PipeChat Digest #3010 - Monday, August 5, 2002
 
Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca>
Re: Cost of used instruments
  by "Jerrell Kautz" <jkautz@ebicom.net>
Re: Cost of pipe organ -have we not been here before?
  by "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@VASSAR.EDU>
Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
Great antique Pipe organ
  by "First Christian Church of Casey, IL" <kzrev@rr1.net>
combo organs
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: the cost of a pipe organ (long)
  by <ContraReed@aol.com>
Re: the cost of a pipe organ (long)
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca>
Re: combo organs
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
recycling pipes
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Music stores, NYC?
  by "orgel koenigen" <adamkgny@yahoo.com>
Re: Pipe organs
  by "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca>
the organ in Ron's church
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
space for a pipe organ
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: the cost of a pipe organ (long)
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02
  by "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
Re: A slice of Klais...Wood be nice
  by "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz>
(no subject)
  by <RVScara@aol.com>
Re:Dr. Ross and church installations 8-5-02
  by <RonSeverin@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02 From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 14:08:28 -0500   On 8/4/02 8:46 PM, Ross & Lynda Wards wrote:   > Am I offending anyone?   Of course you are Ross.   I played a little 13 rank (13 stop too) Canadian Pipe Organ Co. instrument for many years, not dissimilar to your pipe organ. I enjoyed it mightily = and found it willing and able to handle most of the repertoire as well as liturgical and accompaniment duties. It was one of the few tubular = pneumatic actions I've ever played that was really responsive, quick and precise at all times. A great little organ,, perfectly in tune with its environment.   The church I'm at now has an Allen and frankly it's a better instrument in just about every way than that little pipe of years ago. Of course, I've taken the trouble to know how it works and to know how to get the most out of it which you clearly haven't bothered to do. I'm sorry you've had a bad experience with Allen. Mine has been absolutely opposite.   Most of my bad experiences with church organs over the past 40 years have been with pipe organs (especially as a visiting organist) - severe tuning problems (we have severe climate changes here), cyphers, various bits not working, slo-o-o-o-o-w actions, noisy pedals, unreliable pistons, lousy maintenance people, etc., etc.   Very little problem with digitals and other electronics over that time although I remember a really bad Baldwin... Of course early on, the electronics sounded awful but frankly there has been enormous improvement over the years to the point that one local church with a digital/pipe combination (Rodgers) has permanently disconnected the pipes!   TTFN, Russ Greene    
(back) Subject: Re: Cost of used instruments From: "Jerrell Kautz" <jkautz@ebicom.net> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 13:52:47 -0500   Truer words were never spoken.   *********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********   On 8/5/2002 at 2:50 PM RonSeverin@aol.com wrote:   >Big government has stolen your church's pipe organ. Make no mistake about >it. > >Ron Severin >      
(back) Subject: Re: Cost of pipe organ -have we not been here before? From: "John Vanderlee" <jovanderlee@VASSAR.EDU> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:19:22 -0700     I love a good discussion as much as the next one, but does this pipe vs. electronic HAVE to keep getting rehashed ad nauseum? The twain shall never meet.   I grind no ax either way and simply like to listen to music, but right now I'm wearing out the delete key.   new topic Please!   John V  
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02 From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 15:30:59 EDT   Dear Russ:   I would venture to say that the pipes were disconnected because the electronic parts would drift out of tune with the pipes. The organist must retune the electronics with that little knob provided during a service. There are devices now to keep the electronics in virtual tune with the pipes and no knob to constantly monkey around with. I know because my organ has one. Cost $100. Perfect fit all the time.   Ron Severin  
