PipeChat Digest #2894 - Tuesday, June 11, 2002
 
Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time
  by "douglas morgan" <dkmorgan76209@yahoo.com>
Real Time
  by "Cheryl C Hart" <info@copemanhart.co.uk>
Re: Lutheran Hymnals (was New Missouri Synod Hymnal)
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu>
RE: New Missouri Synod Hymnal
  by "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu>
Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time
  by "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net>
Silent Film Society's "Silent Summer Film  Festival(Chicago)(Crossposted)
  by "jch" <opus1100@catoe.org>
More  thoughts on digital tone
  by "lab" <labeaty@panix.com>
Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time
  by <support@opensystemsorgans.com>
RE: Lutheran Hymnals (was New Missouri Synod Hymnal)
  by "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu>
Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time
  by <support@opensystemsorgans.com>
Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: New Missouri Synod Hymnal
  by <quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time
  by "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@classicorgan.com>
Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time
  by <Wurlibird1@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time From: "douglas morgan" <dkmorgan76209@yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 03:21:05 -0700 (PDT)   Dear Jim:   I very much like your thoughts regarding the Johnnus organ. I don't know enough about electronic technology to get into a debate about how the sound is sampled, etc. I can only judge the Johannus (and other eoectronic) organs by how they behave and sound musically.   Electronic technology has made such great advances just in the last five years, that I look forward to the time when we may regard the electronic organ to be a musical instrument in its own right, and not simply an attempt (usually unsuccessful) to imitate a pipe organ.   In imitating a pipe organ, again I ask -- WHAT pipe organ? An old Pilcher? A Moller? An Aeolian-Skinner? A Wicks? In all my years as a pipe organ maintenance technician, I have never seen two organs that I considered to be exactly alike, even having been built at the same time by the same builder. The acoustical settings alone would make a big difference. The same organ would be vastly improved if moved from a lousy acoustical setting to a good, resonant room even though nothing at all had been done to the voicing.   I still insist that it is completely impossible to exactly duplicate the sound of a good pipe organ electronically, and if we try, we are virtually assured of failure and bitter disappointment. In all honesty however, we must admit that today's electronic technology makes it possible for churches and individuals to have a high quality MUSICAL instrument who might not have the space nor the money to have a high-quality pipe organ.   D. Keith Morgan     --- Wurlibird1@aol.com wrote: > You wrote: > > >Ask yourself the question of what is being > sampled, then you will find that during playback the > Johannus actually uses > pipe samples while the others sample strings of > software that simulate pipe > sound. The end result differences are very audible > and much in favor of > Johannus. << > > Finding your point in this escalating debate is > difficult. Perhaps its that > you prefer Johannus to any other brand which is your > right. Others will > differ with you as to the auditory perception that > they experience, and that > is also their right. I do take issue with you on > the rather misleading > statement that Johannus does not simulate pipe > sounds. All pipeless > instruments <simulate> pipes. Sample technology is > but a mere snapshot of > the pipe over a given timeframe. It does not > contain all of the nuances of > an individual pipe for to do so the storage medium > would be massive over the > compass of a single stop, then multiplied > exponentially over the entire > rank-equivilence of the organ. Further, digitally > recorded samples are > <manipulated> to synthesize those absent nuances to > create more authentic > voicing and articulation. > In other words, the <sample> then becomes, itself, a > software string so we > ultimately arrive at the same objective but employ > divergent technologies to > get there. > > My comments should in no way be interpreted to mean > that Johannus is anything > less than a very excellent organ. The > feature-to-cost factor is more than > attractive and their most recent improvements in > technology may well vault > Johannus to new levels of respect and acceptance. > > > > "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!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com  
