PipeChat Digest #4743 - Monday, September 6, 2004
 
RE: Electronic Instrument Question
  by "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com>
RE: Pet Peeve
  by "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com>
Re: Pet Peeve
  by "Bob Conway" <conwayb@sympatico.ca>
English Expressions
  by "Frances Meyers" <jack-fran1@cox.net>
Re: Electronic Instrument Question
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT
  by <DudelK@aol.com>
Re: Electronic Instrument Question
  by <Joshwwhite@aol.com>
Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT
  by "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu>
Electronic Instrument Question
  by "Keith Zimmerman" <kwzimmerman@alltel.net>
Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT
  by <Tspiggle@aol.com>
Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT
  by "M Fox" <ophicleide16@direcway.com>
Re: Electronic Instrument Question
  by <Keys4bach@aol.com>
Re: Electronic Instrument Question
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Re: Electronic Instrument Question
  by <Keys4bach@aol.com>
Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT
  by "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com>
Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT
  by <DudelK@aol.com>
out of Rio
  by "Domitila Ballesteros" <dballesteros@uol.com.br>
Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT
  by "Andrew Barss" <asbarss@eastlink.ca>
Re: Electronic Voicing (brief reply)
  by <RMaryman@aol.com>
 

(back) Subject: RE: Electronic Instrument Question From: "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:48:04 +0100   I think the answers are Yes, Yes and I don't know!   Will Light Coventry UK     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of TubaMagna@aol.com Sent: 06 September 2004 22:27 To: pipechat@pipechat.org Subject: Electronic Instrument Question   PipeChatters: Here is a serious list of questions regarding electronic = instruments,=20 since the discussion has moved on to the adjustments made regarding = levels,=20 balances, and how these units are installed. It is understandable that if a pipe sound were sampled and = faithfully=20 reproduced through a specific system (a sound generating source, = amplifier, and=20 something to turn it back into sound, such as a speaker), that sound = would, in=20 fact, be quite adjustable and quite faithful. My main question is that when one is trying to take several hundred = of=20 these and feed them through the SAME system, or even twenty or thirty speaker=20 cabinets or "channels," is there not a certain amount of cancelling and=20 homogenization? A pipe organ relies on hundreds or thousands of = individual sound=20 sources interacting with each other and their environment as their = energy radiates=20 outward. I imagine that when all of this electronically generated tone = is=20 summed and then fed through a very limited number of directional = devices, much of=20 that independence, vitality, warmth, and interaction is lost or = cancelled out. I have read increasingly about stereo imaging, multiple speaker cabinets,=20 and the like, but it just seems to me that once one decides that any=20 sound-producing system is going to do more than one thing, the = compromises build up. There must be some scientific and mathematical term and explanation = for=20 the phenomenon. But it would seem to me that all the sampling and high=20 technology in the world is somewhat muted by forcing it through the = blender of limited=20 channels and through the pastry bag of limited loudspeakers.=20 Does this explain the flat, sterile, soulless sound, even when = sampling=20 the finest of artistic pipework? And is it that very "perfected" = sterility that=20 pushes 93% of all purchasers of organ-type instruments to pipeless=20 instruments? It is a shocking statistic, so there must be a reason.   Sebastian M. Gluck New York City http://www.glucknewyork.com/   ..   ****************************************************************** "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 List-Subscribe: <mailto:pipechat-on@pipechat.org> List-Digest: <mailto:pipechat-digest@pipechat.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pipechat-off@pipechat.org>    
(back) Subject: RE: Pet Peeve From: "Will Light" <will.light@btinternet.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 22:49:31 +0100   Well, I'm sure you must be right- although I don't know very many = Canadians, so my experience is limited!   Will Light Coventry UK     -----Original Message----- From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Barss Sent: 06 September 2004 22:48 To: PipeChat Subject: Re: Pet Peeve   Well, if we're distinguishing between English and American, let's not=20 forget Canadian which is, in its own right, distinct from each of the=20 others ... eh? :-)   Regards, Andrew Barss Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada)   On Monday, September 6, 2004, at 05:29 PM, Will Light wrote:   > The chemical element symbolized by Al is spelled (or spelt)=20 > "ALUMINIUM" in > English. That is why it is pronounced al-you-min-ee-um. In American it =   > is > spelled "ALUMINUM" and pronounced accordingly. We have to distinguish > between American and English, as they are two similar but very = distinct > languages these days. > > Will Light > Coventry UK > > > -----Original Message----- > From: pipechat@pipechat.org [mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org] On Behalf = Of > Andrew Barss > Sent: 06 September 2004 01:37 > To: PipeChat > Subject: Re: Pet Peeve > > Cole, > > > On Sunday, September 5, 2004, at 07:11 PM, Cole wrote: > >> Please, don't get me started; it is FORmidable, not forMIDable. > > > That one is a British versus North American pronunciation difference. = I > grew up with many British teachers who always used forMIDable rather > than FORmidable. > > Then there's CONtroversy and conTROVersy -- another variation in > British versus North America pronunciation. One of my other favourites > (sorry, you're American, "favorites" :-) ) is aluminum where, in North > American, we pronounce phonetically as "a - lu - mi - num" whereas our > British friends tend towards "al - yu - min - ee - um" > > But hey, vive la diff=E9rence ... oh wait ... that's French! > > Regards, > Andrew Barss > Halifax, Nova Scotia > > ****************************************************************** > "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 > List-Subscribe: <mailto:pipechat-on@pipechat.org> > List-Digest: <mailto:pipechat-digest@pipechat.org> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pipechat-off@pipechat.org> > > > ****************************************************************** > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > List-Subscribe: <mailto:pipechat-on@pipechat.org> > List-Digest: <mailto:pipechat-digest@pipechat.org> > List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pipechat-off@pipechat.org> >     ****************************************************************** "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org List-Subscribe: <mailto:pipechat-on@pipechat.org> List-Digest: <mailto:pipechat-digest@pipechat.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pipechat-off@pipechat.org>    
(back) Subject: Re: Pet Peeve From: "Bob Conway" <conwayb@sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:57:40 -0400   At 05:47 PM 9/6/2004, you wrote: >Well, if we're distinguishing between English and American, let's not >forget Canadian which is, in its own right, distinct from each of the >others ... eh? :-) > >Regards, >Andrew Barss >Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada)   When I first came to Canada I very soon found that I had to learn not just =   one new language (Canadian), but two, (American)!   However every year at the beginning of classes, I always told my new students that if they did not learn anything else, they would certainly learn English!   I have been here for 35 years, and I am still trying to learn two more languages. It seems to me that the younger elements of North American and =   Canadian society have their own language, which changes every year!   Bob Conway      
(back) Subject: English Expressions From: "Frances Meyers" <jack-fran1@cox.net> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 15:11:21 -0700   My grandmother, born in Tennessee and reared in Texas used this = expression: "She (or he) bears acquaintance." Meaning that the longer she knew the person the better she liked him. I wonder if that is derivative of the Elizabethan English spoken in those Cumberland Gap hills? Fran Meyers    
(back) Subject: Re: Electronic Instrument Question From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:22:37 -0500   > And is it that very "perfected" > sterility that pushes 93% of all purchasers of organ-type > instruments to pipeless instruments? It is a shocking statistic, so > there must be a reason. > Most definitely not. People buy electronic organs because they cost less, =   plain and simple. The interesting thing to me, though, is that electronic =   organs generally use cheap keyboards, fake-wood consoles (even fake = veneers on the cheaper models), etc, etc. If one tried to build an electronic = organ to the same standards of quality as a quality pipe organ, including enough =   speakers and channels to minimize the cancelling effects of sending = multiple waves through the same equipment, etc, I suspect the cost would begin to rival pipe organs. Or likewise, if we built pipe organs completely out of =   MDF or fibreboard, reduced the number of ranks to simulate the effect of = the fewer sound sources of an electronic, and didn't need to worry about = making them last more than 20 years, didn't worry about visual aesthetics = (facades and cases are a big part of the cost of a pipe organ), etc, I suspect we could rival electronic organs in cost. But the problem is that there wouldn't be as many knobs, so it would be harder to fool people. We could =   use unification, but they're already on to that. But give them a whole bunch of samples and send it through the same speaker and they're all over =   it, because its not quite so easy to quantify the limitations.   Its only slightly better, really, than Estey putting like 20 drawknobs on their 2-rank reed organs.   Andy (ready to duck, but hey, just calling it as I see it!)     A.B.Lawrence Pipe Organ Service PO Box 111 Burlington, VT 05402 (802)578-3936 Visit our website at www.ablorgans.com  
(back) Subject: Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 18:34:11 -0500   Punctuate this:   Alice while Matthew had had had had had had had had had had had a better impression on the teacher.   Andy (saw this in a a grammar book in grade school once)       A.B.Lawrence Pipe Organ Service PO Box 111 Burlington, VT 05402 (802)578-3936 Visit our website at www.ablorgans.com  
(back) Subject: Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT From: <DudelK@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:46:26 EDT   Can't this superfluous and (to some annoying) thread be put to rest = promptly. Thanks.  
