PipeChat Digest #1404 - Thursday, May 18, 2000
 
Re: temperaments
  by "Dave G." <dave_hat@hotmail.com>
Creeping pitch standards
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
A=3D440
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Creeping pitch standards
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs...
  by "Rebekah Ingram" <rringram@syr.edu>
Re: bringing another perspective to the debate
  by "Rebekah Ingram" <rringram@syr.edu>
Re: A=3D440
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
fluidics (is that the right word???), etc.
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs...
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: fluidics (is that the right word???), etc.
  by "Rebekah Ingram" <rringram@syr.edu>
OHS Registration Form
  by "William T. Van Pelt" <bill@organsociety.org>
Re: Wedding Woes
  by <Posthorn8@aol.com>
Re: OHS Registration Form
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Wm. G. Chapman" <wchapmn@attglobal.net>
Re: Wedding Woes
  by <JamesM8336@aol.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: Franck on meantone, Buxtehude on E.M. Skinner, etc. etc. etc.
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs...
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs...
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Syracuse Holtkamp
  by "John  M. Doney" <jdoney@email.msn.com>
Re: A=3D440
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Re: Swell Pedal Still Wanted
  by "Roy Redman" <rredman@imagin.net>
 


(back) Subject: Re: temperaments From: "Dave G." <dave_hat@hotmail.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 12:15:10 PDT     >For good or for ill, we probably CAN'T retreat from A=3D440 and equal >temperament.   That is true, but at the same time was cannot forget that we do have a responsibility to present music in alternative tunings to the public so they at least have a chance to hear and experience _true harmony_.   A=3D440 is right. We need to prevent "note inflation" e.g. the gradual upward frequency creep of concert A over time. It used to be A=3D430, later A=3D435, then snuck up to A=3D438, hopefully 440 will = stick permanently.   DG     ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com    
(back) Subject: Creeping pitch standards From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 12:42:25   At 12:15 PM 5/18/2000 PDT, Dave G. wrote: >A=3D440 is right. We need to prevent "note inflation" e.g. the >gradual upward frequency creep of concert A over time. It used >to be A=3D430, later A=3D435, then snuck up to A=3D438, hopefully 440 = will stick >permanently.<snip>   I think technology will do that for us. 440 is now the common frequency standard in all musical technology, and comparison standards to national clocks, etc., are everywhere and easily accessed to check accuracy. To change it now would be ludicrous. The only ones to benefit from such a change would be instrument manufacturers, who could produce infinitesmally smaller pipes, strings, etc., with minor cost savings. However, when the standard was "creeping" as it was, I think this was a prime mover, perhaps driven by organ builders of the time!   Seriously, I cannot find any works dealing with the rationale for "pitch creep" as it occurred, other than to document that it did happen. Anyone?   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: A=3D440 From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 12:59:13 -0700   I have been told (and I have no reason to doubt it) that orchestras are responsible for pushing the pitch of "A", in order to get more brilliance.   By the time the 1940 Hymnal actually came out (after WWII), most American organs were still at A=3D435, since organ-building had all but ceased = during the war ... Moller made bomb-sight parts, for instance ... or at least they hadn't reached A=3D440. That most church organs still had the older, lower = pitch might account for the high F's (and at least one high "G") in the soprano parts of the hymns in the 1940.   Old St. Mary's in Cincinnati (Austin, 1929) was pitched at something weird like A=3D438, and we guessed that it was probably the original pitch = because pipe lengths, reeds, etc. wouldn't allow going much higher OR lower. If anything, it might have been raised from A=3D435, but 438 was as high as = it would go without having to change the reed stops and cut off the tops of = some of the flues.   I'm fairly sure that E.M. Skinner was building at a lower pitch, because = the chimes in Finney Chapel at Oberlin WEREN'T repitched when GDH rebuilt the organ in the '50s, and the lower pitch of the chimes (and the harp) was = quite obvious.   I make it a practice to take hymns and just about anything else written = before WWII down at least a half-step to compensate ... admittedly that's = overkill, but I like the warmer, lower pitch, and it certainly encourages = congregational participation, not to mention keeping my one by-courtesy tenor (actually a baritone) happy.   