(back) Subject: Real Time From: "Cheryl C Hart" <info@copemanhart.co.uk> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:47:31 +0100   Good morning, Robert.   At 18:51 10/06/02 -0400, you wrote: >Which companies are using "real time" technology that creates the = variable >wave? I'm interested in knowing. >Thanks, >Robert Clooney (Middletown, NY)   Any company, like Copeman Hart, using Musicom hardware - note that there = is no standardisation as each company will have their own voicing data, so their instruments will sound unique to them (much as the pipe organs of Willis, Hill, Binns, Harrison, etc,), and some may be able to produce better results than others (of course, the quality of the loudspeaker systems also plays an important part in the end result). Wyvern Organs, another UK company, also produces a real time system.   'Real time' digital synthesis for organ builders originated in the UK and as far as I know there are no US manufacturers. (I venture to stick my head on the block and propose that the reason most 'sampling' has improved =   quite dramatically in the last few years is because of the benchmark set = by 'real time'. But I am not prepared to argue the toss. <g>)   Best wishes,   Cheryl      
(back) Subject: Re: Lutheran Hymnals (was New Missouri Synod Hymnal) From: "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:12:39 -0400   Many thanks to all those who wrote in to answer my question about LBW and LW, the ELCA and the LC-MS. I believe the other major Lutheran church in Hamilton, an LC-MS, uses the LBW, by the way. About six years ago, our music director and a goodly portion of our congregation left to join their ranks, so perhaps it's appropriate that they take our hymnal too!     Randy Runyon Music Director Zion Lutheran Church Hamilton, Ohio runyonr@muohio.edu      
(back) Subject: RE: New Missouri Synod Hymnal From: "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:56:50 -0400   > I don't know too many details on why the "green" hymnal was rejected, = but I would be very interested to hear them!   I don't have any experience using Lutheran Worship, and didn't know that = it is considered a hastily thrown-together book. But I was playing for a Lutheran church shortly after the LBW appeared, and I was disappointed, if not appalled, by the eccentric harmonizations that often prevailed. As = far as I'm concerned, these alone would be grounds for a synod's wanting = another book: i.e., purely musical values.      
(back) Subject: Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time From: "G. Deboer" <gdeboer@bluemarble.net> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:01:44 -0500   My point was certainly not to mislead anyone, far from it. I agree that, yes, of course, all digital organs try to simulate = pipeorgans. Also, all digital organ companies use pipe samples as a base.   At issue is, how are the samples being taken, how long is each sample and what is included with each sample (chiff, all the harmonics and the = decay), what is being done with the sample when stored in the organ, and last but not least, what you hear coming out the speakers is that the actual pipe sampled sound or some manipulated (simulated) software string made to = sound as close to pipe as possible and thereby losing valuable pipe data in the process ?   But, as I said yesterday already, my case is closed. Let each person investigate their own organ requirements, after all its their ears that should determine what sounds best to them. For me the decision was easy after I heard most of the others.   Regards, Gary   ----- Original Message ----- From: <Wurlibird1@aol.com> To: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 11:36 PM Subject: Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time     > You wrote: > > >Ask yourself the question of what is being > sampled, then you will find that during playback the Johannus actually uses > pipe samples while the others sample strings of software that simulate pipe > sound. The end result differences are very audible and much in favor of > Johannus. << > > Finding your point in this escalating debate is difficult. Perhaps its that > you prefer Johannus to any other brand which is your right. Others will > differ with you as to the auditory perception that they experience, and that > is also their right. I do take issue with you on the rather misleading > statement that Johannus does not simulate pipe sounds. All pipeless > instruments <simulate> pipes. Sample technology is but a mere snapshot = of > the pipe over a given timeframe. It does not contain all of the nuances of > an individual pipe for to do so the storage medium would be massive over the > compass of a single stop, then multiplied exponentially over the entire > rank-equivilence of the organ. Further, digitally recorded samples are > <manipulated> to synthesize those absent nuances to create more = authentic > voicing and articulation. > In other words, the <sample> then becomes, itself, a software string so = we > ultimately arrive at the same objective but employ divergent = technologies to > get there. > > My comments should in no way be interpreted to mean that Johannus is anything > less than a very excellent organ. The feature-to-cost factor is more = than > attractive and their most recent improvements in technology may well = vault > Johannus to new levels of respect and acceptance. > > > "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: Silent Film Society's "Silent Summer Film Festival(Chicago)(Crossposted) From: "jch" <opus1100@catoe.org> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:08:49 -0500   FYI Something to think about for Silent Movie Buffs....notice there are quite a few restored 35mm prints   The Silent Summer 2002 Film Festival Friday evenings July 19 - August 23, 2002, at 8:00 = p.m. Gateway Theatre 5216 W. Lawrence Avenue Chicago, Illinois   Friday, July 19th at 8 p.m.   