(back) Subject: Great antique Pipe organ From: "First Christian Church of Casey, IL" <kzrev@rr1.net> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 14:52:30 -0500   No, Russ. Look again--he specifically says compare to a great "antique = pipe organ," not a new one! BTW, there are several great antique ones at Organ Clearing House right now! And to each his/her own, but for the $65,000 = for the small electronic I saw last summer that I did think sounded pretty = good (at least in an exhibit hall booth, a highly artificial setting), I could have a lovely, if small, antique tracker organ that has that wonderful = "real presence" of real pipes.   But I will readily concede that the average person in the pew is not going to hear a significant difference (to them) between a good electronic and a pipe organ. Even so, there will always be a place for fine pipe organs.   I do believe one of the problems churches get into is that they keep insisting on concert hall organs when all they really "need" are modest service-playing instruments. You can do that on five ranks--ask the Hook brothers!   Dennis Steckley "For I am possessed of a cat, surpassing in beauty, from whom I take occasion to bless Almighty God." ________________ Compare the cost of a great antique violin to the cost of a great antique pipe > organ.   Sorry Sebastian, you're not asking me to pay big bucks for a magnificent antique organ, with all the cachet that that implies. You're asking big bucks, up front, for a brand new, untried organ of uncertain musical quality. No one pays big bucks for a brand new violin, just for the Strads and Amatis which have stood the test of time. No one pays big bucks for a brand new Rembrandt imitation either. So the costs just aren't comparable. TTFN, Russ        
(back) Subject: combo organs From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 13:04:08 -0700   Here's another point: because of philosophy, or because of the strictures imposed by one or the other of the pipe organ builders' guilds, most pipe organ builders don't DO combo organs, which makes it difficult to get GOOD pipes for combo organs. And even if one DOES manage to get good PIPES, most local pipe organ TECHNICIANS want nothing to do with combo organs; most ELECTRONIC technicians don't know anything ABOUT pipes, so what you end up with is an orphan with second-rate pipes to BEGIN with, and nobody to voice it OR tune it.   I'm not sure that the device Ron's talking about CAN be 100% successful .... in order to do THAT, it would have to track EVERY note of EVERY rank of pipes, AND, it would have to somehow allow for the fact that middle c of the Great 8' Open Diapason, Melodia, Gamba, and Dulciana pipes are ALL going to be SLIGHTLY out of tune with EACH OTHER ... if you have a corresponding electronic "rank" for each of those pipe ranks, fine ... then the device could possibly tune like to like ... but what if you have (as is often the case) fewer ranks of pipes than electronic voices? What should the "redundant" electronic voices tune to? If they all tune "dead on" to the Diapason, then the effect is NOT going to be the same as four ranks of pipes that are naturally SLIGHTLY out of tune with each OTHER.   I remember in the "old days" using complicated charts for tuning analog electronics, to try and reproduce that random out-of-tuneness ... this note so many cents sharp, that note so many cents flat, and so forth. It sorta worked, PROVIDING there were ENOUGH sets of generators (at least one or two per division).   It was the "dead on-ness" (and the unique temperament, as well as the audible key-pop) of the Hammond that made it so popular for gospel, jazz, and rock music. Later digital Hammonds had a "de-tuning" feature to try and make them sound more like church organs.   It has been my experience over the years that there are two major problems with combo organs, laying aside the question of QUALITY of sound:   (1) the problem of tracking and/or reproducing the RANDOM out-of-tuneness of the pipes, as I've attempted to describe above.   (2) matching the WEIGHT and PRESENCE of the electronic voices, no matter HOW fine, to the WEIGHT and PRESENCE of the pipes. A corollary to that is the inevitable difference between electronic voices originating from one or more loudspeakers (which necessarily play a group of notes from one location) vs. pipes spread over the length of a windchest.   