. Go for maximum output over just one octave so any design would work well... tapped horn to bandpass box as efficient as you can since bandwidth is very narrow.
The Brits built a tapped pipe tuned to 17 Hz---big thing but it had some serious output over a very narrow band.
A tapped pipe for a pipe organ--at least it sounds right.
You already have a 15" in a 14 cubic foot cabinet--tune that for 35Hz and up to get some output out of the thing then build a subwoofer that does "one note" or say 16 to 32Hz. Go for maximum output over just one octave so any design would work well... tapped horn to bandpass box as efficient as you can since bandwidth is very narrow.
The Brits built a tapped pipe tuned to 17 Hz---big thing but it had some serious output over a very narrow band.
A tapped pipe for a pipe organ--at least it sounds right.
You could simply be one of those who don't hear low frequencies, but for an average person it takes around 100 to 105 dB at 16 Hz to be heard "as loud" as 60 dB at 1000 Hz. With any background noise present, most people won't hear 16 Hz at levels below 70 dB or so.
Most decent headphones have no problem putting out 16 Hz, you can check your hearing with them.
Likely your speaker simply is not putting out much level that low, which can be verified with a dB meter or real time analyzer. The RTA will show the level of harmonics as well as the fundamental.
I can, and I think most people can hear down pretty low if it's being done cleanly, but as others have pointed out, at 16 hz, it's fading fast.
More importantly, though..the overarching point is what the presence of that 16 hz note does to the sound of, say, 64 hz. While playing 16 hz by itself is bordering on what's detectable, if you play a 64 hz note, nobody should have any trouble hearing the 16 hz one turn off and on because of how it warbles all the other notes...which I think is important for a genuine organ reproduction.
The reproduction should be capable of all the tricks that a mechanical can do, which imo when thought about, shouldn't be limited to what we can hear as sine waves.
More importantly, though..the overarching point is what the presence of that 16 hz note does to the sound of, say, 64 hz. While playing 16 hz by itself is bordering on what's detectable, if you play a 64 hz note, nobody should have any trouble hearing the 16 hz one turn off and on because of how it warbles all the other notes...which I think is important for a genuine organ reproduction.
The reproduction should be capable of all the tricks that a mechanical can do, which imo when thought about, shouldn't be limited to what we can hear as sine waves.
Here is a video produced by the Allen Organ Co. Please notice all the speakers lined up along the walls. This is testing in the factory before the instrument is taken out to be mated with an existing pipe organ. This is a two part video. But this will give you a sense of what is involved.
Go to the bottom of the screen and find "Behind the Scenes". Then select Combination Organ Part I.
About Allen Organ Company Videos
Bach On
Go to the bottom of the screen and find "Behind the Scenes". Then select Combination Organ Part I.
About Allen Organ Company Videos
Bach On
Last edited:
If we wanted to get super technical about organ pipes, doesn't the sound come out of the top of the pipe?
Would that mean the speakers should be up (or omnidirectional) ? Paging Graaf!
*ducks for cover*
Would that mean the speakers should be up (or omnidirectional) ? Paging Graaf!
*ducks for cover*
The ends of some organ pipes are closed. The sound of SOME pipes comes out the end. Some come from the "mouth" of the pipe. Resonance from the pipe also contribute to the sound.
The truth is that nearly every rank of pipes has a different sound. But some of the differences are very slight.
It really is a complex sound palette to reproduce with speakers.
Bach On
No, and no . . .
Bach On already covered the first, Roy Allison (Allison effect) the second (it applies to organ pipes as well as speakers). If the sounding pipe is acoustically close to a wall (large ones often are) then they are not "omni". For smaller pipes the apparent "directionality" is more generally determined by the acoustics of the loft (or "chest") than the pipe itself (with the reflections adding to the complexity of the produced sound). As a result what you hear from a sample depends on where it is sampled, and the same pipe will sound different from "anechoic" if sampled "in situ" (particularly if the whole rank is sampled at some distance from the pipe).
The first part is wrong, Allison effect is really just boundary bounce and it affects all sound sources including pipes and speakers, whether they are omnidirectional or not. Just because an omnidirectional source is placed close to a boundary does not mean it is not omnidirectional anymore, it just means that the part of the soundwave that was headed toward the boundary is going to be absorbed or bounce back.
I already talked about this AND the second part about a hundred posts ago. If all the pipes and/or speakers are all up in a small closed off loft, what escapes the loft is a jumbled mess of what is left (summed) after interference and reflections.
That's not "complexity" it's just the sum of the sound.
It really isn't. If it's mic'ed and sampled properly it's not complex at all for a speaker system.