(back) Subject: Re: Electronic Instrument Question From: <Joshwwhite@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:51:46 EDT   In a message dated 9/6/2004 6:23:09 PM Central Standard Time, andy@ablorgans.com writes:   Most definitely not. People buy electronic organs because they cost = less, plain and simple.     I am not sure if this is the truth, in many cases. There are many, many churches with thousands and members, and more money than they can spend. These churches, if asked, could very will come up = with more than enough money for a pipe organ. Or two for that matter. I am not sure what the statistics are, but it would be interesting to see =   how many large three to five manual digital instruments are installed in churches, compared to small two or three manual. This also cannot be true due to the large number of churches who already have pipe organs, who replace them with a Digital instrument. For example, First Baptist Church, Wichita Falls, is about to build a new =   "worship center" (ugh) and instead of moving over their 4/66 Reuter, they = have commissioned to have the largest Rodgers organ in the world built for it. = It is sad too, because the old sanctuary was so elegantly appointed. = Somehow, I don't think this is a matter of money. There are many mega-churches who do the same thing, right here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. I think personally what sells a digital organ to = these churches, is that most churches are switching to this "contemporary" style = of worship, and they automatically think that a Digital organ will let them = play anything from "Bock to Bach" -so that is what they buy. Josh White  
(back) Subject: Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT From: "Randolph Runyon" <runyonr@muohio.edu> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:54:29 -0400   on 9/6/04 7:46 PM, DudelK@aol.com at DudelK@aol.com wrote:   Can't this superfluous and (to some annoying) thread be put to rest promptly. Thanks.     I guess you've "had" it, so to speak, with this frankly irrelevant thread. But come on, all you have to do is delete the email without opening if it bears the heading this one does. Is that so difficult? Besides, I want = to see the answer to Andy's riddle.     Randy Runyon Music Director Zion Lutheran Church Hamilton, Ohio runyonr@muohio.edu      
(back) Subject: Electronic Instrument Question From: "Keith Zimmerman" <kwzimmerman@alltel.net> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:26:30 -0400   Seb asked . . . "when one is trying to take several hundred of these and feed them through the SAME system, or even twenty or thirty speaker = cabinets or "channels," is there not a certain amount of cancelling and homogenization?"   I've been wanting to pose a related question one of the other many times we've gone over the pipe vs electronic issue insofar as the actual "sound-producers" are concerned. I understand about the numerous pipes producing "waves" that come from many directions. Each "wave producing unit" emits a single sound (note). When the organ is playing using a setting of several ranks, these waves mix around in the chambers and in = the room and obviously have some effect on each other as they make their way = to the receivers (listeners). I guess using the tree falling in the woods, = we can't call it sound, yet. So . . . one of the criticisms of the = electronic organs has been that all these waves that represent the sounds that are being produced are funneled through very few speakers, and this process negates much of the beauty that is found in the true pipe organ sound.   I've never quite understood how one could get stereophonic sound with totally different instruments coming out of the two channels simply from a disk being "read" by a single needle.   Anyway, something has occured to me in these discussions that makes me question the validity of the argument. I realize that I'm probably forgetting some "physics" here. . . .   Regardless of how many pipes are producing waves (as opposed to a few speakers in case of the electronic) all these waves end up on a pair of eardrums. Therefore I wonder what the real difference is. . . the waves originate from many sources but terminate on a single receiver/eardrum . . ..vs. waves originating from very few sources/speakers to terminate on a single receiver/eardrum.   I realize that there are other things that contribute to our sense of hearing. When I sit at my 7' Steinway (which is for sale, if anyone is interested) I notice a few things that are different from what I got from = my previous 5' 8" Knabe. My Knabe had nice bass notes, but, when these notes are played on the larger Steinway, they not only produce a larger sound to my ears, but there's a "feeling" that's actually tangible as the stronger waves actually hit the body. IOW, one can "feel" the difference, not just "hear" it.   Perhaps a large part of this difference we notice in the pipe organ sound = vs that obtained from a comparably sized electronic is something that has nothing to do with our ears, but may have something to do with impulses = that are transmitted to our inner ears by conduction through our bones instead = of air conduction through the ear canals.   Sorry about the length. I hope somebody was able to find a point to what = I was trying to say up there.   Keith Zimmerman, M.D.      