Cheers,   Bud   RonSeverin@aol.com wrote: > > Dear Russ: > > I would venture to say that the pipes were disconnected because the > electronic parts would drift out of tune with the pipes. The organist > must retune the electronics with that little knob provided during a > service. There are devices now to keep the electronics in virtual tune > with the pipes and no knob to constantly monkey around with. I > know because my organ has one. Cost $100. Perfect fit all the time. > > Ron Severin > > "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: the cost of a pipe organ (long) From: <ContraReed@aol.com> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:18:51 EDT   In a message dated 8/4/02 12:26:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, quilisma@socal.rr.com writes:   << I WENT through the APOBA *and* AIO lists, and sent initial inquiries to LOTS of people. Most didn't respond, I think because of the requirement to re-use the Moller pipework. >>   OK, this post brought up another question. Apparently, the Moller pipes = we have are in decent shape, and we would like to use at least some of them = in the replacement/restored/fixed/new/etc. organ. We know that the current console is a disaster waiting to happen, and that the 80 year old chests = are leaking like sieves. Are most organ builders hesitant to use existing = pipes? And if so, is it because they would rather make more money making new = ones, or they don't want to/can't "blend/match" the sounds, or some other = reason.   Thanx in advance, (especially if my questions don't make sense, or are wording incorrectly).   Richard  
(back) Subject: Re: the cost of a pipe organ (long) From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:30:22 -0500   On 8/3/02 9:45 PM, quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote:   > OK ... comments?   Hi Bud,   No flames from me. You lived pretty much the whole scenario that I = sketched out earlier as being the horror story in the mind of the average organ committee member when pitched the idea of "let's install an inexpensive = used pipe organ".   Older pipe organs are inexpensive for a reason - moving, rebuilding and installation costs a fortune, at least for any size organ I'm interested = in. Unless, as you say, volunteer labor can do most of the job. But usually, that's not very realistic and frankly there are as many horror stories out there about the joys of using volunteer labor as about spiralling costs = from a builder.   TTFN, Russ Greene    
(back) Subject: Re: combo organs From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:40:31 EDT   Dear Russ and Bud:   Our organ was a pipe organ first and very limited with no swell enclosure 6 ranks Principal 8' Octave 4' Bourdon 8' Melodia 4' Salicional 8' haskelled and Voix Celeste TC 8' The Ahlborn Boxes added 4 years later all under expression Sw. and Gt. and Ped. The boxes are tuned 19 1/2 cents flat for a perfect unison, the pipe tracking takes care of all the rest. No stretch tuning needed, and the pipes touched up Spring and Fall. There are voicing controls on the Ahlborn boxes for nearly every nuance of every stop. I have several temperment settings. I use Vallotti in warm weather and Kirnberger III in cooler weather. The pipes were from organs tuned to 435. It works and sounds good. The two flutes are goners as soon as I find suitable pipes. Bourdon is too big, so is the Melodia. Neither has a singing sweet tone either. They make good solo stops, but not useful for anything else.   Ron Severin  
(back) Subject: recycling pipes From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 13:49:32 -0700       ContraReed@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 8/4/02 12:26:59 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > quilisma@socal.rr.com writes: > > << I WENT through the APOBA *and* AIO lists, and sent initial inquiries = to > LOTS of people. Most didn't respond, I think because of the requirement > to re-use the Moller pipework. >> > > OK, this post brought up another question. Apparently, the Moller pipes = we > have are in decent shape, and we would like to use at least some of them = in > the replacement/restored/fixed/new/etc. organ. We know that the current > console is a disaster waiting to happen, and that the 80 year old chests = are > leaking like sieves. Are most organ builders hesitant to use existing = pipes? > And if so, is it because they would rather make more money making new = ones, > or they don't want to/can't "blend/match" the sounds, or some other = reason. > > Thanx in advance, (especially if my questions don't make sense, or are > wording incorrectly). > > Richard >   Maybe some of the builders can address the economic issue ... I have been told over the years that re-using pipes, IF they could be revoiced, rescaled, etc., SHOULD run anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3 the cost of new pipes.   In my experience, SOME builders are GENIUSES at recycling pipes ... oddly enough, Hermann Schlicker and Walter Holtkamp Sr. were two of them .... some of their finest organs contain pipes by Hook, Johnson, Roosevelt, E.M. Skinner, Kimball, Kilgen, Wurlitzer (!) and others. Bob Sipe was another ... he turned a Felgemaker Melodia into a LUSCIOUS Holtzquintadena in the little organ in St. Stephen UMC, Mesquite, Texas.   BUT ... I think you have to find a builder who LIKES doing that sort of thing. Some do; some don't.   