PipeChat Digest #2904 - Thursday, June 13, 2002 Small masterpiece by <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: Sampling versus real-time - another approach? by "Adrian Nash" <email@example.com> Re: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole by <MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com> Re: The Essentials of a Small Organ by "John L. Speller" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Re: The Essentials of a Small Organ - one persons's opinion by <RMaryman@aol.com>
(back) Subject: Small masterpiece From: <email@example.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:45:14 +0100 Hello, Some of you will be aware of the enthusiasm I have for the astonishing = small organ I play each week.....just 11 speaking stops. We have a = lively congregational Mass, we do not have a large choir, we have a big = "classic double cube" with a large central space section producing a = wonderful acoustic with three seconds of reverberation and the organ is = free standing at the crossing........tracker action and high quality = pipework. Before quoting the specification, let me state that the voicing is = essentially Dutch......glittering chorus-work of modest power, low = pressures throughout, a very clear and incisive Brustwerk as well as = very wide scale 8ft Flute on the Hoofdwerk with a Sesquialtera which = creates an almost perfect Cornet in combination with the 4ft Octave and = the 8ft Flute. The interesting thing about this instrument is the way in which = everything blends with everything else; thus creating an organ of = remarkable flexibility.=20 Of far greater interest is the extent to which the repertoire possible = exceeds all expectations....even at the opening recital by Dr Francis = Jackson, the programme included Vierne and Guilmant. Included in other = recitals have been big works by Liszt, Reger and Reubke!! If there is a limitation, then it is the difficulty of playing properly = balanced Trio Sonatas due to the 2 stop Pedal organ. The use of couplers = means that, in achieveing balance, it is not possible to use as many = stops on the manuals as one may like. However, two additional stops = would overcome this limitation. So here is the spec, for what it is worth.......but this cannot convey = the amazing sounds and tonal possibilities of this fabulous little = instrument. Hoofdwerk Principal 8ft A slow, sombre rank Rohrflute 8 A BIG scale Flute.....in fact, a REALLY big scale Octave 4 A bright rank Mixture 3-4 rks 15:22.26.29/15.19.22 Sequialtera 2 rks 12:17 Brustwerk Gedact 8 Stopped Spruce with a distinct 12th in the tone Koppel Flute 4 Blends perfectly with both 8ft Flutes Principal 2 A very bold rank Quint 1.1/3 Without breaking back Pedal Bordun 16 Stopped (Walnut) Faggot 16 Half length Hw to Ped Bw to Ped Bw to Hw That's it!! If I were to add two stops, after many years of experience, I would add = a 4ft Flute to the Pedal Organ; thus ensuring some degree of = independence in Trio Sonatas and Solo 4ft possibilities. I would also add a 2ft Flute to the Brustwerk. If I were to have the luxury of a third stop, then it would be either an = 8ft Pedal stop (Metal) or an 8ft Dulzian to the Hoofdwerk. I can't complain.....I have played this organ for 27 years and I still = adore it. Regards, Colin Mitchell UK Steven wrote:- Before any of us attempt to create a stoplist, I have a few questions: 1. What is the purpose of this organ? Acompaniment? Solo literature? Background noise to cover movement or awkward moments of silence? 2. Is unification/borrowing allowed? 3. What is the musical tradition of the church? 4. What kind of music does the choir do? 5. What kind of organ literature will be most often played? 6. What kind of action is desired? These questions are intended to give us more of a framework to design = within. Steven
(back) Subject: Re: Sampling versus real-time - another approach? From: "Adrian Nash" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 23:19:48 +0100 Cheryl, I have only recently begun a subscription to Pipechat but have been fascinated by the emails I have seen going back and forth concerning sampling versus real-time. Like many of the enthusiasts who subscribe to this I have been dabbling with organ synthesis myself, but have taken a slightly different approach. Yours and others comments would be of great interest to me. I have spent several years studying the technology both sampled, Allen = MDS, Bradford System etc and found it all very fascinating. In this relatively = short time, technology has advanced so fast that I have gone from looking = at completely hardware/DSP based solutions through to an entirely software-based solution that offers a cross between real-time and = wavetable synthesis. This is what I have done. I am using a software synthesiser on a PC based around Microsoft's DirectX = technology. The software I have written enables an organ to be designed = in terms of stop lists, divisions, pistons, couplers and also in terms of = wind modelling and 3D sound. The software synthesiser is programmed with Downloadable Sounds (DLS files) which are edited using DirectMusic = Producer (free from Microsoft). This is similar to the sound-font editor from Creative Labs but the sounds are virtually guaranteed to sound the same on = any PC (being entirely software synthesised). DLS is primariliy a wavetable synthesis technique but it enables phase-locked samples to be layered with independent envelopes for each. But like you, I am a big = fan of real-time and appreciate the need to hand-craft organ tones harmonic by = harmonic. The way I do voicing is as follows: 1. Record reasonably long samples, and many of them per rank. 2. Using some software I wrote myself I do a Partial Domain Analysis (PDA) = that breaks down the organ sample into partials - like a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) but the big and crucial difference is, PDA retains all pitch, amplitude and phase information with respect to time, using curve fitting to get the exact (or nearly so) frequency changes in each "harmonic" with respect to time. 3. The sound can now be fully manipulated and re-synthesised as a group of = short waveform samples (eg 2048 samples long) - but they are still = separate at this stage - groups of partials. 4. I then use a technique based on adaptive filtering (a Digital Signal Processing algorithm) to remove the steady-state tones from the original sample. This leaves me with the wind noise, mechanical noises and other inharmonic noises which may or may not be useful in the final mix. This "sample" can be looped in the normal way, but ideally using random looping = segments to break down the repetition. 5. Compose the sound as a DLS2 "Instrument". The short harmonic samples are the same length and harmonically related. They can therefore be phase-locked together (there is provision for this in the DLS2 standard). By changing the envelopes of these waveforms, due to the phase locking you = can get seamless transitions between one harmonic structure and another thus achieving interpolated variations in timbre. Like most synthesisers, = the pitch and amplitude envelopes can be programmed to respond to = real-time MIDI commands (eg velocity) so the harmonic content can be smoothly controlled in real-time. This also scales with key number so that the harmonics can be interpolated smoothly between sampling points on the keyboard. The final touch is to mix in the "noisy" looped samples to add more life to the sound. The synthesiser program (called "OrganSynth") responds to real-time consol = events via MIDI. The organ is arranged by division. Each division can have a DLS instrument file downloaded to it and has two fundamental modes of operation. Either it will drive a separate sound card (eg one per division) for driving separate channels and speakers in the normal way. The other mode is "3D audio" which exploits modern sound cards' support for surround sound and virtual reality acoustics. In this case, an audio-path model is loaded (authored in DirectMusic Producer) and pipes = are assigned in real-time according to their arrangement on the wind chest to 3D sound sources (eg 8 per division). This latter low-cost mode is much more suitable for home use though I fully accept that it is no substitute for many physical channels. Each division has a wind model that models = the bellows and tremulant and responds to wind demand (programmable for each stop/note) adding de-tuning effects as more ranks are brought into play. This project is nearing completion (though, are these ideas every really complete? - they just seem to evolve!) The DLS synthesiser has 1000 = voices per instance so, I can in theory have 1000 independent voices per division = but in reality this is limited by the speed of the CPU. The real-time functions actually take a huge amount of processing compared to the raw synthesis which is highly optimised and runs in "Kernel" mode to reduce = the latency to an acceptable level. As a guide, a 450MHz Pentium II with = 256MB of RAM and Win 98 OS will cope with two manual + pedals and 22 stops depending upon the amount of real-time processing required and number of voices per stop (that can be scaled down if necessary, but usually at the expense of a good tremulant!) Note: there is no voice sharing - the chorus is built up from independent voices - as many as required. The latest processors should at the very least quadruple this to 88 stops for one CPU but in practice due to improvements in memory (cache) technology = it will probably be slightly more. It is astounding just how powerful a 2GHz PC is these days. The main limitation seems to be the operating system rather than sheer processing power in these real-time applications. Even so, Windows doesn't do too = bad a job considering I can download my email or my wife writes a letter in "Word" whilst I am playing my heart out with all the stops drawn - through = headphones you understand, my wife is tolerant but not *that* tolerant! This is a "home grown" project borne out of an interest in this kind of thing and a lack of budget for a really good digital organ. I've found like many subscribers, the cheaper end of the digital organ market just doesn't cut the mustard but yet, who has upwards of $10,000 to buy a = really good one? Not me! I would be very interested in others comments and suggestions. Best Regards Adrian Nash Camberley, UK. At 18:08 13/06/02 +0100, you wrote: >The different interpretations of 'real-time' have become a bit >confusing! As Humpty Dumpty said to Alice: "a word means whatever I want = >it to mean" - but I would like to try and clarify what should be a very >useful term. > >Ernest frequently says "If it sounds right, it IS right!". If it sounds >wrong, no amount of sales talk or computer speak will convince a musician = >to like something that 'sounds wrong'. > >What we (and a lot of other people) understand by real-time is what >actually happens in the organ as the organist is playing - not what >happened when samples were being taken and put into the organ during >manufacture. In a sampling organ, playing a key with a particular stop >'on' initiates a pre-determined succession of sounds, which have >previously been put into the organ. A real-time computer organ will make = >all the calculations from instructions, rather than start a re-play >process, and take heed of what other notes are being played, how steady >the wind supply for that rank is supposed to be, and generally do a huge >amount of number-crunching as the note is played. > >The real-time process enables the voicer to get closer to the art of >voicing pipes, because the voicer can address every harmonic separately, >and immediately hear what he is doing to that individual note. So many >other parameters are equally under the control of the voicer, including >whether some harmonics initially speak sharp or flat, and of course, the >all-important decay characteristics - such as the 'death rattle' of a >reed, and the change in pitch of a flue as the pallet closes. I have >heard several "me-too" protests from others, but we are quite certain = that >we can make far more artistic voicing alterations to all these parameters = >than can be done with a sampling system, however good. > >At 11:01 11/06/02 -0500, Gary wrote: > >>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. > >It is quite true that, if the record/replay process were perfect, you >would stand to hear a very good reproduction of a pipe that was voiced by = >somebody else in a different building. I would certainly agree that this = >is the cheapest way to make a good organ - no doubt about that. But when = >Gary refers to "manipulated software strings losing valuable pipe data" - = >I really think he is begging the question of sampling versus real-time. > >Our data is initially derived from our own FFT analyses of pipes that we >have recorded, but the difference is that these analyses are used as a >START for the process, not the finished result. Every pipe organ = company >has access to a good voicer, as should every electronic company, and any >pipe voicer will tell you that he does not want middle C of his Open >Diapason in church A to be an exact replica of the same stop in church >B. You need to be able to make changes - some quite drastic ones - to = all >sorts of aspects of each note in the building, and this obviously means >more expensive computer hardware, and a lot more time in voicing (in our >case several days or weeks on site), but those who hear and play our >instruments say that it is well worth it. > >Yesterday afternoon - whilst I was reading through the pipechat offerings = >of earlier in the day, and becoming very frustrated by our server's >inability to let me receive email after mid-day (I went home at 6 pm and >still it was not working, but thank goodness it was this morning) - = Ernest >took a very distinguished American gentleman to Keble College, Oxford, >where he declared unequivocally that he thought the organ was streets >ahead of anything that he has heard. We have had so many similar >compliments, and indeed so many orders where people are happy to pay our >prices, that there has to be something in what I say! (Yes, I remember >the well-known adage that Ernest once coined, "if you lock ten organists >in a room, you will get out eleven different and totally irreconcilable >opinions".) > >Harvey asked the question - under the Subject: Re: Makin Regal >338/Johannus Opus 30 - > >>Isn't Musicom a successor to another company? > >Musicom is a success, not a successor. The Company was started by Tony >Koorlander in the '80s, in very close collaboration with us - who were = the >first to order their hardware - and the co-operation has been close ever >since. Up to that time, we had been making what were then >state-of-the-art analogue organs, but Musicom not only convinced us to go = >digital, but in the succeeding years developed what had started out as = the >'Bradford' system (Ernest was a consultant on that at Bradford University = >several years before), and have developed, independently of the >University, new versions of the hardware and system software, which we >think are the very best. > >Meanwhile, Bradford University have been developing the system in >different ways, and their designs are used by our good friends >at Wyvern. Ernest has the greatest admiration for Peter and Lucy >Comerford, at the University, and knows that they will have developed >something good: but it all falls within the fairly strict definition of >'real-time' computing. > >I have so enjoyed reading all your thoughts (thank you for the pleasure), = >and giving mine above, that I haven't achieved as much as I should today, >and if this is somewhat disjointed it's only because of the stuff I have >HAD to do in between times, and the old brain is beginning to feel a wee >bit taxed with all the to-ing and fro-ing (a bit like a grasshopper). = So >I think it's now fingers-in-the-soil time (I find it's great for brain >repair) while daylight lasts. IMNSHO, I think we've done this topic >proud - and exhausted it (probably). :-) > >Cheryl > > >http://www.copemanhart.co.uk > > > > >"Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >List: mailto:email@example.com >Administration: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:email@example.com
(back) Subject: Re: WOV, LBW, and Luth. Liturgical Music as a Whole From: <MyrtleBeachMusic@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:24:50 EDT --part1_68.217b7940.2a3a83c2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/13/2002 4:08:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time, firstname.lastname@example.org writes: > >Now, changing entire SETTINGS frequently....yes, that would probably be = a > negative jolt....which is why I've always had a problem with the whole > "setting" thing. To change, you had to change everything, and of course > that's overwhelming for people. > > But why should it be overwhelming if all movements are already in the > repertoire that you have developed? (Bear in mind that my ideal for > congregational settings would not be weekly change, but seasonal or, in > Trinitytide, every coupla months). My concern wouldn't be so much with the idea, but in the Lutheran world = where they sing all of those little liturgical "blurbs" that come without introduction, or in the case of the Kyries in the LBW, come with the same chanted introduction regardless of setting after which the congregation = and organ come in cold with music that DOES differ between settings. This is = the part that I believe would be disconcerting when changed frequently. > > Of course, when musicians acquiesce in this they delight liturgical > tinkerers and busybodies, who would love to think of the Gloria in > Excelsis, > for instance, as just one hymn out of several and maybe plug in a Te = Deum > or > a Trisagion or a metrical version in its place, whatever strikes their > fancy. Why else do you think the 1982 Hymnal is (dis-) organized as it = is? Hehe :-) I also attend this school of Gloriam. Our gloria repertoire includes all of the above. I see no problem with it for several reasons: 1. The rubrics allow it 2. The gloria is a canticle of praise. There are many others just as = good, hymns and canticles alike....the Benedictus Es, Domine comes to mind off hand. Besides, we only do Matins/Morning Prayer about 5 times a year. It = helps keep those canticles fresh in the repertoire for when MP comes = around next. 3. When I arrived at this church, the singing of the gloria (weekly to the = same music) was, at best, lacking. Now, since that particular setting = might not come around but every sixth week, it has time to "regenerate" itself = and the singing is quite powerful. My best attempt at a summary description would be that this spot in the service has become more of an "active" = event where it used to be noticeably "passive" Jeremy --part1_68.217b7940.2a3a83c2_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 a message dated 6/13/2002 4:08:10 PM Eastern = Daylight Time, email@example.com writes:<BR> <BR> <BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">>Now, changing = entire SETTINGS frequently....yes, that would probably be a<BR> negative jolt....which is why I've always had a problem with the whole<BR> "setting" thing. To change, you had to change everything, and of = course<BR> that's overwhelming for people.<BR> <BR> But why should it be overwhelming if all movements are already in the<BR> repertoire that you have developed? (Bear in mind that my ideal = for<BR> congregational settings would not be weekly change, but seasonal or, = in<BR> Trinitytide, every coupla months).</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" = style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"></BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" = SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">My concern = wouldn't be so much with the idea, but in the Lutheran world where they = sing all of those little liturgical "blurbs" that come without = introduction, or in the case of the Kyries in the LBW, come with the same = chanted introduction regardless of setting after which the congregation = and organ come in cold with music that DOES differ between settings. This is the part that I believe would be = disconcerting when changed frequently.</FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" = style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" = FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR> </FONT><FONT COLOR=3D"#000000" style=3D"BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" = SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0"><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px"><BR> Of course, when musicians acquiesce in this they delight liturgical<BR> tinkerers and busybodies, who would love to think of the Gloria in = Excelsis,<BR> for instance, as just one hymn out of several and maybe plug in a Te Deum = or<BR> a Trisagion or a metrical version in its place, whatever strikes their<BR> fancy. Why else do you think the 1982 Hymnal is (dis-) organized as = it is?</BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <BR> Hehe :-) I also attend this school of Gloriam. Our gloria = repertoire includes all of the above. I see no problem with it for = several reasons:<BR> <BR> 1. The rubrics allow it<BR> 2. The gloria is a canticle of praise. There are many others just as = good, hymns and canticles alike....the Benedictus Es, Domine comes to mind = off hand. Besides, we only do Matins/Morning Prayer about 5 times a = year. It helps keep those canticles fresh in the repertoire for when = MP comes around next.<BR> 3. When I arrived at this church, the singing of the gloria (weekly to the = same music) was, at best, lacking. Now, since that particular = setting might not come around but every sixth week, it has time to = "regenerate" itself and the singing is quite powerful. My best = attempt at a summary description would be that this spot in the service = has become more of an "active" event where it used to be noticeably = "passive"<BR> <BR> Jeremy <BR> </FONT></HTML> --part1_68.217b7940.2a3a83c2_boundary--
(back) Subject: Re: The Essentials of a Small Organ From: "John L. Speller" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 19:35:44 -0500 This would be my recipe for a 14-rank, mostly straight, electro-pneumatic action organ, with a good range of accompanimental stops, plus some solo = and reed possibilities. John Speller Great: 8' Open Diapason 8' Stopped Diapason 4' Principal 2' Fifteenth 1' Mixture III Swell: 8' Gemshorn 8' Gemshorn Celeste TC 4' Chimney Flute 2' Flageolet 1.1/3' Larigot 8' Trumpet Pedal: 16' Bourdon 8' Bass flute (ext.) 4' Choral Flute (ext.) 16' Double Trumpet (ext.) 8' Trumpet (Swell) ----- Original Message ----- From: <Oboe32@aol.com> To: <email@example.com> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 10:23 AM Subject: The Essentials of a Small Organ > Hey gang, as I sit and scribble out specifications during my tedious = World > History Summer class, I wonder what is essential to smaller organs. With my > church approaching the time for a new organ, and with other churches = doing > such, I'm curious as to what you all think. I know much depends upon the > room, so lets set the mood: > > 500 Seat Church > Acoustic of about 1 to 2 seconds > Space for about 12 to 14 ranks. > 15 voice choir > > Lets see some stoplists...
(back) Subject: Re: The Essentials of a Small Organ - one persons's opinion From: <RMaryman@aol.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 20:47:58 EDT --part1_12f.12d13a9a.2a3a973e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 6/13/2002 11:24:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Oboe32@aol.com writes: > 500 Seat Church > Acoustic of about 1 to 2 seconds > Space for about 12 to 14 ranks. > 15 voice choir > > Lets see some stoplists... > > OK... here goes... Great Division (Expressive, if possible) 8' Principal 8 Gedeckt 8' Dulciana 4' Octave 4' Hohl Flute 2' Blockflote Mixture ll (1 1/3 and 1' breaks at appropriate places) Swell to GT 16 and 8 Swell Division 8 Viola 8 Viola Celeste 8 Flute (stoppered, perhaps a Rohr Flute, but different character from Gt. = Gedeckt) 4' Spitz Principal 4 Harmonic Flute 2 2/3 Nazard (NOT a unit borrow, MUST be an independant rank) 2 Flute (could be an extension of 8' Flute but would prefer seperate rank = if space/$$ permits) 8 Trompette Pedal Division 16 Bourdon 16 Leiblich Gedeckt (12 notes ext from either gt or sw flute) 8 Octave (from Gt Principal) 8 Viola (from Swell) 8 Flute(from either Gt or Sw, depending) 4 Choral Bass 4 Flute (from gt or swell, depending) 16 Trompette(from Swell, 12 note ext.) 4 Clarion (from Swell Trompette) SW and GT to Ped Comments: this organ could play about anything, tho granted it is not "authentic" anything, it could be voiced with a germanic or french = "accent" and would suffice to lead congregational singing and accompany most choral = anthems. I prefer to have a smallish organ under total (but seperate) expression, but great could be cantilevered from a gallery if must be for space requirements with some basses offset to the side(s) of the swell chamber in a gallery. Rick in VA --part1_12f.12d13a9a.2a3a973e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=3D2>In a message dated = 6/13/2002 11:24:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Oboe32@aol.com writes: <BR> <BR> <BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; = MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">500 Seat Church <BR>Acoustic of about 1 to 2 seconds <BR>Space for about 12 to 14 ranks. <BR>15 voice choir <BR> <BR>Lets see some stoplists... <BR> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BR> <BR>OK... here goes... <BR> <BR>Great Division (Expressive, if possible) <BR>8' Principal <BR>8 Gedeckt <BR>8' Dulciana <BR>4' Octave <BR>4' Hohl Flute <BR>2' Blockflote <BR>Mixture ll (1 1/3 and 1' breaks at appropriate places) <BR>Swell to GT 16 and 8 <BR> <BR>Swell Division <BR>8 Viola <BR>8 Viola Celeste <BR>8 Flute (stoppered, perhaps a Rohr Flute, but different character from = Gt. Gedeckt) <BR>4' Spitz Principal <BR>4 Harmonic Flute <BR>2 2/3 Nazard (NOT a unit borrow, MUST be an independant rank) <BR>2 Flute (could be an extension of 8' Flute but would prefer = seperate rank if space/$$ = &nb= sp; <BR> = &nb= sp; permits) <BR>8 Trompette <BR> <BR>Pedal Division <BR> <BR>16 Bourdon <BR>16 Leiblich Gedeckt (12 notes ext from either gt or sw flute) <BR>8 Octave (from Gt Principal) <BR>8 Viola (from Swell) <BR>8 Flute(from either Gt or Sw, depending) <BR>4 Choral Bass <BR>4 Flute (from gt or swell, depending) <BR>16 Trompette(from Swell, 12 note ext.) <BR>4 Clarion (from Swell Trompette) <BR> <BR>SW and GT to Ped <BR> <BR>Comments: this organ could play about anything, tho granted it is not = "authentic" anything, it could be voiced with a germanic or french = "accent" and would suffice to lead congregational singing and accompany = most choral anthems. I prefer to have a smallish organ under total (but = seperate) expression, but great could be cantilevered from a gallery if = must be for space requirements with some basses offset to the side(s) of the swell chamber in a gallery. <BR> <BR>Rick in VA</FONT></HTML> --part1_12f.12d13a9a.2a3a973e_boundary--