(back) Subject: Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT From: <Tspiggle@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:30:38 EDT   Andy, what you mean is that where Alice had had "had", Matthew had had = "had had", and "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.   You've got to use the punctruation.   Tom  
(back) Subject: Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT From: "M Fox" <ophicleide16@direcway.com> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 17:45:22 -0700   ok - and I'd just as soon see it go away too.   "what did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for?"   ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> To: "PipeChat" <pipechat@pipechat.org> Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 4:34 PM Subject: Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT   > > Alice, while Matthew had had "had had." had had "had;" "had had" had had = a > better > impression on the teacher.    
(back) Subject: Re: Electronic Instrument Question From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:53:24 EDT   In a message dated 9/6/2004 7:23:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, andy@ablorgans.com writes:   > We could > use unification, but they're already on to that.   i really do not want to get into this but pipes were King of unification(Wurly's, 4 rank Wicks with 22 stops, etc.) and very rarely are = there ANY unification in electronics except Allen borrowing stops between keybaords = and/or pedal a lot like the Austin at the UMC church here in Englewood Florida.   the fact remains,   If you can afford and have space to get the amount of pipes you = need----buy them.   if not then digi it could be. they are Stewards of GOD's money----   dale finally hearing NO WIND after 36 hours of ruach(sp?)  
(back) Subject: Re: Electronic Instrument Question From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 19:53:54 -0500   Nah... its still money. Sure they have the money, but don't want to spend =   it on the pipe organ. They could add all the midi bells and whistles to a =   pipe organ. Don't forget that they don't want to spend money on space for =   the organ either. They need space for those giant video projection screens. Of course there is also the fact that "worship centers" are usually purposely built with dead accoustics. Electronic organs can be equipped with digital reverb. Unfortunately, human voices can't. I've worshipped in such a worship center and the people don't even bother = trying to sing because its a waste of effort. But boy, you can hear that Rodgers =   wail away! (They do have a system that supposedly adds reverb to the = whole room, that cost mega bucks, but it simply doesn't work)   > > Most definitely not. People buy electronic organs because they > cost less, plain and simple. > > I am not sure if this is the truth, in many cases. > There are many, many churches with thousands and members, and more > money than they can spend. These churches, if asked, could very > will come up with more than enough money for a pipe organ. Or two > for that matter. I am not sure what the statistics are, but it > would be interesting to see how many large three to five manual > digital instruments are installed in churches, compared to small > two or three manual. > > This also cannot be true due to the large number of churches who > already have pipe organs, who replace them with a Digital > instrument. For example, First Baptist Church, Wichita Falls, is > about to build a new "worship center" (ugh) and instead of moving > over their 4/66 Reuter, they have commissioned to have the largest > Rodgers organ in the world built for it. It is sad too, because > the old sanctuary was so elegantly appointed. Somehow, I don't > think this is a matter of money. > > There are many mega-churches who do the same thing, right here in > the Dallas-Fort Worth area. I think personally what sells a > digital organ to these churches, is that most churches are > switching to this "contemporary" style of worship, and they > automatically think that a Digital organ will let them play > anything from "Bock to Bach" -so that is what they buy. > > Josh White       A.B.Lawrence Pipe Organ Service PO Box 111 Burlington, VT 05402 (802)578-3936 Visit our website at www.ablorgans.com  