Harold Lloyd, Mildred Davis   Safety Last (1923)   Restored 35MM archival print from the Harold Lloyd Trust. Directed by Fred Newmeyer & Sam =   Taylor Live organ accompaniment by Jay =   Warren   Special Guest: Susan Lloyd Hayes, granddaughter of Harold Lloyd, will introduce the film.   Friday, July 26th at 8 p.m.   Lon Chaney, Mary Philbin, Norman Kerry   The Phantom of the Opera (1925)   Directed by Rupert Julian Live organ accompaniment by Jay Warren New 35 mm print   Friday, August 2nd at 8 p.m. Special Event! Organ and Orchestra Accompaniment   Douglas Fairbanks, Donald Crisp, Billie Dove     The Black Pirate (1926)     International Photoplay Organist Dennis James, The Lincolnwood Chamber Orchestra, Philip Simmons, Music Director Directed by Albert Parker   Friday, August 9th at 8 p.m.   Louise Brooks in   Pandora's Box (1928)   Directed by G. W. Pabst Live photoplay accompaniment by Dennis Scott   Friday, August 16th at 8 p.m.   Colleen Moore, Lloyd Hughes, Harry Langdon   Ella Cinders (1926)     Directed by Alfred E. =   Green Live photoplay accompaniment by Jay Warren   "Remember the Uptown Theatre Night" Sponsored by Friends of the Uptown   Friday, August 23rd at 8 p.m.   Richard Dix, Lois Wilson, Noah Beery   The Vanishing American (1926)   Directed by George = Seitz Live organ accompaniment by Dennis Scott at the Gateway = Theatre Grande Pipe Organ   You can get more information from the Silent Film Society of Chicago website: http://www.silentfilmchicago.com/   regards,   Jon    
(back) Subject: More thoughts on digital tone From: "lab" <labeaty@panix.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:33:29 -0400 (EDT)   Hello, all.   I've been following the recent back and forth discussion on digital sampling and the tonal "ideal."   I think the issue here is one of what is a tonal "ideal" and this is by its own nature a question of aesthetics and not science. To remove this from the digital domain and put it into pipe organ terms, how much agreement would we get on an idealized pipe organ sound?   I am reminded of an acquaintance who asserts that the Flentrop sound is simply the "best" organ sound. I like that sound and always remember the Biggs recordings on the Busch-Resinger organ in Cambridge, MA. But would the Flentrop sound be "ideal" for a Baptist church in say Arkansas?   I don't think it would support their idea of what church music and organ sound are supposed to be. "supposed to be" meaning from their perspective which is equally valid as say a Missouri Lutheran church in Minnesota. Presumably in the latter case, the Flentrop sound is more suitable.   My point here is that the issue of taste and preference is the same for digital instruments, no matter which particular technology a given company may use. Some organists just simply prefer or like the Allen sound better than anything else. Others prefer Galanti and as we've seen in recent postings, some others prefer Johannus or Musicom systems.   The relative "better" or "worse" of this argument cannot be determined empirically because in fact it is purely a matter of taste, preference, and ultimately one's aesthetic sensibilities.   Pardon the length of this posting but let me conclude with this comparison of sampled vs. synthesized digital sound provided to me by a very experienced organ technician.   Says he: Digitally sampled sound is somewhat like a black and white photograph in that it captures the sound in a more or less original form.   Digitally synthesized sound is more like an artist's rendering of the photograph in that it offers the same image but in an interpretive manner.   I don't know how accurate this may be, but think it's an interesting concept.   Cordially,   Lee Beaty    
(back) Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time From: <support@opensystemsorgans.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:47:22 -0400       ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:26:15 -0400 >From: Steven Frank <steve@virgilfox.com> >Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time >To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org>     >How does one sample strings of software?!?!?!?!     What are strings of software?   Dick Meckstroth  
