PipeChat Digest #2202 - Friday, July 6, 2001
 
Re: A "Fuller" key
  by "Jackson R. Williams II" <jackwilliams_1999@yahoo.com>
Re: A "Fuller" key
  by "Jackson R. Williams II" <jackwilliams_1999@yahoo.com>
Re: Daniel
  by "Jackson R. Williams II" <jackwilliams_1999@yahoo.com>
Re: analog vs digital
  by "VEAGUE" <dutchorgan@svs.net>
Re: analog vs digital
  by "douglas morgan" <dkmorgan76209@yahoo.com>
Re: analog vs digital
  by "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net>
Re: Microphones, Singing, and Acoustics
  by "Jon C. Habermaas" <opus1100@catoe.org>
Re: A "Fuller" key
  by "Stephen F. P. Karr" <karr_sf@acadmn.mercer.edu>
Re: A "Fuller" key
  by "Jackson R. Williams II" <jackwilliams_1999@yahoo.com>
Re:  A "Fuller" key
  by "douglas morgan" <dkmorgan76209@yahoo.com>
Re: A "Fuller" key
  by "Stephen F. P. Karr" <karr_sf@acadmn.mercer.edu>
Re: Doing it right!
  by "Bob Conway" <conwayb@sympatico.ca>
Kathleen Battle and perfect pitch - a funny story
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: analog vs digital
  by <ORGANUT@aol.com>
Re: Two manual, 30-stop organ
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@home.com>
OHS sells Virgil Fox Book
  by "William T. Van Pelt" <bill@organsociety.org>
Re: the eternal debate (X-posted from organchat, by request)
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@home.com>
Re: analog vs digital
  by <Wurlibird1@aol.com>
Re: Blowers for small organ
  by "Randy Terry" <randyterryus@yahoo.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: A "Fuller" key From: "Jackson R. Williams II" <jackwilliams_1999@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:21:27 -0700 (PDT)   The last chord is easier to play with the feet in D-flat. If it were in C major, the feet would have to play all the white keys of the pedal board which is clumsier. JW --- Jeffery Korns <jakorns@home.com> wrote: > I read that introduction to the arrangement too, but > if he'd a put it in C > he could have gone one note lower. > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net> > To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 11:25 PM > Subject: Re: A "Fuller" key > > > > Robert Hebble said the reason Fox's arrangement is > in Db, is so the lowest > > notes on of the pedals are heard in that last > chord. > > > > Carlo > > > > > > "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 >     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/  
(back) Subject: Re: A "Fuller" key From: "Jackson R. Williams II" <jackwilliams_1999@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:31:16 -0700 (PDT)     --- Panning <jpanning@cal-net.net> wrote:   There is some truth to this idea if one is considering only unequal temperaments, where the distance between semitones and other intervals varies from key to key. However, with a true equal temperament, every semitone is exactly 100 cents apart from its neighbors. Any scale of the same type (major, minor, etc.) will have the same relationship between the intervals.   Here is a C-major scale.   C 0 D 200 E 400 F 500 G 700 A 900 B 1100 c 1200   Here is an E-major scale:   E 0 F# 200 G# 400 A 500 B 700 C# 900 D# 1100 e 1200   This works IN THEORY, but unfortunately not in practice. Even with equal temperament, there are slight variations because of several factors including acoustics (not of the room, but of physical properties). When you tune all fifths perfectly, there will still be intervals whose colors will differ from key to key because of overtone lineup. The ear really does differentiate. I understand what you mean, John, it is written that way in theoretical books. But what actually happens in equal temperement is slightly different. There really is no absolute equal temperament. And a good composer does choose his keys with care DUE TO COLOR.   __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/  
(back) Subject: Re: Daniel From: "Jackson R. Williams II" <jackwilliams_1999@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 04:38:29 -0700 (PDT)   Welcome back, Daniel. God bless you!   --- DanielW Hopkins <danielwh1@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote: > Hey > , Just getting around to sending emails again. Its > been so long that I have been away from my > computer,that I forget where stuff is on it. > I had a great time at the OHS convention, Anyone > who wasnt there was missing a fun time. > I made many friends and many good memories there. > I may make it on chat tomorrow, but I will be gone > on Monday and wont be online probly till Aug 3 > Pipechat. > > P.S. > If Joseph McCabe is reading this, Please send me an > email. I cant find your Email Address > > > "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 >     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/  
(back) Subject: Re: analog vs digital From: "VEAGUE" <dutchorgan@svs.net> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 06:46:45 -0500   Re: Early electronic voice samples >   WurliTzer back in the 50s used actual pipes with oscilloscope measurements of tone. I remember seeing a sales brochure picturing a (WurliTzer) lab-worker taking such measurements.   Hope this helps.   Rick    
(back) Subject: Re: analog vs digital From: "douglas morgan" <dkmorgan76209@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 07:34:45 -0700 (PDT)   Dear VEAGUE:   For some forty years, I have heard advertisements of various electronic organs (i.e., photo-cell recordings of actual pipes) for electronic reproduction of pipe organs, but the end result is quite disappointing.   I think Virgil Fox hit the nail on the head when he said that "Finding organ pipes in an electronic organ factory is like finding birdshit in a cuckoo clock."   D. Keith Morgan --- VEAGUE <dutchorgan@svs.net> wrote: > Re: Early electronic voice samples > > > WurliTzer back in the 50s used actual pipes with > oscilloscope measurements > of tone. I remember seeing a sales brochure > picturing a (WurliTzer) > lab-worker taking such measurements. > > Hope this helps. > > Rick > > > "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 >     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/  
(back) Subject: Re: analog vs digital From: "Carlo Pietroniro" <organist@total.net> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 10:40:02 -0400   what a great Virgil Fox quote!!! This man was truly wise..........   c.p.    