Cheers,   Bud   "Dave G." wrote:   > >For good or for ill, we probably CAN'T retreat from A=3D440 and equal > >temperament. > > That is true, but at the same time was cannot forget that we do > have a responsibility to present music in alternative tunings to > the public so they at least have a chance to hear and experience > _true harmony_. > > A=3D440 is right. We need to prevent "note inflation" e.g. the > gradual upward frequency creep of concert A over time. It used > to be A=3D430, later A=3D435, then snuck up to A=3D438, hopefully 440 = will stick > permanently. > > DG > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: Re: Creeping pitch standards From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:07:57 -0700   I seem to recall a conference of orchestra conductors (Paris? in the = 1920s?) that at least CALLED for an international standard of A=3D440, if indeed = they didn't take it upon themselves to SET it.   A friend of mine is active in orchestral circles in Europe ... it seems to = me that he told me the Berlin Philharmonic (?) pushes it even higher for = certain concerts of certain composers' music. I'll ask him.   Chris?   Cheers,   Bud   Bob Scarborough wrote:   > At 12:15 PM 5/18/2000 PDT, Dave G. wrote: > >A=3D440 is right. We need to prevent "note inflation" e.g. the > >gradual upward frequency creep of concert A over time. It used > >to be A=3D430, later A=3D435, then snuck up to A=3D438, hopefully 440 = will stick > >permanently.<snip> > > I think technology will do that for us. 440 is now the common frequency > standard in all musical technology, and comparison standards to national > clocks, etc., are everywhere and easily accessed to check accuracy. To > change it now would be ludicrous. The only ones to benefit from such a > change would be instrument manufacturers, who could produce = infinitesmally > smaller pipes, strings, etc., with minor cost savings. However, when = the > standard was "creeping" as it was, I think this was a prime mover, = perhaps > driven by organ builders of the time! > > Seriously, I cannot find any works dealing with the rationale for "pitch > creep" as it occurred, other than to document that it did happen. = Anyone? > > DeserTBoB > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs... From: "Rebekah Ingram" <rringram@syr.edu> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 16:10:09 -0400     ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Scarborough <desertbob@rglobal.net> To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 10:04 AM Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs...     > At 12:27 PM 5/18/2000 -0400, you wrote: > >Somebody, pull me outta the water here, I'm -really- > >confused....<snip> > > :::DeserTBoB hands Rebekah a traffic cone for a dunce hat and invites = her > to join us over in Confused Corner, where we're all gathering now, > resplendent in our shiny orange traffic cones::::   Yay! A Conehead party! Or rather an upside-down reed party...   -Rebekah    
(back) Subject: Re: bringing another perspective to the debate From: "Rebekah Ingram" <rringram@syr.edu> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 16:21:56 -0400     ----- Original Message ----- From: <Quilisma@socal.rr.com> To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 1:38 PM Subject: bringing another perspective to the debate   > Prior to the 20th century, there wasn't much concern about stylistic integrity. > What little earlier music that was played and sung was played and sung = in the > style of the times. Consider that for the first performance of the St. Matthew > Passion since Bach's death, Mendelssohn rewrote the recitatives, presumably in > "Mendelssohn" style. Other examples abound ... romantic editions of = Bach's > organ works, complete with markings for the swell box(es),   And let's not forget Virgil's romantic versions of various Orgelbuchlein favorites! ;)   > Perhaps someday (4) WON'T be limited to tracker-mechanical key action = ... I > have read some fascinating articles about experiments in fluidic (sp?) > technology going on in Europe.   ???! Cool!!! More, info, please!   -Rebekah      
(back) Subject: Re: A=3D440 From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:33:57   At 12:59 PM 5/18/2000 -0700, you wrote: >I make it a practice to take hymns and just about anything else written before >WWII down at least a half-step to compensate<snip>   Heh! Don't try that on an unequally tempered thingie, though! = Yeeeeeeeeow!   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: fluidics (is that the right word???), etc. From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:56:14 -0700         > Bud wrote: > > > Perhaps someday (4) WON'T be limited to tracker-mechanical key action = ... > I > > have read some fascinating articles about experiments in fluidic (sp?) > > technology going on in Europe.   Rebekah wrote:   > ???! Cool!!! More, info, please! > > -Rebekah >   If the International Society of Organbuilders has a webpage and an archive = of past journals, maybe you can dig up the actual article there ... or = perhaps an organbuilder chat member has it and can scan it in and post it here.   It's MUCH more complex and MUCH more sophisticated than this, but I think basically it involved substituting a non-corrosive, inert liquid for the = column of air used to actuate a tubular pneumatic action. The mechanism was = different, of course, and MUCH more sensitive ... activating a key or stop would = produce minute differences in the pressure of the liquid, which would in turn fire = the pallet (or probably a pneumatic primary) or the slider motor ... I think = that was the gist of it. I forget what the advantages were supposed to be, but = it was remarkable enough that I at least remembered the article (grin).   