A speaker can produce any sound within it's bandwidth without any problem whatsoever.
Issues that speakers can struggle with are uneven frequency response, dispersion characteristics, spaciousness, group delay, inability to play a square wave, etc. Producing a sound palatte is not one of these issues.
Most of these issues don't matter at all (like inability to play a square wave and group delay) and the issues that do matter are pretty easily sorted out with good design.
Again, I have to point out that there are good systems and bad systems. DSL makes a living at this and I'm pretty sure there are no complaints about their systems. Just because most people have never heard an expensive well designed church system does not mean pipe organs have sound qualities that can't be produced adequately by speakers.
Throughout this thread you made many statements that indicate your strong view that organ makers - both pipe and electronic have been doing things wrong for many years - centuries in the case of pipe organs - decades in the case of electronic organs.
You state that the concept of pipes that interact with each other is mistakenly due to a poor understanding of acoustical engineering rules. Multiple speakers in electronic organs is also the result of poor engineering. Several organists have expressed the opinions that more speakers produces a better sounding organ. But you steadfastly maintain that we just don't understand what you know.
You've said several times that all the organ makers need to do is call DSL and for several thousand dollars the firm will come up with a design and a product that will do the job.
I wonder why none of the organ makers have called DSL?
Bach On
You state that the concept of pipes that interact with each other is mistakenly due to a poor understanding of acoustical engineering rules. Multiple speakers in electronic organs is also the result of poor engineering. Several organists have expressed the opinions that more speakers produces a better sounding organ. But you steadfastly maintain that we just don't understand what you know.
You've said several times that all the organ makers need to do is call DSL and for several thousand dollars the firm will come up with a design and a product that will do the job.
I wonder why none of the organ makers have called DSL?
Bach On
@ CharlieLaub
You can indeed hear 16 hertz and even lower.
There are studies that have been done in the past few decades that have tested to perception of pitch. It is interesting that when two factors are met, purity of tine or very low distortion and high enough SPL you can indeed perceive pitch to 16 hertz and even a little lower.
If you want I can post the papers. They are about as dry as soda crackers but the info is in there.
I have done presentations at our local diyaudio get togethers that demonstrated in very clear terms that you can indeed hear all the way down to 16.83 hertz.
I did it with a 12 inch driver loaded into a front loaded horn driven by a mighty 30 watt amplifier.
You can indeed hear 16 hertz and even lower.
There are studies that have been done in the past few decades that have tested to perception of pitch. It is interesting that when two factors are met, purity of tine or very low distortion and high enough SPL you can indeed perceive pitch to 16 hertz and even a little lower.
If you want I can post the papers. They are about as dry as soda crackers but the info is in there.
I have done presentations at our local diyaudio get togethers that demonstrated in very clear terms that you can indeed hear all the way down to 16.83 hertz.
I did it with a 12 inch driver loaded into a front loaded horn driven by a mighty 30 watt amplifier.
This is not true. I invite you to find one quote where I said there was any problem at all with pipe organs.
This is also wrong, I never said anything of the sort and I invite you to find one quote where I said anything even vaguely similar to this.
Pipes that interact with each other is a reality, there's no getting around it. But you said yourself that there is no acoustical reason for the way pipes are laid out.
I did not say even once that multiple speakers are the result of poor engineering, multiple speakers give a spacious sound like multi channel home theater, and in fact I said more than once, use 64 speakers for all I care, as long as these speakers are not taking up room that the 16 hz box should have. And these 64 speakers don't have to be 64 discrete channels, even 1 channel running the multiple speakers will do the job.
What I DID say is that it's not necessary to have multiple limited bandwidth boxes all clumped together in a stack playing the same bandwidth just for the sake of having them interfere with each other.
What you don't seem to understand is that if a sample is taken at a distance the sound of the pipes interacting and interfering with each other is already a part of the sample. There's no need to recreate that again with speakers interacting and interfering with each other.
Which several organists expressed the opinion that more speakers give better sound? As far as I know you are the only organist in this conversation, and I clearly pointed out that the other people that claim that acoustical interference is necessary don't have a solid grasp of acoustic science. More speakers absolutely will sound better than less, they will sound more spacious especially if they are spaced out properly and not clumped in a stack, but having a bunch of them playing the same limited bandwidth just for the sake of having them interfere with each other is a waste of money and space. THE ONLY THING THIS IS GOING TO DO IS CHANGE FREQUENCY RESPONSE.
Again, this is not something I said. I said DSL makes church SPEAKER systems. DSL DOES NOT make organs.
