PipeChat Digest #184 - Thursday, January 1, 1998
 
PipeChat IRC Chats
  by David Scribner <david@blackiris.com>
Re: Happy New Year
  by Mark Quarmby <markq@mail.flex.com.au>
Re: VT Recital- X-post
  by bruce cornely <cremona84000@webtv.net>
Re: Happy New Year
  by bruce cornely <cremona84000@webtv.net>
Re: Chicago Theatre Post Horn (CROSS POSTED)
  by NFexec <NFexec@aol.com>
Technics SX-F100 Organ
  by John Balboni <JohnB@GCQ.net>
Re: Technics SX-F100 Organ
  by JEFF PEDERSON <jwpeder@viaccess.net>
Re: Technics SX-F100 Organ
  by JEFF PEDERSON <jwpeder@viaccess.net>
Re: Technics SX-F100 Organ
  by Ken <mewzishn@spec.net>
Re: Technics SX-F100 Organ
  by John Balboni <JohnB@GCQ.net>
Re: Technics SX-F100 Organ
  by John Balboni <JohnB@GCQ.net>
Re: Technics SX-F100 Organ
  by DudelK <DudelK@aol.com>
 


(back) Subject: PipeChat IRC Chats From: David Scribner <david@blackiris.com> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 07:17:48 -0600   Hi Folks   As Bob Conway has posted in response to a member's question about the PipeChat IRC Sessions this coming Friday, January 2, 1998 we are moving to a new server, one that I have set-up for our usage.   All of the information for making connections to the new server along with information on how to get an IRC client program for your computer has been posted on the PipeChat Web Site. Point your browsers to: http://www.pipechat.org/irc.html   You will also notice that the IRC chats can be accessed via the Web provided you have a Java Enabled browser. Most of the latest versions of Netscape Communicator and Microsoft Internet Explorer are able to use this java applet. However, I have two cautions with trying to use this method of connecting. One is that it is very, very slow especially for anyone that has ever used a regular IRC client program in the past. And the second caution is that not everyone seems to be able to get the Java interface to load on their machine. This second problem seems to have its origin in how many "hops" there are between you and the server. The further away you are connection wise, the less likely that the java client will load on your machine. I have been working with the software developers to solve this problem but I want everyone to be aware it exists.   Finally, This posting is NOT a topic for discussion on the list. If you need more information and/or help please email me DIRECTLY using mailto:david@blackiris.com?subject=IRC%20Problems I will be monitoring my email during Friday night's session to watch for any problems you may be having. I would suggest, however, that if you are interested in joining our IRC chat session that you try connecting to the server in advance to work out any technical problems.   I hope that all of you have a very Happy New Year!   David Co-Owner / Technical Administrator PipeChat   ********************************** David Scribner Black Iris Consulting 4775 Balmoral Drive Pensacola, FL 32504-9174 850-478-9635 - Voice 850-476-0711 - Fax david@blackiris.com      
(back) Subject: Re: Happy New Year From: markq@mail.flex.com.au (Mark Quarmby) Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 00:50:15 +1000   Greetings from 1998 to all those on the list still living in 1997!     Mark      
(back) Subject: Re: VT Recital- X-post From: cremona84000@webtv.net (bruce cornely) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 15:41:23 -0500   I'll only talk with them if the are way up north!   bruce cornely o o o __________ o o o ago (dean) ohs o o __________ o o  
(back) Subject: Re: Happy New Year From: cremona84000@webtv.net (bruce cornely) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 16:17:06 -0500   Thank you Mark. Is it worth waiting for???   bruce cornely o o o __________ o o o ago (dean) ohs o o __________ o o  
(back) Subject: Re: Chicago Theatre Post Horn (CROSS POSTED) From: NFexec <NFexec@aol.com> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 16:40:30 EST   Jason - you have stumbled upon an increasingly difficult and very expensive "hobby". The Wurlitzer Company has not made theatre pipe organs in well over 60 years. There are precious few remaining instruments in this world, as well. If you are serious about wanting to aassemble parts and build one, e- mail me privately and I will be glad to give you some clues about this. In 1998 dollars, you would expect to pay anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000 for a 2 manual 6 or 7 rank instrument in good condition with an electronic relay control system. A 4 manual 28 rank Wurlitzer in good shape would first of all, be almost impossible to find. If you were able to put something like this together, it would probably include some new replica parts (available through 3 or 4 sources in this country) and/or a collection of original equipment that would have to be restored, etc. This would easily cost well in excess of $100K. If you wanted to replicate an original stoplist (which I would not recommend) and keep it all authentic Wurlitzer parts - you would have your work cut out for you - and it would take a very long time to find, rebuild or restore, assemble, regulate, voice, and tonally finish. I know this from experience. In my opinion, it is a task left to those with plenty of disposable cash, lots of time, lots of expertise and lots of patience. I would have to say, though, that the finished product (if they are ever finished) is a treasure when installed in a proper setting. Since there are so few of these "beasts" around, I also personally feel that the more "public" these installations are, the better. Again - please feel free to e-mail me if you'd like.  