I think it was The Tracker that covered the Notre Dame rebuild ... that = was an attempt to make a computer-driven velocity-sensitive key action that would = mimic tracker and/or Barker lever in that the pallets would open at the same = speed the keys were depressed. It failed initially not so much because the concept = was faulty, but because the Cathedral turned out to be a much more hostile environment (heat, dust, cold, moisture) for the computer equipment than = they'd reckoned it would be. I understand that the organ is playing again, but = I'm not sure if they utilized exactly the same apparatus.   I think All Saints', Ashmont Station (Boston) was something similar ... = the church authorities wanted a chancel console that would play the Fisk = tracker organ in the gallery, as well as the older electric-action chancel organ. = That was covered here (I think) awhile back ... it was abandoned, again, not primarily because the system was at fault, but because of financial considerations and the fact that the Rector changed his mind as to what he wanted to do with the chancel organ, or something like that.   Cheers,   Bud        
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs... From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 13:57:49 -0700   Now THERE'S a stop that was just WAITING to be invented:   TRAFFIC CONE EN CHAMADE (ducking), or maybe GRIDLOCK 16-8-4 (hiding).   Bud   Rebekah Ingram wrote:   > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Bob Scarborough <desertbob@rglobal.net> > To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> > Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 10:04 AM > Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs... > > > At 12:27 PM 5/18/2000 -0400, you wrote: > > >Somebody, pull me outta the water here, I'm -really- > > >confused....<snip> > > > > :::DeserTBoB hands Rebekah a traffic cone for a dunce hat and invites = her > > to join us over in Confused Corner, where we're all gathering now, > > resplendent in our shiny orange traffic cones:::: > > Yay! A Conehead party! Or rather an upside-down reed party... > > -Rebekah > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: Re: fluidics (is that the right word???), etc. From: "Rebekah Ingram" <rringram@syr.edu> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 17:07:22 -0400     ----- Original Message ----- From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 4:56 PM Subject: fluidics (is that the right word???), etc.   Bud said:   > It's MUCH more complex and MUCH more sophisticated than this, but I = think > basically it involved substituting a non-corrosive, inert liquid for the column > of air used to actuate a tubular pneumatic action. The mechanism was different, > of course, and MUCH more sensitive ... activating a key or stop would produce > minute differences in the pressure of the liquid, which would in turn = fire the > pallet (or probably a pneumatic primary) or the slider motor ... I think that > was the gist of it. I forget what the advantages were supposed to be, = but it was > remarkable enough that I at least remembered the article (grin).   Sounds, oddly enough, like the mechanics of the bird whistle on our Kerner and Merchant in First Presby here in Syracuse. ;-)   Hm.   -Rebekah      
(back) Subject: OHS Registration Form From: "William T. Van Pelt" <bill@organsociety.org> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 17:13:37 -0400   Hi, Scott and List:   I agree with Scott that it seems awful that we can't seem to prepare the convention registration form any sooner than we do. It went out in May last year for the convention in Montreal. We may have had a few more than the 385 who came to Montreal if we had mailed it sooner, but I doubt it. Still, it would be helpful to everyone if we could just get the = information together sooner.   Anyway, we were finally able to send the form to the printer today. We will be mailing it First Class to all OHS members as soon as the printer has completed it, we hope by mid-next-week.   Meantime, I've sent a PDF version to our webmaster to put on the website = at http://www.organsociety/boston. Maybe he'll have time to do that today, otherwise I'd expect to see it by the end of the week.   Those who are not OHS members and who are interested in receiving a copy = of the registration information via snail mail can request it at <conreg@organsociety.org> OHS members need not request it -- it will be sent automatically as soon as it is ready.   Bill Van Pelt OHS  
(back) Subject: Re: Wedding Woes From: <Posthorn8@aol.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 17:29:06 EDT   I played a wedding once (same church where the widow ask me to play "Feelings" for her husbands funeral) where the whole wedding party didn't show up till an hour after it was supposed to start. Turned out the bride = was the only one in the party that had a valid drivers license. She had to run =   all over Syracuse and pick everyone up.   Tim  