I do firmly believe that DSL could easily make a better speaker system than the traditional method, as it seems incredibly odd, and the way it's been explained here in this thread lacks a technical understanding of acoustics.
DSL is a newer company but what they excel in is understanding acoustical science.
And this is the problem. I've said a lot of things in this thread, and you just said I said a whole lot of things that I didn't say. Not one of the things you claim that I said is something I actually said. So either you weren't paying attention or you didn't understand what I was saying.
It seems that some people think pipe organs are a magical invention that a well designed speaker system cannot reproduce, and the only way they can even come close is to have a bunch of speakers physically representing a bunch of pipes. I can tell with with certainty this is not true. A full bandwidth speaker can play any signal that it is given, including a sample of the sound of a bunch of pipes that already have the interaction and interference of that particular note included in the sample. Many speakers will make it sound spacious like a multi channel home theater. There is no requirement to have a bunch of speakers clumped in a stack just for the sake of having them interfere with each other, it's not a sound effect, it just alters frequency response, and it isn't going to add much spaciousness to the sound.
THAT is something you can quote me on. Don't make up stuff I didn't say.
Last edited:
" ... For example looking at the equal loudness curves in digest 1038, one can see that at 20 HZ the threshold of audibility is about 75 dB. Sitting 2 meters from a 12" woofer in a sealed box, one requires about 1/4 inch peak to peak at 20 HZ reaches the threshold of hearing in a quiet room but if one wanted a 20 HZ tone to have an aparent loudness of 90 dB this requires about 30" peak to peak or 30, 12" drivers at 1" peak to peak. Even at 30 HZ, an aparent level of 90 dB requires a displacement of 4 1/2 inches peak to peak. As you can see, even 2 meters from the woofer, low bass at "normal" musical levels requires lots of cubic inches of displacement. Low frequency room gain, to what ever extent is present is not included in the above. ... " - Tom Danley
Last edited:
If you want to hear low sounds
A high powered car stereo provides that easily. 137dB at 11 Hz you really know that it is there--it will chop up your voice as you yell at each other. 16Hz is easily heard, the hard part is to insulate and isolate the car to eliminate rattles etc.
That is the cheater way to do it--the massive +24 to +30dB of gain really helps in a car.
For me, I just want a sub that does response into the teens and -10dB at 16Hz is fine. I'd love to have four DTS-10 tapped horns from Danley but the cost, size and wife say otherwise.
For the OP, just state what SPL you want at what distance and a design can be hammered out.
A high powered car stereo provides that easily. 137dB at 11 Hz you really know that it is there--it will chop up your voice as you yell at each other. 16Hz is easily heard, the hard part is to insulate and isolate the car to eliminate rattles etc.
That is the cheater way to do it--the massive +24 to +30dB of gain really helps in a car.
For me, I just want a sub that does response into the teens and -10dB at 16Hz is fine. I'd love to have four DTS-10 tapped horns from Danley but the cost, size and wife say otherwise.
For the OP, just state what SPL you want at what distance and a design can be hammered out.
Here are are some statements that sound to me as if you believe pipe and/or electronic organ makers have been doing things wrong for many years.
From 181
Well you said it, and I have to agree, that's a terrible way to do things. Can you imagine home speakers like that? There's a really good reason you don't see this anywhere else in the world for any other application.
From 198
If that's not what you want from a pipe organ that's fine, but even the organ manufacturers can't pretend that this interference is planned in an acoustic way or repeatable with different organs (even if they use the same parts) unless the pipes are laid out EXACTLY the same. And something tells me from looking at pics of organs that they are laid out to be visually appealing, not for any acoustical engineering perspective. So the interference may be pleasing and desirable, that part I can't argue with, but it is COMPLETELY RANDOM unless it's careful designed for, and it doesn't ever appear to be.
From 204
Just to be really clear about this, I'm not talking about OP with this statement and figured I should probably clarify that, but I imagine it's incredibly rare to see a good engineer designing or mixing a church system. I've seen a LOT of bad church systems and very few good ones.
From 205
I'd like to assume that the electrical engineers manufacturing the equipment covered this but assuming can be a dangerous thing and I already think they made some bad choices in other areas as I've pointed out.
From 224
I'm going to restate the fact that there are probably VERY few well designed church systems so it's likely that you've never heard a properly engineered system. It can be done fairly easily but it's going to take a large budget and a very good engineer.
From 256
Basically what the organ guys are saying is they want almost full range boxes (several octaves at the very least) for EVERY rank, and they want multiple boxes for EVERY rank so they can acoustically interfere with each other.
This seems really odd to me, and it's not how I would do it, and I can pretty much guarantee I'd get a better result in a much smaller package for a lot less money, but these guys want what they want...