(back) Subject: Technics SX-F100 Organ From: JohnB@GCQ.net (John Balboni) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 18:33:28 -0500   Happy New Year to all ...   A friend of mine owns the local Technics piano and organ dealership. He recently got in the new SX-F100 organ. 61 keys upper / lower, 25 note pedal board, full-size roll-top console. 200 PCM sounds featuring 10 different "organ types" -- standard, theater, U.S. traditional, European, jazz drawbars, standard drawbars, theatre drawbars, rock drawbars, theatre pipe organ and classical pipe organ.   I was at his store yesterday for a 1 hour demo. Very impressive sound. I have not heard the competition -- Rogers or Allen equivalents. Price wise, this instrument is in the $28,000 range. So, I am curious if anyone on the list either owns one or has had a chance to try one out. Comments?   Mike Tyo of Technics will be putting a concert on at his store on Jan. 14. I am planning to be there and will give it a more critical listen.   John Balboni Agawam, MA email: JohnB@GCQ.net    
(back) Subject: Re: Technics SX-F100 Organ From: JEFF PEDERSON <jwpeder@viaccess.net> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 20:21:57 -0400       I Think the Technics is the same organ as the new Yamaha AR-100. Like you said Very impressive, and I have heard the compettion. Nothing even come close for the money.   Jeff    
(back) Subject: Re: Technics SX-F100 Organ From: JEFF PEDERSON <jwpeder@viaccess.net> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 20:24:07 -0400   Forgot to tell you I bought the Yamaha AR-100, and the matching Disklavier Piano for the fun of it.   Jeff    
(back) Subject: Re: Technics SX-F100 Organ From: Ken <mewzishn@spec.net> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 23:34:35 +0000       John Balboni wrote:   > Happy New Year to all ... > > A friend of mine owns the local Technics piano and organ dealership. He > recently got in the new SX-F100 organ. 61 keys upper / lower, 25 note pedal   (snip)   > this instrument is in the $28,000 range. So, I am curious if anyone on the > list either owns one or has had a chance to try one out. Comments?   Sound considerations aside, for $28k I'd say a less-than-full-sized pedalboard would be unacceptable. Why does such an expensive instrument have 25, and not 32, pedals?   Ken Sybesma        
(back) Subject: Re: Technics SX-F100 Organ From: JohnB@GCQ.net (John Balboni) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 23:50:28 -0500   Jeff wrote:   >I Think the Technics is the same organ as the new Yamaha AR-100. >Like you said Very impressive, and I have heard the compettion. >Nothing even come close for the money.   Interesting that you bring up Yamaha. I was not aware they were still in the organ business. I don't know if Technics (Panasonic / Matsushita) is designing their organs, but I'll ask my friend.   There has been a fair amount of discussion in the past on this list, in general, pertaining to the quality of the sound samples and the audio system (speakers) used for reproduction. I have owned a Technics GX6M, about 10 years old now. Not a single problem with it. It is a 3 channel audio system.   The SX-F100 also appears to be 3 channel. One channel is bass, and they are using a pair of 12" woofers with bass reflex ports. Lots of low end! (Too much?) I was curious as to what might be unique about their sample technology. Solo voices were very clean. Even when stops were added to bring it up to full organ, it still held up very well.   But there are lots of buttons and the master LCD panel has several layers of menus. Something that would take a bit of learning to get full benefit out of the instrument. There is also a lot of sound editing and customization capability. He had a floppy disk with T.O. registrations on it. Basically, it used all the internal samples, but waveform parameters were optomized for a strong T.O. sound. Now that was impressive!   John Balboni Agawam, MA email: JohnB@GCQ.net    
(back) Subject: Re: Technics SX-F100 Organ From: JohnB@GCQ.net (John Balboni) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 23:55:58 -0500   Ken Sybesma wrote:   >Sound considerations aside, for $28k I'd say a less-than-full-sized pedalboard >would be unacceptable. Why does such an expensive instrument have 25, and not >32, pedals?   A real good question. I can't see much cost difference between 25 and 32 pedals once you are up in this price range.   Anyone from Technics on the list who knows more?   John Balboni Agawam, MA email: JohnB@GCQ.net    
(back) Subject: Re: Technics SX-F100 Organ From: DudelK <DudelK@aol.com> Date: Thu, 1 Jan 1998 01:02:17 EST   Probably because few organists have more than 25 feet to play them pedales!   Happy New Year to all from frigid Washington, DC! Dudel   Time to pour a little splash on Dudel and take the champagne for a walk!