(back) Subject: Re: OHS Registration Form From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 14:37:20 -0700   Perhaps having something to do with Alan Laufman's retirement as = Convention whatever (grin)?   Cheers,   Bud   "William T. Van Pelt" wrote:   > Hi, Scott and List: > > I agree with Scott that it seems awful that we can't seem to prepare the > convention registration form any sooner than we do. It went out in May > last year for the convention in Montreal. We may have had a few more = than > the 385 who came to Montreal if we had mailed it sooner, but I doubt it. > Still, it would be helpful to everyone if we could just get the = information > together sooner. > > Anyway, we were finally able to send the form to the printer today. We > will be mailing it First Class to all OHS members as soon as the printer > has completed it, we hope by mid-next-week. > > Meantime, I've sent a PDF version to our webmaster to put on the website = at > http://www.organsociety/boston. Maybe he'll have time to do that today, > otherwise I'd expect to see it by the end of the week. > > Those who are not OHS members and who are interested in receiving a copy = of > the registration information via snail mail can request it at > <conreg@organsociety.org> OHS members need not request it -- it will be > sent automatically as soon as it is ready. > > Bill Van Pelt > OHS > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Wm. G. Chapman" <wchapmn@attglobal.net> Date: Thu, 18 May 00 14:54:45 -0800   The other day I say this exchange:   On Mon, 15 May 2000 21:25:12, Bob Scarborough wrote:   >At 09:48 PM 5/15/2000 EDT, you wrote: >>It is a serious mistake to >>encourage the proliferation of "maintenance free" equipment. There is = no >>such thing, except that which is disposable.<snip> > >Sorry, invalid arguement, and here's why. Witness... >One must take emotional backlash out of such decisions in engineering. I >saw these decisions being made on a daily basis at AT&T, and the cost >savings long and short term was phenomenal, while improved deliverables >were secured by the customer. Certainly, the "art" of telephony was >fascinating throughout 20th century, but the fact remained that equipment >that needed constant, or at least predicitable, routine maintenance was >scrapped in favor of that which required no routine maintenance = whatsoever. <snip> >DeserTBoB   Now since I was raised in the shadow of the AT&T telephony maven "Weird Harold," who holds some 150 patents in communications I decided to run this by him because he would really know -- he is a product of Bell Labs, Northern Telecom, and more other places than I can mention.   This is what he said, in a nutshell: 1) The cost of maintaining telephone switching systems is far greater today than 20 years ago. ... 2) Back 20 years ago the central office did not mandate the need for air conditioning. 3) Further more the electrical bill to operate a switch was lower because ... (cost varied with call load) 4) 20 years ago you did not have to train people as maintenance programmers, on-line switch technicians and yield to mandatory hardware and software updates dictated by a switch supplier. 5) ... if you do not take the upgrade they will orphan your switch and provide no further maintenance help .... 6) Give me twenty years ago anytime in preference to todays hijackings of the telephone company operating cost ....   Since Weird Harold was amongst the first group of engineers to develop the technology that made a solid state telephone switch possible and has had to keep stuff going for a very picky clientele I think I will side with him. Therefore, There is no such thing as "maintenance free" equipment.   Grant Chapman      
(back) Subject: Re: Wedding Woes From: <JamesM8336@aol.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 19:23:46 EDT   Late starting weddings occur in Ohio also. Several years ago I agreed to =   play for a wedding in Fremont, Ohio (and I have to admit it was on an electronic organ). The rehearsal had to be on Monday evening, because an evangelistic team was coming in the rest of the week. Saturday, wedding = day, arrived. Much to my surprise the electronic I had seen on Monday was no longer there, but instead another electric monster with lots of colored = tabs. Added to that, about 5 minutes before processional time, someone told me = the bride had left her shoes in Clyde--a town at least 5 or 6 miles away--and someone was going there to get them. A half hour later, we started the processional.   Lucy  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 17:08:58   At 02:54 PM 5/18/2000 -0800, you wrote: >Since Weird Harold was amongst the first group of engineers >to develop the technology that made a solid state telephone >switch possible and has had to keep stuff going for a very >picky clientele I think I will side with him.<snip>   Harold's a "lab head". We had to deal with these people on a semi-regular basis in the major switches and carrier offices. Great for hypothesizing and whatnot, LOUSY in terms of how it worked in the field. I will save this and pick apart his arguments, one by one, based on 20 years of Bell System and AT&T experience in both operations and engineering, but now I gotta scoot!   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Re: Franck on meantone, Buxtehude on E.M. Skinner, etc. etc. etc. From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 08:36:14 +0800   Purely a subjective assessment. Bruce. Back it up with some concrete = evidence please!   Bob E.   Cremona502@cs.com wrote: However, the best organs are being built in the United States.    