Well I never claimed to be an expert on traditional organ pipe electronics, I only said that I understand acoustic science and I could make a system to electronically produce the sound. I still say the traditional way of doing things sounds pretty dumb and I think you guys are seriously misunderstanding the importance of this acoustic interference.
From 260
I'm not trying to make you change your mind, just wondering why you would want to do this the way you are. There's no reason to split different signals to different channels and boxes.
From 269
I already talked about this AND the second part about a hundred posts ago. If all the pipes and/or speakers are all up in a small closed off loft, what escapes the loft is a jumbled mess of what is left (summed) after interference and reflections.
That's not "complexity" it's just the sum of the sound.
From 273
It seems that some people think pipe organs are a magical invention that a well designed speaker system cannot reproduce, and the only way they can even come close is to have a bunch of speakers physically representing a bunch of pipes. I can tell with with certainty this is not true. A full bandwidth speaker can play any signal that it is given, including a sample of the sound of a bunch of pipes that already have the interaction and interference of that particular note included in the sample. Many speakers will make it sound spacious like a multi channel home theater. There is no requirement to have a bunch of speakers clumped in a stack just for the sake of having them interfere with each other, it's not a sound effect, it just alters frequency response, and it isn't going to add much spaciousness to the sound.
I know for a fact that IndianaJoe is an organist. Some posts from others indicated knowledge that not more than three notes would be played at the same time on the pedals. It's doubtful that many other than an organist would know this. And you said (see above) "Basically what the organ guys are saying ...."
You are right. You never specifically said the organ companies should call DSL. You have run down the need for multiple speakers by organ makers. I think it is fair and accurate to say you feel it isn't needed. Then you say DSL could do it for many thousands of dollars. I even seem to recall a post where you said you could do it.
I said, "I wonder why none of the organ makers have called DSL?"
Bach On
From 181
Well you said it, and I have to agree, that's a terrible way to do things. Can you imagine home speakers like that? There's a really good reason you don't see this anywhere else in the world for any other application.
From 198
If that's not what you want from a pipe organ that's fine, but even the organ manufacturers can't pretend that this interference is planned in an acoustic way or repeatable with different organs (even if they use the same parts) unless the pipes are laid out EXACTLY the same. And something tells me from looking at pics of organs that they are laid out to be visually appealing, not for any acoustical engineering perspective. So the interference may be pleasing and desirable, that part I can't argue with, but it is COMPLETELY RANDOM unless it's careful designed for, and it doesn't ever appear to be.
From 204
Just to be really clear about this, I'm not talking about OP with this statement and figured I should probably clarify that, but I imagine it's incredibly rare to see a good engineer designing or mixing a church system. I've seen a LOT of bad church systems and very few good ones.
From 205
I'd like to assume that the electrical engineers manufacturing the equipment covered this but assuming can be a dangerous thing and I already think they made some bad choices in other areas as I've pointed out.
From 224
I'm going to restate the fact that there are probably VERY few well designed church systems so it's likely that you've never heard a properly engineered system. It can be done fairly easily but it's going to take a large budget and a very good engineer.
From 256
Basically what the organ guys are saying is they want almost full range boxes (several octaves at the very least) for EVERY rank, and they want multiple boxes for EVERY rank so they can acoustically interfere with each other.
This seems really odd to me, and it's not how I would do it, and I can pretty much guarantee I'd get a better result in a much smaller package for a lot less money, but these guys want what they want...
Well I never claimed to be an expert on traditional organ pipe electronics, I only said that I understand acoustic science and I could make a system to electronically produce the sound. I still say the traditional way of doing things sounds pretty dumb and I think you guys are seriously misunderstanding the importance of this acoustic interference.
From 260
I'm not trying to make you change your mind, just wondering why you would want to do this the way you are. There's no reason to split different signals to different channels and boxes.
From 269
I already talked about this AND the second part about a hundred posts ago. If all the pipes and/or speakers are all up in a small closed off loft, what escapes the loft is a jumbled mess of what is left (summed) after interference and reflections.
That's not "complexity" it's just the sum of the sound.
From 273
It seems that some people think pipe organs are a magical invention that a well designed speaker system cannot reproduce, and the only way they can even come close is to have a bunch of speakers physically representing a bunch of pipes. I can tell with with certainty this is not true. A full bandwidth speaker can play any signal that it is given, including a sample of the sound of a bunch of pipes that already have the interaction and interference of that particular note included in the sample. Many speakers will make it sound spacious like a multi channel home theater. There is no requirement to have a bunch of speakers clumped in a stack just for the sake of having them interfere with each other, it's not a sound effect, it just alters frequency response, and it isn't going to add much spaciousness to the sound.