IF you're talking about an 80-year-old Moller, though, you may have some problems, the first being wind-pressure, and the second being pipe scales, UNLESS what you want is a restoration of what's THERE (an 80-year-old romantic/orchestral organ, which has its own integrity and charm), with possibly some additions IN THE SAME STYLE AS THE ORIGINAL.   In THAT case, you WOULD keep the wind-pressure(s) the same, and NEW work would have to agree with the old (higher?) pressure(s).   It would also have to be placed on restored or replacement PITMAN windchests, to avoid wholesale revoicing of the OLD work, if that's what the old work is on now. Don't let ANYBODY sell you the idea that they can change STYLES of windchests without doing WHOLESALE revoicing, and in the case of the reeds, it may be IMPOSSIBLE. You CANNOT move pipework voiced to speak on a pitman chest to an electro-mechanical or slider chest willy-nilly.   *Please* don't try to put breaking-glass mixtures over top of a 1920s Moller Open Diapason (grin).   I have HEARD some 1920s Mollers that were given a straight-across mechanical restoration with NO tonal changes whatsoever, and the effect has been STARTLING. They do what they do VERY well; you just have to accept that they won't do EVERYTHING.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Music stores, NYC? From: "orgel koenigen" <adamkgny@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 13:51:27 -0700 (PDT)   Some of the major 'tourist' churches have shops with interesting selections of organ music; thier own, of course, but also of guest organists who has passed through. St. Barts, in particular, has a large selection.   -adam   __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better http://health.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Re: Pipe organs From: "Russ Greene" <rggreene2@shaw.ca> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 15:54:31 -0500   > This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not = understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.   --Boundary_(ID_Uly3wipvxG5mdPRbWawN4g) Content-type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable   On 8/3/02 10:02 PM, LAMAR BOULET wrote:   > Yet to be heard , an Electronic Musical Instrument Company which does = n=3D ot > admit that the Pipe Organ is the better instrument. > How do they admit it?------1. Each one puts forth great effort to have = t=3D heir > instrument imitate the real thing. 2. They do not sample = sounds=3D from > electronic instruments. 3. Their instruments need to be = replaced > about every ten to fifteen years by their new improved models just as > computers, T V sets, > radios etc.=3D20   In fairness: Digital organ builders admit very openly that the pipe organ is their = model=3D .. And in their literature usually state very clearly that their instrument = is =3DB3approaching=3DB2 pipe organ sound, never claiming to surpass it. And = the bette=3D r builders, emphatically including Allen state in their literature that if space and funds are available, get a pipe organ!   1. Of course they put forth great effort to imitate the real thing =3DAD = they don=3DB9t pretend to be doing anything else! 2. Of course they sample sounds from pipe organs =3DAD that=3DB9s what = they=3DB9re trying to emulate! And why would they sample electronic instruments =3DAD = where electronic synthesizer type sounds are wanted, they just create them =3DAD electronically.=3D20 3. Most electronic instruments are not replaced every ten-fifteen years or even every thirty years. This can in fact be a problem for dealers in smaller markets =3DAD our local Allen dealer in Winnipeg has been around = for about 30 years (the digital era); all of his installations are still up = and running; he has little repeat business because customers remain satisfied with the organs; he has now got little new business simply because he has filled up the potential marketplace over the years. Your suppositions = about digital life are about as factual as if someone said =3DB3Every pipe organ = has to be rebuilt about every thirty years=3DB2.   TTFN, Russ     --Boundary_(ID_Uly3wipvxG5mdPRbWawN4g) Content-type: text/html; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT   <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: Pipe organs</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> <FONT FACE=3D"Helvetica">On 8/3/02 10:02 PM, LAMAR BOULET wrote:<BR> <BR> </FONT><BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Helvetica">Yet to be heard , &nbsp;an = Electronic Musical Instrument &nbsp;Company which does not admit that the = Pipe Organ is the better instrument.<BR> How do they admit it?