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs... From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 08:40:13 +0800   Bruce, conisder this; I could send you a recording of, say, six organs, = one of which is electronic, and if you picked correctly which one was a "toaster" = as you call them, I would say that you were fortunate enough to have fluked the 1 in 6 = chance of getting it right anyway! Whatever you may think of "them" they are now = very good indeed! Bob E. Cremona502@cs.com wrote:   > In a message dated 5/18/00 8:36:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > elmsr@albanyis.com.au writes: > > > A REAL one! I mean a REAL one! > I would try a REAL one; however, they are NOT real. I have neither = the > desire nor inclination to subject my ears to these things. Don't care = to > be fooled/made a fool of, either! I can happily finish my life = without > hearing another appliance pseudo-organ substitute. > > Bruce > . .    
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs... From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 08:43:10 +0800   Rebekah: I don't think you are nearly as confused as Bruce!!! Bob E.   Rebekah Ingram wrote:   > Bruce said:> growth among organists. Being narrow minded is so > unproductive. > > ???!!! Am I missing something here?! I thought -you- were the one being > narrow-minded! Somebody, pull me outta the water here, I'm -really- > confused.... > > -Rebekah >    
(back) Subject: Syracuse Holtkamp From: "John M. Doney" <jdoney@email.msn.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 20:59:03 -0000   As one of the many Poister students, I can verify that the Syracuse = Holtkamp was an organ that could play anything. My registrations now sometimes reflect sounds that I remember from my experiences on the Crouse organ. John          
(back) Subject: Re: A=3D440 From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Fri, 19 May 2000 08:59:34 +0800   I don't think that is correct. My understanding (and I was playing when = the pitch change was made) was that there were three pitches being used world wide - continental (low A=3D 415(?)), New Philharmonic (A=3D440) and Concert = Pitch (A=3D450 something), and that the pitch was standardised at A=3D440 to get away = from the utter confusion world wide. As an example it was absolute lunacy that a = saxophone made in the USA could not be played to a piano in ther UK without the = piano being completely retuned. I think it would be extremely unlikely that there would be any further = change EXCEPT that some electronic organs can be played at A=3D415 or A=3D440 and = in different temperaments at both pitches. Bruce tells us that an electronic instrument can't be tuned at anything = correctly but that is patently incorrect as anyone who tests a GOOD electronic organ = can tell for him(her) self . Bob E. quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote:   > I have been told (and I have no reason to doubt it) that orchestras are > responsible for pushing the pitch of "A", in order to get more = brilliance. > > Cheers, > > Bud > > "Dave G." wrote: > > > >For good or for ill, we probably CAN'T retreat from A=3D440 and equal > > >temperament. > > > > That is true, but at the same time was cannot forget that we do > > have a responsibility to present music in alternative tunings to > > the public so they at least have a chance to hear and experience > > _true harmony_. > > > > A=3D440 is right. We need to prevent "note inflation" e.g. the > > gradual upward frequency creep of concert A over time. It used > > to be A=3D430, later A=3D435, then snuck up to A=3D438, hopefully 440 = will stick > > permanently. > > > > DG > > > > = ________________________________________________________________________ > > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at = http://www.hotmail.com > > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org   -- ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/      
(back) Subject: Re: Swell Pedal Still Wanted From: "Roy Redman" <rredman@imagin.net> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 08:45:42 -0500   Not sure why you want rack and pinion??? Peterson , SSL and perhaps = others sell linear pots for swell shoes. They work well and eliminate the r&p. Roy   MickBerg@aol.com wrote:   > I had no success in getting a Klann Swell Pedal with a rack and pinion = drive > for an audio pot. Just one offer of a pair which wasn't to be broken up, = and > was too expensive. So I am now asking if anyone has any kind of pedal = with a > rack and pinion on it, so I can modify the regular Klann pedal on my = console. > > As an advertisement for the versatility of my MIDI program "Building = Blocks", > I would like to mention that I could perfectly easily use the pedal as = it is, > with the progressive contacts, and use fifteen of my MIDI note inputs to > control the volume, just as if I were opening swell shutters one after = the > other. But it would occupy fifteen inputs, which is a bit excessive! > > My PC Organ project is nearly complete, and I will be writing up a full > description soon. > > Mick Berg. > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org