I know for a fact that IndianaJoe is an organist. Some posts from others indicated knowledge that not more than three notes would be played at the same time on the pedals. It's doubtful that many other than an organist would know this. And you said (see above) "Basically what the organ guys are saying ...."
You are right. You never specifically said the organ companies should call DSL. You have run down the need for multiple speakers by organ makers. I think it is fair and accurate to say you feel it isn't needed. Then you say DSL could do it for many thousands of dollars. I even seem to recall a post where you said you could do it.
I said, "I wonder why none of the organ makers have called DSL?"
Bach On
Last edited:
Is this to hear Richard Strauss, Zarathustra, aka the space Odyssey? Kvart & Blge, Audiophile Quarter Wave Loud Speakers
COST!
Organ makers are there to make money--the sheer cost to reproduce a 32 foot pipe at realistic levels will be very large, very loud and very expensive.
DSL did make a subwoofer for the military that does 16Hz at 105dB at a distance of 250 meters--it can be done but the thing is a shipping container and cost a few bucks.
Here is another thread that talks about that exact same subject:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/255400-reproducing-16hz-pipe-organ-note.html
Interesting read....
I too wonder why organ installers choose what they do, rather than going to a company who has experience with everything from container subwoofers designed for avalanche control for the military, to professional sports stadium reinforcement.
I mean, I'm sure the Rodgers speakers are decent for what they are, but judging based on what I see under the grille cloths, I can tell you that most of us here probably have higher quality drivers sitting on the shelf, and simply trying out some of the advice given won't cost anything but perhaps an afternoon of moving things around.
I mean, I'm sure the Rodgers speakers are decent for what they are, but judging based on what I see under the grille cloths, I can tell you that most of us here probably have higher quality drivers sitting on the shelf, and simply trying out some of the advice given won't cost anything but perhaps an afternoon of moving things around.
Yes, that's a collection of things I actually did say.
And for every thing I said I gave a reason backed up by acoustic science.
I think the main point we (me vs you and several others) disagree on is that I don't think stacking a bunch of speakers together just so they can interfere with each other is necessary or even wise. If that's the traditional method of doing things I think it's misguided.
I'm not even sure if this IS the traditional method of doing things, all I've heard is a bunch of guys that clearly don't understand acoustics tell me that's how it's traditionally done.
I'm going to put this in big letters and bold so you can't possibly miss it, since I've said it a bunch of times already and no one seems to get the point.
THE ONLY THING YOU ARE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH BY STACKING A BUNCH OF SPEAKERS TIGHT TOGETHER ALL PLAYING THE SAME BANDWIDTH IS AN ALTERED FREQUENCY RESPONSE.
I don't want to hear how many organists say that is the right thing to do, I want you guys to tell me how that simple sentence is wrong. It's not wrong, and if all you want is an altered frequency response you can get that by other means. This is not going to produce some type of magical sound effect that makes speakers sound like pipes.
I already told you, DSL is a newer company. They very well might be able to teach the manufacturers of these electronic organ devices a thing or two. The head engineer has several patents and is in my estimation the only person to significantly advance acoustic science in the last 50 years or more. You might notice his name has been brought up SEVERAL times in this thread, not just by me, 3 or 4 posts ago Don Hills quoted him, he does know what he's doing and his company does this for a living.
This is quickly becoming a waste of time. I am talking about acoustic science and how speakers work, and a bunch of people are talking about misguided things like speakers having to interfere with each other in order to sound like pipes. All that is going to do is alter the summed frequency response.
How are we ever going to come to a consensus about acoustics when at least half of the people in the conversation don't understand the science? I don't know.
You don't know me and you are not an acoustic engineer. That much is clear. So you have no grounds to judge whether or not I could engineer a system. Clearly you are going to do whatever you are going to do and no amount of tech talk is going to deter you, so maybe we should just leave it at that. You spent over half your budget already and all you have is a box that isn't even perceptibly on unless you stand right in front of it and put your hand on it. I could have told you that was going to happen but you didn't ask for help until after the fact. I told you how to fix it, I gave several recommendations on top of that. Despite that, you continue to believe I have no idea what I'm talking about. Every comment I've made I've backed up with acoustic theory while the "organ" guys have no theory to back anything up and prefer to argue by calling me names and saying I have no idea what I'm talking about.
If you want to say I'm wrong, tell me WHY I'm wrong in acoustical terms. If you can't do that you might want to take a step back and think about why you can't do that, and if you can't do that consider the fact that I might not be wrong.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.