PipeChat Digest #4547 - Tuesday, June 8, 2004
 
Re: digital "action"
  by "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au>
Speaker Design
  by "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
Re: Cocktails and dance mixes..with Northwestern Music  Students (sorta o
  by "jch" <opus1100@catoe.org>
Re: Cocktails and dance mixes..with Northwestern Music Students	(sorta on
  by "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net>
Reconing speakers
  by "First Christian Church of Casey, Illinois" <kzrev@rr1.net>
Re: digital "action"
  by "Jim McFarland" <mcfarland6@juno.com>
Re: Reconing speakers
  by "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com>
Re: digital "action"
  by "Andrew Barss" <andrew.barss@ns.sympatico.ca>
Re: Evangelistic Organ Playing
  by <OMusic@aol.com>
Re: Evangelistic Organ Playing
  by "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net>
orphans of the storm
  by "Raymond H. Clark, Quilisma Publications" <quilisma@cox.net>
Re: digital "action"
  by "Raymond H. Clark, Quilisma Publications" <quilisma@cox.net>
Re: digital "action"
  by "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net>
 

(back) Subject: Re: digital "action" From: "bobelms" <bobelms@westnet.com.au> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 22:38:46 +0800   Thank you for that, John. That explains a lot. I have never seen a speaker coned with foam rubber, and I have seen a few speakers in my time, mostly made in Australia. What I have at present include some modern ones, all coned with cardboard.   Playing records has been one of my pastimes for over 50 years, much of the time with gear I built myself. All the speakers I have ever owned, old or new, had cardboard cones except for a metal mid-range horn, and I have never had a speaker failure except once when someone put their foot = through one with a cardboard cone. . The only speaker I have ever had from the USA had a cardboard cone and it appears set for long life. It was made in Taiwan and I could have got it for half the price here in Australia from = the shop down the road!! We live and learn.   My present hifi set up has Gale speakers which were imported from the UK = and which cost me a fortune. They have cardboard cones and I have had them = close to 20 years with no problem. As I said in my earlier post I almost live on the water here with the Southern Ocean close by to the south and great stretches of water in the two harbours to the north and south, and, to cap it off a fresh water lake almost at my back door. Humidity? yes plenty! = But it has had no ill effect on any of the speakers. Bob Elms.   ----- Original Message ----- From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 9:38 PM Subject: Re: digital "action"     > > ----- Original Message ----- > > That is probably because your speakers are old enough to be coned with > cardboard, rather than with foam rubber, which is susceptible to a mold > which causes it to disintegrate. The speakers on my sound system needed > reconing after less than ten years. > > John Speller >    
(back) Subject: Speaker Design From: "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 08:38:47 -0600   Hello, PipeChatters:   > > Bud, * * * I have never had a speaker reconed or > > replaced; yet I have gear here with speakers which > > is much older than that. > > That is probably because your speakers are old enough > to be coned with cardboard, rather than with foam rubber, > which is susceptible to a mold which causes it to disintegrate. > The speakers on my sound system needed reconing after > less than ten years.   Based on some casual observations in how speakers are being suspended in the present technology, I suspect that the speaker manufacturers have learned that the foam was inadequate. The speaker acoustical properties using those foam surrounds were very good. I especially liked them in the low frequencey "pedal" range. However, the organs I had installed in the 1970s needed new coning after about 15 years. It seems to vary a bit with location.   The decisions to use the foam surrounds was made about 30 years ago. We now know that it was not more suitable for long-term use than rubberized cloth is suitable for making pneumatic pouches/valves in a windchest or console.   Therefore, the speakers I am currently buying from Parts Express to build into my pedal speaker cabinets (boxes, tubs, etc.) have a material that is similar to foam, but is probably a "rubber" type product, maybe neoprene, or some other durable material that will not disintegrate over time.   As for technology evolving into better designs, I am amazed at what we are learning now about making speakers that not only produce a more robust organ tone, but portend to "last forever," as is often said of wind-blown pipes. Let me assure you that I am a bit skeptical about promises of "breakthrough" designs, etc., as they come on the market, but the experiments and evolution of speaker designs still continue. If the modern drivers are used in good speaker designs, the results will be rewarding with suitably robutst organ tone.   I won't probably live long enough to know just how well these newer speaker designs behave over a long time, but our younger people will be able to inspect them in 20 or 30 years and determine if they are still suitable or need replacement.   Reconing speakers is a whole lot easier than replacing the vast amount of leather valves in a windchest. That is both an economic and practical advantage. Let's meet again in 2025 and discuss this subject again. <grins>   F. Richard Burt Dorian Organs     ..      