(back) Subject: RE: Lutheran Hymnals (was New Missouri Synod Hymnal) From: "Emmons, Paul" <pemmons@wcupa.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:55:49 -0400   >Paul, where did you live in Wisconsin?   All over: my Lutheran days were in Rhinelander (Zion Lutheran Church); = then Madison (where Grace Church on the Square assimilated our family into Anglicanism), Beloit, and we finally settled down in Appleton when I was almost 11.   My closest college friend was a Lutheran from Ashland (extreme north, on Lake Superior) who had found his way on his own to very high-church = tastes. He read _Ceremony and Celebration_ and _Response_, and I think was a = member of Una Sancta. These made him a surprisingly rare bird in Wisconsin. He = was happy only when he could get a glimpse, whiff, and earful of glorious = Saint Luke's, Belmont Street in Chicago, i.e. not often at all. I felt his = pain, becoming aware myself of the ironic cultural deprivation of growing up in = a notoriously low parish surrounded by the highest Episcopal diocese in the world. He lamented that even Augustana College (where he had spent his freshman year) was benighted. One of his professors taught that the = liturgy should be a sacred dance, but had to add that at Augustana it was more = like a sacred stumble.   In the late 60s there were at least a dozen Lutheran congregations in Appleton of various synods: Wisconsin, Missouri, ALC, and LCA. You might assume that such a variety of affiliations would offer lots to choose from in practice: but *none* of these parishes had any liturgical = sophistication at all. Why does (or did) this prevail in the Lutheran heartland? It = seems that Lutherans are likelier to be aware of their rich heritage the farther geographically they live from the upper midwest, where they are the most numerous. Very strange. I found the most interesting programs, such as they were, in the Missouri Synod. Perhaps that impression is mistaken, = but because of it I tend to have a place in my heart for them even if often = they are among the more narrow-minded. Lord knows plenty of my fellow Episcopalians would consider me so just for liking traditional music and = not liking priestesses or the retrospective castration of old texts.   By the way, is the latter on the agenda of the new Missouri Synod hymnal? If not, hallelujah!        
(back) Subject: Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time From: <support@opensystemsorgans.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:59:10 -0400       ---- Original message ---- >Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:36:58 EDT >From: Wurlibird1@aol.com >Subject: Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time >To: pipechat@pipechat.org > >Sample technology is but a mere snapshot of >the pipe over a given timeframe. It does not contain all of the nuances = of >an individual pipe for to do so the storage medium would be massive over = the >compass of a single stop,   I'm not sure what you mean by "nuances of an individual pipe" means. It = sounds like you mean something to do with the length of the sample. But it's no longer expensive or difficult for the sample to be long enough to include = the full attack, the full decay, and far more than you need of what's between = to capture any transient or slowly periodic effects. You can build an organ = from samples that are longer than most notes. So what nuances are missed?   >then multiplied exponentially over the entire >rank-equivilence of the organ.   It's linear, not exponential, which makes all the difference in the world.   Dick Meckstroth    
(back) Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:08:27 -0700   String pipes with a high lead content??!!   (grinning, ducking)   Bud   support@opensystemsorgans.com wrote: > > ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:26:15 -0400 > >From: Steven Frank <steve@virgilfox.com> > >Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time > >To: PipeChat <pipechat@pipechat.org> > > >How does one sample strings of software?!?!?!?! > > What are strings of software? > > Dick Meckstroth > > "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: New Missouri Synod Hymnal From: <quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 10:14:37 -0700   This is all long ago and far away, but it seems to me the LCMS's objection to the Green Book was primarily theological, rather than musical ... in particular, LCMS objected to the inclusion of several Canons or Prayers of Consecration in the Green Book liturgies which were very similar to current Anglican and RC usage.   Even the "high" LCMS where I used to substitute had NO Canon, but the bare Words of Institution, followed by the Lord's Prayer.   I think there was also a dust-up about including the Stabat Mater as one of the hymns ... but I don't remember which side was "fer" and which side was "agin" (grin).   