------1. &nbsp;Each one puts forth great effort to = have their instrument imitate the real thing. = &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;2. &nbsp;They do not = sample sounds from electronic &nbsp;instruments. = &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;3. &nbsp;Their instruments &nbsp;need = to be replaced about every ten to fifteen years by their new improved = models just as computers, &nbsp;T V sets, <BR> radios etc. <BR> </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE><FONT FACE=3D"Helvetica"><BR> In fairness:<BR> Digital organ builders admit very openly that the pipe organ is their = model. And in their literature usually state very clearly that their = instrument is &#8220;approaching&#8221; pipe organ sound, never claiming = to surpass it. And the better builders, emphatically &nbsp;including Allen = state in their literature that if space and funds are available, get a = pipe organ!<BR> <BR> </FONT><OL><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Helvetica">Of course they put forth great = effort to imitate the real thing &#8211; they don&#8217;t pretend to be = doing anything else! </FONT><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Helvetica">Of course they sample sounds from pipe = organs &#8211; that&#8217;s what they&#8217;re trying to emulate! And why = would they sample electronic instruments &#8211; where electronic = synthesizer type sounds are wanted, they just create them &#8211; = electronically. </FONT><LI><FONT FACE=3D"Helvetica">Most electronic instruments are not replaced every ten-fifteen years or even every thirty = years. This can in fact be a problem for dealers in smaller markets = &#8211; our local Allen dealer in Winnipeg has been around for about 30 = years (the digital era); all of his installations are still up and = running; he has little repeat business because customers remain satisfied = with the organs; he has now got little new business simply because he has = filled up the potential marketplace over the years. Your suppositions = about digital life are about as factual as if someone said &#8220;Every = pipe organ has to be rebuilt about every thirty years&#8221;.<BR> </FONT></OL><FONT FACE=3D"Helvetica">TTFN,<BR> Russ<BR> </FONT> </BODY> </HTML>     --Boundary_(ID_Uly3wipvxG5mdPRbWawN4g)--  
(back) Subject: the organ in Ron's church From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 14:05:56 -0700   I have heard the organ in St. Mary's RC, Huntington Beach, and it sounds better than it has any RIGHT to (chuckle) ... the pipes are arranged around the perimeter of the FRONT and SIDES of the gallery, on the railing, with no encasement; the electronics are above and behind, above the stairwell on one side ... the speakers are HUGE.   I wasn't able to turn around and LOOK until Mass was over, but I wasn't particularly aware of any great dichotomy between electronics and pipes, other than knowing that a gallery of that size with that roof line couldn't POSSIBLY contain all the stops I was hearing (grin).   When I went up and PLAYED the organ, the ELECTRONICS sounded better than the pipes, which, from what Ron has said, were cast-offs from hither and yon, with the possible exception of the principals. But downstairs, the effect is quite different ... St. Mary's is a charming old wood-and-plaster church, with a hardwood floor and no pew cushions. The choir loft was probably never intended to hold more than a reed organ, if that ... possibly a Moller Artiste, etc., at MOST.   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: space for a pipe organ From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2002 14:17:13 -0700   Thinking about Ron's church brought up something else ... unlike the spacious RC churches in the East and the Midwest, many RC churches of a certain age in the western US have TINY choir lofts in relation to the size of the building ... large choirs and weekly or daily High Mass weren't as prevalent out here ... High Mass was only sung at funerals (!), and then usually by a soloist. Choirs were small, or nonexistent. The choir loft of the Italian church in San Diego BARELY has room for a console and eight singers. From the faint outline on the back wall, the original organ was either a large reed organ or a VERY small pipe organ.   West Coast RC organs before Vatican II accompanied soloists, and POSSIBLY a small choir at MOST ... post Vatican II, many parishes had to deal with the fact that their organs were TOTALLY INADEQUATE for LEADING congregational singing, AND the fact that their choir lofts (almost always balconies in the back) couldn't ACCOMMODATE pipe organs of any size, usually because of low ceilings.   Add to that the fact that there aren't many West Coast organ-builders, and guess whose legions marched in to fill the vacuum? (grin)   Cheers,   Bud    