(back) Subject: Re: Cocktails and dance mixes..with Northwestern Music Students (sorta on topic) From: "jch" <opus1100@catoe.org> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 10:04:29 -0500   At 10:12 AM 6/8/04, you wrote: >If a music department is not "paying it's way", should it exist?   I suspect we are seeing the beginning of the END for the Northwestern = Music School...the organ program was the first to go because it was the most expensive to operate....had little to do with the popularity of the instrument. I have neither the talent or the financial resources to go to Northwestern, so it wouldn't not have been a choice for me. $40 to $50K tuition and expenses is a bit pricey.   Jon          
(back) Subject: Re: Cocktails and dance mixes..with Northwestern Music Students (sorta on topic) From: "Alan Freed" <acfreed0904@earthlink.net> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 11:16:08 -0400   On 6/8/04 11:12 AM, "noel jones" <gedeckt@usit.net> wrote:   > (how does one type that? Desiree''s?)   "The post of my friend Desir=E9e . . . ."   Alan (at least it's not Bront=EB=EBsque!)    
(back) Subject: Reconing speakers From: "First Christian Church of Casey, Illinois" <kzrev@rr1.net> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:26:03 -0500   John said: That is probably because your speakers are old enough to be coned with cardboard, rather than with foam rubber, which is susceptible to a mold which causes it to disintegrate. The speakers on my sound system needed reconing after less than ten years. ____________________   Interesting, John. In the mid-1980's, I bought a pair of stereo speakers with 15" woofers. They had some sort of FOAM cones which totally disintegrated along about 1998. I had them reconed; the new cones appear to be traditional "paper." In any case, they sound better than ever.     Dennis Steckley   Ain't No Tagline Here!        
(back) Subject: Re: digital "action" From: "Jim McFarland" <mcfarland6@juno.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 11:32:14 -0400     On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:32:58 -0500 "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net> writes:   > Here the solution is Blackinton style chests     John:   Why are you mentioning Blackinton chests in a thread about mechanical action?   Jim  
(back) Subject: Re: Reconing speakers From: "Arie Vandenberg" <ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 12:06:23 -0400   At 10:26 AM 2004-06-08 -0500, you wrote: >John said: That is probably because your speakers are old enough to be >coned with cardboard, rather than with foam rubber, which is susceptible >to a mold which causes it to disintegrate. The speakers on my sound >system needed reconing after less than ten years. >____________________ > >Interesting, John. In the mid-1980's, I bought a pair of stereo >speakers with 15" woofers. They had some sort of FOAM cones which >totally disintegrated along about 1998. I had them reconed; the new >cones appear to be traditional "paper." In any case, they sound better >than ever.   Dennis,   I assume that you are talking about the suspension material itself rather than the cone. Most speaker cones are still of the paper or treated paper =   variety. It is the suspension material where the issue is.   Generally paper suspensions have very poor compliance as it is too stiff and tends to have distortions in shape when played, especially when played =   loud. A better solution is corrugated treated cloth material, which is better, but still stiff.   The problem with the foam suspensions, of course is the foam rot, which causes them to either rip or just fall apart after a period of time. This =   was especially so, with the foam materials of the 70s and into the 80s. = My guess is that the newer stuff will last at least 50% to possibly 100% longer. The reason foam was used was it had good compliance.   Most of what we use is a rubber surround, which has very good compliance, and also lasts a lot longer. We have used woofers with this type of material now for well over 20 years, and have had nary a problem. The problem though is you can't get 15" or 18" woofers with this type of surround, I guess because of lack of demand.   You may ask what does compliance have to do with this. Well it has to do with excursion of the cone ( total distance of forward and backward travel), as well as efficiency. If you use a stiffer suspension that = means a whole lot more watts demanded from the amplifier. If these speakers are =   asked to put out sufficient volume in a church setting, you have to think efficiency pretty quickly, otherwise you amplifiers will run out of headroom, and distort. So what works in a house with an 8" woofer, will not work in a church. And the problem is usually in the lower frequency range where amps. and speakers run out of capacity in a larger room.   If you have a properly designed audio system on an electronic organ, it will sound much better, the speakers will last longer. The fact that so many electronic organs only have 2 or 4 audio channels does not help matters much. To mimic a pipe organ, in terms of spread and weight of = tone even remotely you more audio channels. But then of course the price goes up as well, sometimes quite a lot, as good audio is never inexpensive.   Having been in the business for 25 years, believe me, I have seen a lot of =   bad speaker designs, a lot of rotted foam, some ripped paper cones, etc. Not pretty.   So, I can readily understand some people's aversion to electronic organs. If a product is only as good as it's weakest link, surely an electronic organ will never sound any better than it's bad audio system = (if indeed it is bad).   Arie V.   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Arie Vandenberg Classic Organbuilders ArieV@ClassicOrgan.com Tel.: 905-475-1263      