(back) Subject: Re: Microphones, Singing, and Acoustics From: "Jon C. Habermaas" <opus1100@catoe.org> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 09:12:29 -0500   At 11:47 PM 7/5/01 -0400, you wrote: >A successful sound system does its job without bringing undue attention = to >itself.   That comment says it all. I cannot understand why so many church people believe that a overbearing sound system is essential. I guess perhaps it = is an result of the "rock sound" where over amplification is the norm. A overzealous PA operator drove me right out of one church...the piano and drums where miked along with everything else and the gain was usually so high you couldn't hear the person singing next to you....I found a = Lutheran Church nearby with a traditional service complete with pipe organ which I =   now regularly attend.   Jon          
(back) Subject: Re: A "Fuller" key From: "Stephen F. P. Karr" <karr_sf@acadmn.mercer.edu> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 10:48:02 -0400   Jackson Williams wrote:   > This works IN THEORY, but unfortunately not in > practice. Even with equal temperament, there are > slight variations because of several factors including > acoustics (not of the room, but of physical > properties). When you tune all fifths perfectly, > there will still be intervals whose colors will differ > from key to key because of overtone lineup.   The whole point of equal temperament is that no interval (save the octave and the unison) is tuned perfectly. The fifth is very, very close, but it is not tuned exactly to a perfect fifth. Next time you are in the vicinity of a piano or an organ in equal, play a fifth. . .it will beat ever so slightly.   This is a quandry that people tried to solve for centuries, which is where we got quarter and fifth comma meantone, well temperament, the various Kirnbergers and Werckmeisters, and many others. Each of these is based on tuning a certain interval (i. e. the third or the fifth) as closely as possible to perfectly. Interestingly, a perfectly tuned third and a perfectly tuned fifth do *not* work together. Anyhow, equal is a compromise, agreeing not to tune any non-unison interval properly.   Other than seeing the score, knowing the key signature, and having good relative pitch, there truly is no difference between the keys, other than they are a little higher or lower than the others, and that some prefer to play in keys with fewer flats and sharps.   For a little fun, find your nearest neighborhood organ tuned in quarter-comma meantone with G#/Ab and D#/Eb split keys, and play around with those for a while. It is an enlightening experience.   -Stephen Karr    
(back) Subject: Re: A "Fuller" key From: "Jackson R. Williams II" <jackwilliams_1999@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 08:24:52 -0700 (PDT)   It is for the very reason that all fifths (and other intervals) in equal temperament do end up having different beats that different keys DO sound different. Again, really smart composers choose their keys for color as well as range.   --- "Stephen F. P. Karr" <karr_sf@acadmn.mercer.edu> wrote: > > The whole point of equal temperament is that no > interval (save the > octave and the unison) is tuned perfectly. The > fifth is very, very > close, but it is not tuned exactly to a perfect > fifth. Next time you > are in the vicinity of a piano or an organ in equal, > play a fifth. . .it > will beat ever so slightly. > > This is a quandry that people tried to solve for > centuries, which is > where we got quarter and fifth comma meantone, well > temperament, the > various Kirnbergers and Werckmeisters, and many > others. Each of these > is based on tuning a certain interval (i. e. the > third or the fifth) as > closely as possible to perfectly. Interestingly, a > perfectly tuned > third and a perfectly tuned fifth do *not* work > together. Anyhow, equal > is a compromise, agreeing not to tune any non-unison > interval properly. > > Other than seeing the score, knowing the key > signature, and having good > relative pitch, there truly is no difference between > the keys, other > than they are a little higher or lower than the > others, and that some > prefer to play in keys with fewer flats and sharps. > > For a little fun, find your nearest neighborhood > organ tuned in > quarter-comma meantone with G#/Ab and D#/Eb split > keys, and play around > with those for a while. It is an enlightening > experience. > > -Stephen Karr > > > "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 >     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/  
