After a lifetime of being interested in the pipe organ, it was inevitable that I crossed paths with many electronic organ along the way. Back in the 1950's there weren't too many electronic organ companies. In Britain, the only British company I could think of was Compton. In the USA there was Allen, Rodgers, Conn, Wurlitzer and of course Hammond. Schober and Artisan were kit organs that used vacuum tubes and was similar to the above. I'm not sure if Hammond ever attempted to sound like a pipe organ but none the less they were very popular because of their compact size and mobility. I remember hearing a Compton organ and was impressed by the realism of the Open Diapason. It supposedly had rotating optical discs that reproduced previously recorded pipe organ sound. That was over fifty years ago so time has faded my true recollection of what it really sounded like. Possibly if I heard one today I may be disappointed.
Although all these companies basically had access to the same technology, there were no real breakthroughs or differences in sound realism in my opinion. Possibly Allen with its one tone generator per note (Conn as well) offered more stable sound, and offsetting the upper and lower manuals a bit gave a lush celesting effect , but other than that they were all the same - a rather unsatisfactory electronic sound.
Rodgers (and Allen) in the 1960's offered large organs with lots of stops, lots of tone generators, etc. and possibly the sound was a bit better than in the previous decade. The 1970 Allen computer digital organ was possibly a breakthrough compared to previous organ sound but upon closer analysis the sounds were thin, the Mixtures were flat and lacked brilliance. But even today, Allen seems to refuse to use enough Mixtures, in my opinion.But that is another story. But even when they do, their sound still falls flat.
I'm not sure why even today some electronic organ builders still lack the realism that I would expect, given all of the technology available. My criticism is based on what I have personally heard with my own ears. Take for example the Marshall and Ogletree organs. Why do they sound so superior ? The five manual organ at the Kravis Center in Florida is an amazing piece of realism as was the original organ at Trinity Wall Street. What is the secret to their sound ? Personally I refuse to believe it is just a matter of longer sample loops per note. If it were that simple (if in fact obtaining a longer sample loop is easy) wouldn't everyone be doing it ? Is it a matter of many many more audio channels ? It puzzles me to this day how a loud speaker can actually reproduce two frequecies at the same time. A vibrating speaker cone at one frequency is made to produce a frequency at another pitch and simultaneously. I can't visualize how that can work and reproduce both with equal accuracy.
I have purposely left out Hauptwerk because I think that it is a different animal completely. I am still not sure how to classify the sounds that I hear. They are not synthesized and I'm not even sure if I consider it a "sample". I seem to think that these terms are used interchangeably in the digital organ world without much thought being given as to what it actually is. In my mind I think of my Hauptwerk as being a "previously recorded" sound that is played back when I depress the keyboard key. When I am asked how to describe Hauptwerk compared to other organ companies I say that I think that Hauptwerk reproduces a previously recorded sound in its original acoustic environment. The bottom line is that I think that my Hauptwerk sound "sample" is the most realistic of all of them.
But it still leaves me curious as to why some companies (i.e Allen vs M&O) who I would think have the same technology available to them both can sound so different. I feel content that at least I don't have to concern myself too much because both of the above are way out of my price range and better yet, I feel that my Hauptwerk set up delivers the most realistic sound.
Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.
Antoni
Although all these companies basically had access to the same technology, there were no real breakthroughs or differences in sound realism in my opinion. Possibly Allen with its one tone generator per note (Conn as well) offered more stable sound, and offsetting the upper and lower manuals a bit gave a lush celesting effect , but other than that they were all the same - a rather unsatisfactory electronic sound.
Rodgers (and Allen) in the 1960's offered large organs with lots of stops, lots of tone generators, etc. and possibly the sound was a bit better than in the previous decade. The 1970 Allen computer digital organ was possibly a breakthrough compared to previous organ sound but upon closer analysis the sounds were thin, the Mixtures were flat and lacked brilliance. But even today, Allen seems to refuse to use enough Mixtures, in my opinion.But that is another story. But even when they do, their sound still falls flat.
I'm not sure why even today some electronic organ builders still lack the realism that I would expect, given all of the technology available. My criticism is based on what I have personally heard with my own ears. Take for example the Marshall and Ogletree organs. Why do they sound so superior ? The five manual organ at the Kravis Center in Florida is an amazing piece of realism as was the original organ at Trinity Wall Street. What is the secret to their sound ? Personally I refuse to believe it is just a matter of longer sample loops per note. If it were that simple (if in fact obtaining a longer sample loop is easy) wouldn't everyone be doing it ? Is it a matter of many many more audio channels ? It puzzles me to this day how a loud speaker can actually reproduce two frequecies at the same time. A vibrating speaker cone at one frequency is made to produce a frequency at another pitch and simultaneously. I can't visualize how that can work and reproduce both with equal accuracy.
I have purposely left out Hauptwerk because I think that it is a different animal completely. I am still not sure how to classify the sounds that I hear. They are not synthesized and I'm not even sure if I consider it a "sample". I seem to think that these terms are used interchangeably in the digital organ world without much thought being given as to what it actually is. In my mind I think of my Hauptwerk as being a "previously recorded" sound that is played back when I depress the keyboard key. When I am asked how to describe Hauptwerk compared to other organ companies I say that I think that Hauptwerk reproduces a previously recorded sound in its original acoustic environment. The bottom line is that I think that my Hauptwerk sound "sample" is the most realistic of all of them.
But it still leaves me curious as to why some companies (i.e Allen vs M&O) who I would think have the same technology available to them both can sound so different. I feel content that at least I don't have to concern myself too much because both of the above are way out of my price range and better yet, I feel that my Hauptwerk set up delivers the most realistic sound.
Any opinions would be greatly appreciated.
Antoni