(back) Subject: Re: Electronic Instrument Question From: <Keys4bach@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 21:01:32 EDT   In a message dated 9/6/2004 8:55:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, andy@ablorgans.com writes:   > Unfortunately, human voices can't.   Hilegers,Hyligers, whatever used to mic the whole room and run it through their instrument.   it worked but was so expensive...........   and it is not money per se but what the money can buy. 15 grand got my church a 3 manual COS instrument. i can practice anything. i can play = anything i need to and play a helluva service on it that i could not do on a 2 rank anything.   Money, space and taste. mine is in my mouth. i had enough small organs = at CCM. dont want to spend the rest of my life on a school practice = instrument.   <G>   dale in waiting for the third one Florida  
(back) Subject: Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT From: "Andy Lawrence" <andy@ablorgans.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:01:45 -0500   Nope... you can solve the riddle as I wrote it. Here's how:   Alice, while Matthew had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had = a better impression on the teacher.   Andy   (though I think you're right that they originally had "where" instead of "while" and "effect" instead of "impression".)     On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 20:30:38 EDT, Tspiggle wrote > Andy, what you mean is that where Alice had had "had", Matthew had > had "had had", and "had had" had had a better effect on the teacher. > > You've got to use the punctruation. > > Tom       A.B.Lawrence Pipe Organ Service PO Box 111 Burlington, VT 05402 (802)578-3936 Visit our website at www.ablorgans.com    
(back) Subject: Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT From: <DudelK@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 21:12:42 EDT   But these things tend to go on ad nauseam and I have a bit of arthritis in = my index fingers and tire of hitting delete on and on and on and on and . . = . it's not at all difficult to take these things private, which is what I do = when I am responding to something that wouldn't seem to be of any interest = other than to the original poster and myself . . . although others seem never to = have a thought without hitting "send." And SOME complicate it AND REALLY = infuriate the literate AMONG US by using the SHIFT KEY the way some people who CAN'T =   REGISTER anything use the CRESCENDO pedal.   I shall now retreat to the quiet of my garret with my pets and log off.  
(back) Subject: out of Rio From: "Domitila Ballesteros" <dballesteros@uol.com.br> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:22:04 -0300   Hello, List. I'll be out of Rio this week (without internet) Because this, I need unsubscribing me.   Domitila          
(back) Subject: Re: Pet Peeve; now totally OT From: "Andrew Barss" <asbarss@eastlink.ca> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 22:22:11 -0300   Or this alternative that I didn't post (until now) ...   Alice, while Matthew had had "had," had had "had had." Had " had had " had a better impression on the teacher?   Regards, Andrew Barss Halifax, Nova Scotia     On Monday, September 6, 2004, at 10:01 PM, Andy Lawrence wrote:   > Nope... you can solve the riddle as I wrote it. Here's how: > > Alice, while Matthew had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had > had a > better impression on the teacher. > > Andy > > (though I think you're right that they originally had "where" instead > of "while" and "effect" instead of "impression".)    
(back) Subject: Re: Electronic Voicing (brief reply) From: <RMaryman@aol.com> Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 21:34:23 EDT   In a message dated 9/5/2004 2:27:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, andy@ablorgans.com writes: .. Most of us know that voicing pipes involves cut-up, nicking, toe-hole size adjustment, etc. What is an electronic organ voicer doing exactly? Please don't be afraid to get technical. I really want to know. (Only because I'm curious... I'm not looking for a level of detail that will allow me to go out and do it myself). I realize that this is not the place to write some sort of = manual, just looking for a summary. In a nutshell, "voicing" an electronic depends on the technology in use. = Some analog e-org's allowed a technician to adjust the relative loudness of = each speaking voice, and in the most recent digital incarnations allow a tech = with the proper equipment to tweak each note of each stop for loudness, attack, =   steadiness-of-state, etc. the adjustable parameters vary from maker to = maker, and model to model.   Rick in VA