(back) Subject: Re: A "Fuller" key From: "douglas morgan" <dkmorgan76209@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 08:28:52 -0700 (PDT)   Dear List:   Again the subject of "perfect pitch" has come up.   I would like to tell you a true story which happened to me recently:   I tuned a piano for a local music teacher who insisted that she had perfect pitch. She was very adamant, vocal, and unsuccessful in her attempt to convince me of this.   She played the piano and said that the tuning was "pretty good", but that there were three notes that were out of tune. I asked her "Out of tune with what?" She replied that she didn't know -- she just had perfect pitch and they sounded out of tune to her. The telephone rang and whe went into the kitchen to answer it.   I had put away my tools and was sitting in a chair across the room and was ready to go. In a few minutes she came back to the piano. I asked her to try those three notes and tell me if they sounded any better. She did, and exclaimed,"Oh, that's MUCH better!"   I hadn't gotten out of the chair.   If an instrument has been tuned to an absolutely perfect A=3D440 (especially an organ) and the temperature changes up or down 1/2 of a degree, the pitch will change. The change may be imperceptible, but nevertheless a change has occured. Your absoluteluy perfect A=3D440 is gone. If anyone really had "perfect pitch" (which doesn't exist), that change would drive them crazy.   I wish I had a nickel for everytime I tuned for people claiming to have "perfect pitch" only to find their personal pianos 1/2 step flat!   D. Keith Morgan --- "Paul R. Swank" <prswank@surfbest.net> wrote: > I don't have perfect pitch, but I can sense a > difference in the fullness of > the tone between a C Major chord and a D Flat Major > chord. Maybe the > aesthetic is in my mind, but for me, it is there. I > agree that > scientifically, when the organ has a transposer > turned up one-half step, > the relationships between notes are the same and a C > Major chord becomes a > D Flat Major chord. > Somehow, the D Flat Major chord seems richer in > tonal quality. Of course, > all these aesthetic terms such as richness of tone, > fullness of tone, are > subjective. > > you wrote: > > >The perception of key signature, what some call > "affective key > >characteristics", has interested me for a long > time. I think that our sense > >of the character or color of a key is largely > informed by our knowledge of > >the character of the *music* written for that key, > rather than any inherent > >quality of the pitches composing that key's scale. > With equal temperament, > >it can't come from the key itself: something > written in Db and transposed > >up to D will have the same mathematic relationships > between the notes of > >the scale. > > > >The German poet Christian Schubart wrote about key > colors in his "Ideen zu > >einer Aesthetik der Tonkunst." (1806). His > description (in English) of the > >character of various keys can be found here: > > > >http://www.wmich.edu/mus-theo/courses/keys.html > > > >By the way, Paul, do you have absolute ("perfect") > pitch? > > > >John A. Panning > >Lake City, Iowa > > > "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 >     __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/  
(back) Subject: Re: A "Fuller" key From: "Stephen F. P. Karr" <karr_sf@acadmn.mercer.edu> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 11:41:08 -0400   "Jackson R. Williams II" wrote: >It is for the very reason that all fifths (and other >intervals) in equal temperament do end up having >different beats that different keys DO sound >different. Again, really smart composers choose their >keys for color as well as range.   Allow me to clarify what I was saying. In my earlier message I said that a fifth in equal temperament will beat, ever so slightly, to indicate that it is not tuned perfectly. In equal temperament (both in theory and in practice), all fifths are tuned with the exact same amount of beat. It cannot be otherwise. The whole point of equal temperament is that any interval, played in any key, will sound exactly like that interval played in any other key. Therefore, the number of beats in any given fifth in equal temperament will be exactly equal to the number of beats found in any other fifth, regardless of the key in which it is played.   -Stephen Karr    
(back) Subject: Re: Doing it right! From: "Bob Conway" <conwayb@sympatico.ca> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 11:41:55 -0400   Douglas Morgan's story reminds me of when I was an apprentice to one of = the finest Scientific Instrument Makers in London, back in the 1940's.   He was always VERY critical of all our work, and we learned to simply put that job on the back of the bench, and do nothing about it, - when he came =   around again, he would look at it and say, " That's fine. Why couldn't you =   do it right the first time"...   Nuff said!   Bob Conway At 08:28 AM 7/6/01 -0700, you wrote: >Dear List: > >Again the subject of "perfect pitch" has come up. > >I would like to tell you a true story which happened >to me recently: > >I tuned a piano for a local music teacher who insisted >that she had perfect pitch. She was very adamant, >vocal, and unsuccessful in her attempt to convince me >of this. > >She played the piano and said that the tuning was >"pretty good", but that there were three notes that >were out of tune. I asked her "Out of tune with >what?" She replied that she didn't know -- she just >had perfect pitch and they sounded out of tune to her. > The telephone rang and whe went into the kitchen to >answer it. > >I had put away my tools and was sitting in a chair >across the room and was ready to go. In a few minutes >she came back to the piano. I asked her to try those >three notes and tell me if they sounded any better. >She did, and exclaimed,"Oh, that's MUCH better!" > >I hadn't gotten out of the chair.      