(back) Subject: Re: digital "action" From: "Andrew Barss" <andrew.barss@ns.sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 13:25:36 -0300     On 7-Jun-04, at 11:18 PM, Raymond H. Clark, Quilisma Publications wrote:   >>> What costs MONEY is when a church puts in a pipe organ and DOESN'T >>> keep up with the maintenance. That's the churches' fault, NOT the >>> organs. >> Playing the devil's advocate for a moment: How much money will be >> invested over the life of that pipe organ in annual maintenance and >> major cleanings/refurbishing which (based on my observations) seem to >> be required every 20-30 years? > That's my point. Those major overhauls are required every 20-30 years > because of "deferred maintenance."   Pay me now or pay me later. The money still needs to be spent and, as Arie points out in his post, most digital organs require very little if any maintenance during their lifetime.   From my observations major overhauls need to be done on most pipe organs usually between 20 and 40 years whether or not regular maintenance has been tended to. The contribution of regular maintenance is how well the organ works during those 20 to 40 years between overhauls.     >>> I don't want to put words into Seb Gluck's mouth, but he has OFTEN >>> said that it is the defeatist attitude of SOME organist that results >>> in an electronic substitute being installed >> This sort of statement suggests the attitude that ANY pipe organ is >> preferable to ANY digital organ -- I (and I'm clearly not alone on >> this) do not subscribe to that opinion. > > I didn't say that; I have NEVER said that. What I HAVE said is that a > properly voiced, designed, scaled and placed pipe organ is preferable > to ANY digital substitute.   I apologize for any misunderstanding. I didn't state you said that. I do, however, believe that using terms like "defeatist attitude" in conjunction with the selection of a digital organ implies the attitude I presented.   We agree on one point, at least, since I said in my post, that a well-done (and I don't mean it should be cooked <grin>) pipe organ is preferable to a digital organ.     > If you have room for a digital console and speakers, you have room for > a pipe organ. Look at something like Hal Gober's instrument that's > wrapped around the WEST DOORS of the church (grin) ... it also has a > side-saddle console so the organist can see the altar. And it's a > TRACKER (chuckle).   My church seats about 400, and uses a digital organ (3-manual 56-stops). Where the speakers are located we would be lucky to cram in about five or six ranks of pipes. So, could we (technically) have a pipe organ? Yes. However, the decision was made early on (in consultation with a local pipe organ consultant, by the way) that our liturgy would be better served by a medium-large digital organ rather than a tiny pipe organ. Installing a pipe organ of any useful size would have required tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of structural changes to the building, never mind the cost of the instrument.   Four years later, the congregation is still enjoying the sound of that organ and will, I am sure, continue to do so for many years to come. I don't consider that the selection committee made even a compromise, never mind a "bad decision." It was the best choice for our church considering the varied liturgy and musical program, monetary constraints, etc.     > As to monetary constraints, we moved and restored that K & G in > Cincinnati for UNDER $5K in the 1970s, and MOST of the money went to > an organ-builder for releathering the huge reservoir and feeders.   That's nice and I'm glad it worked out for you. However, once again, my experience would suggest that you're citing an exception rather than the rule. Not very many pipe organs are re-located for $5,000!     > We don't put plastic flowers or electric candles or cotton-polyester > cloths on our altars (in the Anglican Church, anyway); we give God the > BEST ... fresh flowers and beeswax candles and pure linen altar > cloths. Why should that not apply to organs as well, if you want to > bring "spirit" and "God" into the mix? Digital substitutes are just > that: a substitute for the real thing.   It's your choice to call these instruments "digital substitutes" not mine. I call them digital organs. I don't consider there is any remote analogy between using artificial vs fresh flowers and using a digital vs pipe organ. On that point, I'm afraid, we'll have to "agree to disagree."     >>> It simply is not good stewardship to install an electronic >>> substitute for $50K-$100K that is going to have to be replaced every >>> 20-30 years when you could recycle a marvelous 19th century pipe >>> organ like the one Seb rescued in New York that will BE there for a >>> couple of hundred years. >> Once again, in my experience, the rescued organ remaining in place >> for a couple of hundred years is the exception rather than the rule. >> Can you find specific examples? Of course. Can you show valid >> statistics to suggest that even 25% of the pipe organs sold remain in >> place for more than 100 years? I doubt it. > > Oh, I think you'd find that the pipe organs that WERE discarded were > discarded because of changing FASHIONS, rather than because they were > worn out. As to examples, see the Extant Organs List from Organ > Historical Society.   My question about finding examples was rhetorical. As for pipe organs being discarded for changing fashions, what difference is the "why?" What matters is that congregations are being faced with replacing these instruments at substantial cost. This on the heels of spending a large sum of money to buy them in the first place, and significant sums of money each year to maintain them.     >> Right. It's the organists. I believe your statement can be just as >> accurate turned around: A digital organ can make more MUSIC than ANY >> amount of pipes. It's the ORGANISTS who don't know what to do with >> them. > > Surely you jest!   No I don't! YOU brought organists into the equation here! :-) I'm saying that an incompetent organist playing a pipe organ CAN BE far less musical than a skilled organist playing a digital organ. I believe that the person at the console has a lot more to do with the success or failure of a music program than whether or not there are pipes in the church. My opinion is that a competent organist can build a hugely successful music program with a good quality digital organ just as easily as with a pipe organ. But yes, I'd still rather play a good pipe organ - the catch is how you define "good."   Regards, Andrew Barss Halifax, Nova Scotia    
(back) Subject: Re: Evangelistic Organ Playing From: <OMusic@aol.com> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:32:31 EDT     --part1_104.48702cfb.2df7441f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit   Although he is a concert organist, Robert McDonald is great at = evangelistic and theater pipe organ playing. He is an organist in the Dallas-Ft. Worth =   area. Lee   --part1_104.48702cfb.2df7441f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   <HTML><FONT FACE=3D3Darial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=3D3D2 PTSIZE=3D3D10 = FAMILY=3D =3D3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=3D3D"Arial" LANG=3D3D"0">Although he is a concert = organist,=3D20=3D Robert McDonald is great at evangelistic and theater pipe organ = playing.&nbs=3D p; He is an organist in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area.&nbsp; Lee</FONT></HTML>   --part1_104.48702cfb.2df7441f_boundary--  
(back) Subject: Re: Evangelistic Organ Playing From: "F. Richard Burt" <effarbee@verizon.net> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 10:41:15 -0600   This is a multi-part message in MIME format.   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0018_01C44D45.1F8F3E60 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   Hello, PipeChatters:     Robert McDonald is organist at First Presbyterian=3D20 Church in Fort Worth. =3D20 F. Richard Burt Dorian Organs =3D20 ...... ----- Original Message -----=3D20 From: OMusic@aol.com=3D20 To: pipechat@pipechat.org=3D20 Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: Re: Evangelistic Organ Playing     Although he is a concert organist, Robert McDonald is great at =3D evangelistic and theater pipe organ playing. He is an organist in the =3D Dallas-Ft. Worth area. Lee ------=3D_NextPart_000_0018_01C44D45.1F8F3E60 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3D"iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable   <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3D3DContent-Type content=3D3D"text/html; =3D charset=3D3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=3D3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT face=3D3D"Courier New" size=3D3D2>Hello, =3D PipeChatters:</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3D"Courier New" size=3D3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3D"Courier New" size=3D3D2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3D"Courier New" size=3D3D2>Robert McDonald is organist = at =3D First=3D20 Presbyterian </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3D"Courier New" size=3D3D2>Church in Fort =3D Worth.</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3D"Courier New" size=3D3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3D"Courier New" size=3D3D2>F. Richard Burt</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3D"Courier New" size=3D3D2>Dorian Organs</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3D"Courier New" size=3D3D2>&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=3D3D"Courier New" size=3D3D2>.....