Cheers,   Bud   "Emmons, Paul" wrote: > > > I don't know too many details on why the "green" hymnal was rejected, = but > I would be very interested to hear them! > > I don't have any experience using Lutheran Worship, and didn't know that = it > is considered a hastily thrown-together book. But I was playing for a > Lutheran church shortly after the LBW appeared, and I was disappointed, = if > not appalled, by the eccentric harmonizations that often prevailed. As = far > as I'm concerned, these alone would be grounds for a synod's wanting = another > book: i.e., purely musical values. > > "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: Digital Samples vs Real Time From: "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@classicorgan.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:34:07 -0400   At 12:59 PM 6/11/2002 -0400, you wrote:     >---- Original message ---- > >Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:36:58 EDT > >From: Wurlibird1@aol.com > >Subject: Re: Digital Samples vs Real Time > >To: pipechat@pipechat.org > > > >Sample technology is but a mere snapshot of > >the pipe over a given timeframe. It does not contain all of the = nuances of > >an individual pipe for to do so the storage medium would be massive = over > the > >compass of a single stop, > >I'm not sure what you mean by "nuances of an individual pipe" means. It >sounds >like you mean something to do with the length of the sample. But it's no >longer expensive or difficult for the sample to be long enough to include = the >full attack, the full decay, and far more than you need of what's between = to >capture any transient or slowly periodic effects. You can build an organ =   >from >samples that are longer than most notes. So what nuances are missed? > > >then multiplied exponentially over the entire > >rank-equivilence of the organ. > >It's linear, not exponential, which makes all the difference in the = world. > >Dick Meckstroth Hi List,   here is my 2 cents worth in this discussion.   If one is to fully do justice in trying to reproduce a pipe organ the sampling route here is what is needed.   1) each note must be sampled and stored in memory 2) each sample should be at least three seconds long preferrably 5 = seconds 3) each note on playback must be run off of a separate master clock 4) each note must be at least volume level adjustable 5) samples must be at least a full 16 bit, preferrably 18 or 20 bit 6) numerous DACs, to keep signals separate 7) once in the analog domain, use only highest quality op-amps and filter =   components 8) use at least 2 audio channels per stop (at least on the manual stops) 9) use lots of high quality speaker systems ( linear frequency response, =   low distortion, wide dispersion etc.)   Now tell me, who builds such an organ? The answer is nobody, since the price would be too high. The number of customers who will pay up to 50% = of the cost of a good pipe organ, for an electronic equivalent just does not exist.   As to Johannus, I believe they have 4 lines of quality, the lowest being the Opus Series. I have been told that the samples in these organs are as =   short as a single cycle. No one can tell me that this is long enough for convincing pipe organ tone. Also the mixtures in these instruments are composite, which means they sound like harmonic buzz. Composite mixtures seem to be the way to go in less expensive organs, but it also creates a rather fake ensemble. Also the whole harmonic structure in a lot of Johannus organs seems to me to be limited and rigid. Not the bloom one hears when one listens to a pipe organ.   As to real time sampling, I believe that way of doing things has an advantage, in that it is able to deal with pipe organ behaviour better. Pipes by their very nature do not play a looped sound, but = respond to winding and the atmosphere around it. And these factors come into play =   as more pipes are played simultaniously. In other words there is a liveness to pipes that is hard to capture in short samples. It seems that =   this is where Musicom and the Bradford system have been making inroads. Whether the basic tone is any better is suppose is another = question.   As for me, I think either system can produce good quality instruments. It =   is just if too many compromises are made, you end up further from the ideal. I must add compromises are made to save money, for no other = reason.   Thanks for listening, I am finished piping for now.   Arie V.    
(back) Subject: Re: Digitally Sampled vs Real Time From: <Wurlibird1@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 14:04:39 EDT   Dick Meckstroth asks:     >What are strings of software? <<   Computer code, Dick. Not to be confused with twine, thread, or perhaps a string pipe. Others can provide a more definitive explanation as I = quickly confess that I am not an authority in computer programming nor = terminology. I merely dabble in it and none too successfully, I might add.   My response is an effort to provide a simplistic answer to the question = you propound. It is no attempt to keep alive a thread for which there is no universal resolution, agreement, nor acceptance.   Best wishes, Jim Pitts