(back) Subject: Kathleen Battle and perfect pitch - a funny story From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 08:58:44 -0700   Kathy Battle has perfect pitch (didn't you just KNOW she would??!!).   We were classmates at Cincinnati College-Conservatory of Music in the late 1960s - early 1970s; she was my soprano soloist at Old St. Mary's for eight years, until she got "discovered" and went off to be famous (grin).   Now, St. Mary's was an Austin of 1928, and evidently pitch had started to rise by then, 'cause it was tuned to A=3D438 or something weird like that ... but it couldn't be brought down to 435, or raised to 440, without a lot of expense and hassle (it was a fair-sized 3m organ, with a fair number of reed stops), so I just left it ... it was a nice, warm sound, and the church's chamber orchestra COULD get down to 438 ... they hated it, but they could DO it.   Well, Ms Battle SWORE she had to transpose everything DOWN in her head to sing with St. Mary's organ (grin). And of course the modern-notation Libers were written in no sharps or flats ... we transposed the chants to wherever they needed to be ... THAT drove her MAD (grin). But she managed ... unlike Jimmy Levine, she never gave ME any guff (chuckle).   Cheers,   Bud-by-the-Beach    
(back) Subject: Re: analog vs digital From: <ORGANUT@aol.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:46:43 EDT   In a message dated 07/06/2001 9:35:57 AM Central Daylight Time, dkmorgan76209@yahoo.com writes:   << I think Virgil Fox hit the nail on the head when he said that "Finding organ pipes in an electronic organ factory is like finding birdshit in a cuckoo clock." ROFLMAO I have added this little jewel to my list of "favorite quotes".   Phil Lyons Jr.  
(back) Subject: Re: Two manual, 30-stop organ From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@home.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 11:54:53 -0500   Dear Sebastian,   Looks like a fine instrument. How much will it cost, including = installation, finishing, etc.? Not an idle question, I will be going to my vestry within the year about the pending replacement of our instrument.   Russ Greene St. Andrew's Anglican Church (Woodhaven)    
(back) Subject: OHS sells Virgil Fox Book From: "William T. Van Pelt" <bill@organsociety.org> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:03:36 -0400   The new book "Virgil Fox (The Dish)" by Richard Torrence and Marshall Yaeger, based on a memoir by Ted Alan Worth, is now available at http://www.ohscatalog.org   Bill    
(back) Subject: Re: the eternal debate (X-posted from organchat, by request) From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@home.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2001 12:10:58 -0500   Good grief, are we still trying to prove that pipe organs are as = inexpensive as digitals. Of course it is completely true that a very large custom-spec digital organ will cost as much or even more than a very small pipe organ. That fact is also completely irrelevant. You're not even remotely looking = at the same buyer.   And are we still trying to prove that electronics take more maintenance = than pipes? Get a life. The four Allens I have been personally responsible for, = 1 at home, 3 in churches, have had less maintenance in time and dollars over their entire (so far) 20 - 25 year lives than any of the five pipe organs = (3 Casavants, 1 Hill, Norman & Beard, 1 Canadian Pipe Organ Co.) I have been responsible for had in any given one-year period. In fact, over a 20 year timespan, the maintenance costs on any of those pipe organs would = virtually equal the full purchase price of a replacement Allen.   Which do I prefer? Now that's a different question altogether. I love = pipes and I'll be going after pipes when we replace our church organ in the relatively near future. But I certainly won't be trying to convince anyone that it will be cheaper!   Russ Greene   =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D   On 7/4/01 6:28 PM, Bud wrote:   >> Hmmm ... I've never heard a thorough discussion of this before ... it >> sounds to ME like IF you want to maintain an electronic instrument in >> tip-top shape on a level AS CLOSE TO a good pipe organ as possible, >> you're going to have maintenance costs approaching that of a pipe >> organ,   ....   >> Here's a cautionary note: IF electronic organ makers and installers >> approached the manufacture and installation of THEIR instruments with >> the SAME care as a fine pipe organ builder, this argument could get a >> LOT more interesting (grin). But 99% of them DON'T, except for the >> occasional custom organ, which forms a very small part of the total >> output of ANY of the electronic organ makers. And the simple reason is >> because THEN their costs WOULD be comparable to that of a good pipe >> organ (grin), which would leave us back where we STARTED (chuckle) >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bud    
(back) Subject: Re: analog vs digital From: <Wurlibird1@aol.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 13:57:33 EDT   Carlo inquires:     >I know digital organs use samples from real pipes to get their remarkable >sound, but how did these early electronic organs work. Was there sampling >back then too?<<     Hi, Carlo and List. Here is a very rudimentary reply to your question.   In a sense, yes, but for a different purpose. EORG builders sampled pipes = to determine their fundamental and harmonic structure so that voicing = networks could be built to emulate that waveform. A network of capacitors, = resistors, and coils were used by many to produce the resultant voice of a stop. = This was the basis for voices on oscillator organs with leader brands using the =   network for the entire scale of the manual. More sophisticated builders = used multiple networks for sections of the scale to produce a more consistent voice over the entire spectrum. The voices were compared with actual = pipes (by means of spectrum analyzers and oscilloscopes) for approximation of = the voice.   Allen gained control over individual harmonics with their digital computer =   organs, allowing each harmonic (within their limitations) to be controlled = in amplitude. As technology advanced, allowing new avenues around existing patents, others were soon to follow.   Everyone attempting to emulate pipe tone sampled pipes for the above = stated purposes. Digital sampling (sampled wave technology) rendered the old = analog methods useless in today's scheme of things. RLC formants were approximations while sampled wave technology resulted in more accurate representations.   Virgil Fox's comment was appropriate for the time in which it was made. I =   rather think the Maestro would be more reserved today, considering the advancements realized in just the past decade.   Early EORG builders, while held is disdain by many pipe purists, deserve a =   little congratulation. They tackled a seemingly impossible task and did a =   fair job of synthesizing the most complex of musical instruments.   Best wishes,   Jim Pitts    
(back) Subject: Re: Blowers for small organ From: "Randy Terry" <randyterryus@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 11:08:21 -0700 (PDT)   I played a Fritts, or maybe it is a Bond, I can't remember - but = delightful continuo organ recently. The stool contained the small blower, which I thought was cool. = It was practically silent.   --- Gary Black <gblack@ocslink.com> wrote: > HI, After you get your blower you can make or have made a sound = deading box in which to place > the blower. I have a 1 horse blower for my residence organ and it is in = a blower box, much > quieter now. I thought that may help. Gary > ----- Original Message ----- > From: William P. Adams > To: pipechat@pipechat.org > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2001 11:23 PM > Subject: Blowers for small organ > > > Hello all, > > I imagine this topic has come up in the past but I am looking for a = small blower for a 4 rank > Peter Collins box organ. I understand that the Laukhuff blowers are good = and near silent but > hard to get for a private individual. Currently it has a (British organ = blowers (B.O.B.) blower > which makes a muted roar, which is a bit much as the instrument's sound = is quite delicate. It > was made as a one off in the late 70's and has 8' 4' 2' flues all in = wood even the tiny ones. > Also a regal at 16' pitch. By having the fluework all in wood means that = the little pipes do not > shriek and drown the 8' so the sound is well balanced. The pressure with = US electricity with the > blower is 80mm. It has a British motor running through a transformer, = but as the rpm is dictated > by frequency it is running at 6/5th the correct speed. I did some = experiments and think that at > the correct frequency the pressure is nearer 70mm. The target Laukhuff = blowers from their > catalog have pressures of 70mm or 80mm - not quite sure which one to go = for. That will help get > it down to pitch - it is not possible to tune some of the open pipes to = A440 in a St. Louis > summer, with good tone, as they have just little flaps of pipe metal at = the top to bend over. I > think they are tuned at 65degF which is a moderately warm day in = Britain! Tracker organ > supplies claim to have Laukhuff's but their e-mail address seems to be = non-functional. I will > try and call some time. Their web site is discouraging to = non-professional builders. > > William P. Adams (transplanted Brit) > St. Louis MO >     =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D Randy Terry Minister of Music, Organist & Choirmaster The Episcopal Church of St. Peter Redwood City, California www.stpetersrwc.org   __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/