</FONT></DIV> <DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE=3D20 style=3D3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =3D BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV=3D20 style=3D3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =3D black"><B>From:</B>=3D20 <A title=3D3DOMusic@aol.com =3D href=3D3D"mailto:OMusic@aol.com">OMusic@aol.com</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =3D title=3D3Dpipechat@pipechat.org=3D20 href=3D3D"mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org">pipechat@pipechat.org</A> </DIV> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 08, 2004 = =3D 10:32=3D20 AM</DIV> <DIV style=3D3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: Evangelistic Organ = =3D   Playing</DIV> <DIV><BR></DIV><FONT face=3D3Darial,helvetica><FONT lang=3D3D0 =3D face=3D3DArial size=3D3D2=3D20 FAMILY=3D3D"SANSSERIF" PTSIZE=3D3D"10">Although he is a concert = organist, =3D Robert=3D20 McDonald is great at evangelistic and theater pipe organ =3D playing.&nbsp; He is=3D20 an organist in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area.&nbsp; Lee</FONT>=3D20 </FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>   ------=3D_NextPart_000_0018_01C44D45.1F8F3E60--      
(back) Subject: orphans of the storm From: "Raymond H. Clark, Quilisma Publications" <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 09:45:41 -0700       F. Richard Burt wrote:   > > > Reconing speakers is a whole lot easier than replacing > the vast amount of leather valves in a windchest. That > is both an economic and practical advantage. Let's > meet again in 2025 and discuss this subject again. <grins> > > F. Richard Burt > Dorian Organs > > > . > >   You make my point. I'm talking about SLIDER windchests with electro-mechanical or tracker pull-downs. There are not "vast amounts of leather valves" in a slider windchest, whether on electro-mechanical OR tracker action ... there are sixty-one pallets (presuming a normal keyboard compass) and that's IT. And, as I mentioned, given the QUALITY of leather 100 years ago, the K & G we moved needed NO pallet leathers.   MOST of the problems Arie, Bob and others have talked about have been with shoddily-made slider chests and tracker actions that used inferior materials. It happens. There are at least a couple of electronic substitutes that can't pass the UL safety tests (!).   As to the organs at Organ Clearing House and elsewhere, it requires a certain amount of VISION to see them as fine instruments of integrity in their own right, and to accept them as such. It also requires that churches PLAN AHEAD for pipe organs, involving a builder from DAY ONE, BEFORE the blueprints are drawn. How many places have the foresight to do THAT?   Again, the fault lies with the churches and the organists, NOT with those wonderful old organs.   As someone said, "why is a Stradivarius seen as a priceless antique, but an old organ as a piece of junk?" Time and again we've ALL seen PRICELESS 19th century pipe and early 20th century pipe organs go down with a building, or be hauled away to the dump.   And that will CONTINUE to happen until we OURSELVES, the ORGANISTS, learn to value them for what they are: finely-crafted musical instruments ... AND we learn how to play them and the literature that was intended for them ... not EVERY church organ needs to have the resources to play the Liszt "Ad nos" or the Reger "Morning Star" = (chuckle).   Barbara Owen and Organ Historical Society have been TIRELESS champions of BOTH the instruments AND their literature.   I cannot IMAGINE substituting ANY electronic sound for the singing 8' Principal of a Hook, a Johnson, a Koehnken & Grimm, etc. Those who have ears to HEAR, go and LISTEN.   Cheers,   Bud      
(back) Subject: Re: digital "action" From: "Raymond H. Clark, Quilisma Publications" <quilisma@cox.net> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 10:03:44 -0700   Because they're SLIDER chests and can be used with TRACKER *or* electric action (grin).   Bud   Jim McFarland wrote:   > On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:32:58 -0500 "John L. Speller" > <jlspeller@swbell.net> writes: > > >>Here the solution is Blackinton style chests > > > > John: > > Why are you mentioning Blackinton chests in a thread about mechanical > action? > > Jim > "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 "action" From: "John L. Speller" <jlspeller@swbell.net> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:14:02 -0500     ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim McFarland" <mcfarland6@juno.com> To: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Cc: <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 10:32 AM Subject: Re: digital "action"     > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2004 09:32:58 -0500 "John L. Speller" > <jlspeller@swbell.net> writes: > > > Here the solution is Blackinton style chests > > > John: > > Why are you mentioning Blackinton chests in a thread about mechanical > action?   Because, being slider chests, they are equally suitable for tracker or electric action organs. Lyle Blackinton has himself built both tracker = and electro-pneumatic organs using them. For trackers a traditional pallet is used in the chest, while for electro-pneumatic actions an = electro-pneumatic pallet is used. Quimby Pipe Organs also use the latter but have not built any tracker organs. These pneumatic pallets are an excellent design, but the more important feature of the chests is the fact that it provides a = way of avoiding slider seals, and creating a very stable way to fit the = sliders without the need for periodical refitting.   John Speller