(back) Subject: Re: the cost of a pipe organ (long) From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:14:38 EDT   Dear Richard:   In most cases old chests need to be taken completely apart, reworked, glued and put back together, releathered, retabled reracked. and could cost more than new ones. No leaks or splits either. Most old chests are better used for fire wood. If the chests are sound use them if not toss them, my rule of thumb. Some organs are worth saving and some part them out. The absolute worst thing is to try fit a square peg into a round hole. An attempt to change the character of an existing organ from say romantic to baroque is destined to failure and will sound rediculous. We know that from passed bitter experience. Adding like to like works. Stops added to old organs requires a knowledge of the old scaling and voicing proceedures of their builders. This is a specialty practiced by a few and the results are good for the most part. This requires an expert.   Reused pipes are usually from a previous organ in the same building, or one similar. Even so, some revoicing may be required, and necessary. Butchered organs are usually done by people long on enthusiasm and terribly short on experience and knowledge. Talk's cheap, but good judgement is much better.   Ron Severin  
(back) Subject: Re: PipeChat Digest #3000 - 08/03/02 From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:43:47 +1200   The answer to this is that the faults I listed are basic design faults in the Allen and cannot be changed, so the calling of any kind of serviceman would be a waste of time. Ross   >TheShieling@xtra.co.nz wrote: > >> And the Great is always out of tune with >> the Swell, so you have to push down a stopkey >> cancelling the "Romantic >> tuning" to be able to couple up the manuals and >> reasonably stay in tune. > >Ross said this about an Allen, in comparison with the wonderful small = pipe >organ his congration enjoys. > >However, Ross also mentioned that the pipe organ is tuned and serviced every >18 months. Does the Allen get the same treatment? > >Victoria > >      
(back) Subject: Re: A slice of Klais...Wood be nice From: "Ross & Lynda Wards" <TheShieling@xtra.co.nz> Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 09:57:50 +1200   I thought that Cambridge Jones organ was an absolute delight. I could live with it for a very long time, to play or to listen to in services. Isn't Jones actually Irish, or have I got that wrong? Ross   >Anyone who has heard St.Andrew's Holborn (Mander), Gt.St.Mary's Cambridge (Kenneth Jones & Associates) and the fine new Nicholson at Southwell Minster, would tell you of their immediate preference for the UK products.        
(back) Subject: (no subject) From: <RVScara@aol.com> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:34:04 EDT     --part1_123.147edd35.2a80494c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   In that sense, my "educated and sensitive ears" are an irrelevance and of no account whatever. That hurts to say it, but it's true in practice.   ROSS, you said it all, the pure and simple facts of life for us.   --part1_123.147edd35.2a80494c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In that sense,<BR> my "educated and sensitive ears" are an irrelevance and of no account<BR> whatever. That hurts to say it, but it's true in practice.<BR> <BR> ROSS, you said it all, the pure and simple facts of life for = us.</FONT></HTML>   --part1_123.147edd35.2a80494c_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re:Dr. Ross and church installations 8-5-02 From: <RonSeverin@aol.com> Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 17:55:46 EDT   Dear Ross:   I don't know what the training of organ set up men consists of in NZ. I don't know how new the Allen technology is and the organs you are refering to. If they are analog or early digital organs they may be a bit disappointing to listen to. The latest technology is extremely good. Speaker placement, room voicing makes all the difference in the world. Bottom of the line anything is not going to be too pleasing. Trying to do the most with the least doesn't register very well in my world. Sure it's going to be disappointing if you are trying to drive any organ in a church with only inboard speakers goosed up as high as the law allows. It will sound strident, and won't fill the church properly with sound. If that is what you are talking about, perhaps your reps. need more = training, and the buyers more open to a proper installation of these instruments. Cutting corners on any organ, pipe or electronic, sticks out like a sore thumb. Dead acoustics don't help anything either. Most new digitals come with their own brand of acoustical enhansement and goes a very long way to a much better sound. I don't hear you describing the professionality of the installations. If that is poor, the organ won't = sound right. I don't care who built it.   Ron Severin