Search:
Submit Search


Wet vs Surround vs Stereo for lay people....

A discussion forum for anything even marginally Hauptwerk-related.

Re: Wet vs Surround vs Stereo for lay people....

Postby johnstump_organist » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:09 am

Thanks Martin,
I always feel bad when you take the time to reply - I don't want to take you away from working on enhancements :D but thank you for the considered response. I was thinking other members of the forum would reply. I have a fairly good concept of how sampling is done and what is involved in obtaining good quality samples, but I do have a couple of questions about one or two tiny details with regard to how the "voicing" that is available to us works. One day I will get those questions well-formulated and posted and maybe I can have my knowledge/concept expanded just for the sake of knowing, not that I will ever be doing any sampling myself. I'm old school that way, sometimes I just like to know things, even though I don't need to really need to know them.
mdyde wrote:- Wet samples (especially due to the real original acoustic, which differs for every pipe), recorded in stereo or surround.
- At least one sample per pipe.
- Much longer samples.
- Real key-release samples (as opposed to just fading out the sustain portions).
- Multiple release samples.
- Multiple loops.
- Flow randomisation model (which is on by default, even if the wind supply model is turned off).
- The wind supply model.


The wet samples with a different acoustic response for each note might indeed apply. I hadn't thought about that.
Maybe longer samples, but Allen had introduced fairly long samples with their MDS models as well as as sampled releases. I'm pretty Allen also has multiple loops and samples running in their current technology. BUt maybe not as long or as many as in some HW sets though.
I thought multiple releases were only necessary for "wet" samples to capture the different acoustic responses, but maybe I don't have a full understanding of it. I know Allen uses totally dry samples and relies on convolution reverb (they bought up the patent rights to convolution reverb from the group in Australia when it first appeared, that's why it was so late coming to the general market in the USA.)
The wind flow and wind model I'm sure could account for a big part of the added realism.
Thanks again,
John
User avatar
johnstump_organist
Member
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato, Mexico

Re: Wet vs Surround vs Stereo for lay people....

Postby mdyde » Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:26 am

Thanks, John.

You're very welcome.
Best regards,
Martin.

[Please use email or the Contact page if you need to contact us privately, rather than private forum messages.]

Image
User avatar
mdyde
Moderator
 
Posts: 10351
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:19 pm
Location: UK

Re: Wet vs Surround vs Stereo for lay people....

Postby CWEB » Tue Jun 27, 2017 11:17 am

An obvious potential source of difference not mentioned so far would be the quality of the original sound to be sampled. perhaps hauptwerk producers are sampling from superior sources?
CWEB
Member
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:11 am

Re: Wet vs Surround vs Stereo for lay people....

Postby johnstump_organist » Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:02 pm

CWEB wrote:An obvious potential source of difference not mentioned so far would be the quality of the original sound to be sampled. perhaps hauptwerk producers are sampling from superior sources?

I doubt this is the reason. I can't imagine anyone deliberating sampling bad/poor quality pipes (the "sound source" for sample sets). I know Allen has sampled Cavile Coll organs as well as Willis and Schultz organs. Opinions can vary about what style of organ building is good, but unless one was doing a historic sampling of an organ that had fallen into disrepair and the pipes had been mistuned/regulated over the years, I don't think anyone would deliberately sample poor quality pipes, especially for a commercial product. Sampling is a well understood process by now that just about anyone with good working knowledge can do. I'm sure the difference has to lay in the software the recreates the sounds from the samples and the quality of the audio system.
John
User avatar
johnstump_organist
Member
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato, Mexico

Re: Wet vs Surround vs Stereo for lay people....

Postby sjkartchner » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:09 pm

The realism of the sound is greatly influenced by the number of pipes sampled per rank. When only one or two pipes per octave are sampled and then stretched to fill in the remaining notes, the result is less realistic than when each pipe is sampled separately. Part of this has to do with formant processing which to my ears is a dead giveaway of most electronic organs, especially in the reeds and upper voices. It is less noticeable with flue pipes that don't have a prominent attack transient. As I understand it, Allen still uses only partial rank sampling and therefore is subject to this phenomenon.
Stan Kartchner, Tucson, AZ USA
User avatar
sjkartchner
Member
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:55 am
Location: Tucson, AZ USA

Re: Wet vs Surround vs Stereo for lay people....

Postby RichardW » Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:12 am

sjkartchner wrote:Part of this has to do with formant processing ...

That is so true.

A one time member of this forum (our Lowther speaker expert - for those with a long memory) once played some electronic organ sounds in one of his YouTube videos. It all sounded OK to me when he played individual notes. However, when he played a scale I immediately noticed that the start of every note was absolutely identical. It sounded so artificial.

Apologies for being O/T.

Regards,
Richard
User avatar
RichardW
Member
 
Posts: 736
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 10:16 am
Location: UK

Re: Wet vs Surround vs Stereo for lay people....

Postby johnstump_organist » Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:38 pm

sjkartchner wrote:The realism of the sound is greatly influenced by the number of pipes sampled per rank. When only one or two pipes per octave are sampled and then stretched to fill in the remaining notes, the result is less realistic than when each pipe is sampled separately. Part of this has to do with formant processing which to my ears is a dead giveaway of most electronic organs, especially in the reeds and upper voices. It is less noticeable with flue pipes that don't have a prominent attack transient. As I understand it, Allen still uses only partial rank sampling and therefore is subject to this phenomenon.

I have long suspected this to be a major factor. Allen has regularly increased the number of samples over the years I syspect as it became more economically vialble to do so with lower memory costs. The last Allen I owned had their DOVE voicing software for, you could see how many samples were loaded for a stop and over what range they were used. Some flute stops had very few samples while some reeds had as many as 31 samples. A problem with stretching samples, is the obvious break that sometimes occurs when you have the same sample over several notes and then switch over to the next sample.
User avatar
johnstump_organist
Member
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:15 pm
Location: San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato, Mexico

Re: Wet vs Surround vs Stereo for lay people....

Postby larason2 » Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:27 am

On the subject of Hauptwerk Vs. Allen, I've been thinking about this too. It used to mystify me that at my local church, the two organists there seemed to prefer playing on their Allen Renaissance rather than the beautiful Casavant that the church has installed. They would play the opening and recessional on the Casavant, but then switch to the Allen for the rest of the service. I seem to think that Allen has chosen to have their consoles sound different on purpose. That is to say, they have chosen samples where the pipes sound very uniform, the tuning is close to perfect even temperament, and the pipe sound and timbre is not very aggresive or distinct sounding. The result is an organ that is very pleasant for the non-musical, easy to control and register, but I would argue not very beautiful. I think it is almost robotic sounding. For me, that isn't very appealing, but I wonder if there aren't some professional organists out there who would prefer such a sound, at least professionally. In contrast, none of the organs that I have heard sampled for Hauptwerk are like this, in fact, none of the real organs I have ever heard are like this either. Real organs are temperamental and difficult to control, and small changes in the pipes or registrations have large changes in the sound. I think this reduced uniformity and increased character are more beautiful, and I suspect most Hauptwerk fans would agree. However, I think Allen has a market for the type of sound their instruments create, and if they were to make them sound more real (more like Hauptwerk), it would be bad for business.
larason2
Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:32 pm

Previous

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests