Search:
Submit Search


Freiberg - G. Silbermann Organ Model

Existing and forthcoming Hauptwerk instruments, recommendations, ...

Freiberg - G. Silbermann Organ Model

Postby zurek » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:30 am

Freiberg Organ Model
I take the opportunity to announce now the newest Sonus Paradisi sample set. It is the virtual model of a mature Silbermann opus: the Petrikirche organ in Freiberg (Germany).
Freiberg is exceptionally lucky city, there are 4 extant Silbermann's organs. Besides the organ in the Dom (cathedral) which is known for it is big (3 manuals), there is perhaps less known Petrikirche organ, which is - nevertheless - also very rich in the stop list and, above all, it is the testimony of the Silbermann last manner. Thus, the Petrikirche organ was, for example, very similar in style to the destroyed Frauenkirche organ in Dresden. It is here, in Petrikirche, that we understand the meaning of the famous "Gravität" which young Bach was already asking for in his report on the Mühlhausen organ, back in 1708. The plenum is indeed unusually rich and heavy, since the organ is based on 16 feet Principal (the Oberwerk is equipped with 16' Quintadena), there is even real 32' Gross Untersatz in the pedal. Besides that, we find great variety of colors thanks to 3 reed stops in manuals (Fagot, Trumpet and Vox humana), the mutations (Nassat, Quintas, Sexquialtera, Terz) and various flues (Rohrflutes, Spitzflute, Gedackt, Gamba).

Our virtual model is almost ready and it will appear most probably on 18th October. There will be 4 versions of this sample set. The dry version will be suitable for the use with convolution reverb. There will be two different wet versions - one presenting more direct sound of pipes, the other presenting the organ from greater distance, for those who like to listen not so much to the expressive speech of pipes but rather to the acoustics of the church and the organ immersed in the reverb. Finally, the unique feature of Sonus Paradisi work, there is the Surround version, presenting the 4-channel audio samples, which will take you virtually into the church in the center of the sound field.

Unfortunately, there are almost no preview demo available. I am looking for an excelent organist who would like to record about 30 minutes of baroque music using all the colors of the instrument for our web presentation. At best, live midi recorded files would be welcome with the registration suggestions. Please, write to me an e-mail if you are interested in this. The reward for such a virtual performer would be a free copy of the sample set in all its versions. The requirements: the performance should be submitted in at least 20-bit depth and also in midi files, it should be submitted at best before 18th October 2008. The pieces should be serious enough and suitable for this type of (baroque) instrument. The list of compositions for the recording should be submitted for approval.

Great Listening Test
However, for now until the 18th October, we prepared the Great Listening Test. One midi file was recorded several times using various versions of the sample set. The task is to identify which version of the sample set was used to record the particular demo piece. There are rewards waiting for the successfull participants!
The primary aim of this test is to determine whether it is possible to make clear distinction between the wet set and its dry companion when the later is used with the proper convolution. I am quite curious about the results, since this would either confirm or confute the doubts about the dry sample sets and the convolution reverb which many (including myself to some extent) have. So, please, all of you advocates and adversaries of the dry sample set and convolution reverb, speak up and give me your results!

The web page with the test is here (scroll down the page, please).
Last edited by zurek on Tue Oct 07, 2008 3:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
zurek
Member
 
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:38 am
Location: Prague

Postby adri » Tue Oct 07, 2008 12:50 pm

Here are short sound samples of this organ (not sure before or after restoration):

http://www.die-orgelseite.de/titelliste ... rg_StPetri
adri
Member
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:33 am
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Postby www.orgeljournal.de » Tue Oct 07, 2008 1:54 pm

Image

Click here: Hauptwerk-News for German readers
_________________________________________

adri wrote:Here are short sound samples of this organ (not sure before or after restoration)


@ Adri: This recording was made 1994.

@ Jiri: Congratulations! Formidable! I’m looking forward to more demos.


Best regards,
Matthias

_________________________

Image

www.Orgeljournal.de
www.MusikundTheologie.de

_________________________
www.orgeljournal.de
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:48 pm

Postby adri » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:05 pm

in other words, these wonderful sample snippets were recorded before the restoration of the organ, which was completed in 2007.
adri
Member
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:33 am
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Postby imcg110 » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:32 pm

Congratulations Jiri

This looks like some groundbreaking work. It is becoming increasingly obvious that none of us can agree on the optimal acoustic to present a virtual organ. The ability to choose your preferred wet acoustic is a great step forward.

I look forward to hearing the rest of the organ as it becomes available.
User avatar
imcg110
Member
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:25 am
Location: Scotland

Postby www.orgeljournal.de » Tue Oct 07, 2008 2:37 pm

Image

Click here: Hauptwerk-News for German readers
_________________________________________


@ Jiri: How many releases were recorded?

I think about to invest more in verifiably good sample sets seeing the financial crisis. The right way? Perhaps I'm simple-hearted.

And the market price of Freiberg/Petrikirche? Thrilling days. Somehow or other.


Best regards,
Matthias

_________________________

Image

www.Orgeljournal.de
www.MusikundTheologie.de

_________________________
www.orgeljournal.de
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:48 pm

Postby jo » Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:48 pm

A blind test is very interesting. That's a very good idea, Jiri.
I suppose the main difficulty will be results interpretation, but it's worth trying.

Jocelyn
jo
Member
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:28 am
Location: France

Postby adri » Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:13 pm

adri wrote:in other words, these wonderful sample snippets were recorded before the restoration of the organ, which was completed in 2007.


I am responding to myself here, as I found the CD with a Cantata by Bach and the organ of St. Petri, which I bought in a used CD store for $3.00 about 1-1/2 years ago, and which renewed my interest in Silbermann organs a lot, as the organ sounds exceptionally fine and has a rather large specification for a 2-manual instrument.

It's very well suited for music central and even South German organ music. And very good for Bach, naturally.

So, my big question is: what kind of effect did the recent restoration have on the sound of this instrument?

Here's another link:
http://www.jehmlich-orgelbau.de/deutsch ... l_fre3.htm
adri
Member
 
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2004 7:33 am
Location: Belgrade, Serbia

Postby www.orgeljournal.de » Wed Oct 08, 2008 5:15 pm

Image

Click here: Hauptwerk-News for German readers
_________________________________________


jo wrote:A blind test is very interesting. That's a very good idea, Jiri.


I don’t want to play this whimsical marketing game. When I hear the two demo parts I’m very confused:

- Abrupt releases in part one

- Normal recordings, strongest artefacts and funny artificial reverberation in part two

I read: “These demo pieces are very preliminary”. And the test? Some wav demos are like mp3. I use a very good AKG K 701. What we need are expressive and actual demos and serious information about the number of releases in this set.

This organ calls for high standard.

Best regards,
Matthias

_________________________

Image

www.Orgeljournal.de
www.MusikundTheologie.de

_________________________
www.orgeljournal.de
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:48 pm

Postby Lougheed » Wed Oct 08, 2008 6:47 pm

To be honest, I've listened to a few of the test tracks, but have lost interest. Listening to the same music over and over again isn't something I want to spend time doing.

I also don't understand why there are ten test files, for only three perspectives! (I would have hung in there for three recordings!)

Still, I understand that this marketing approach will interest some, so to each his/her own.

Lawrence
Lougheed
Member
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 11:08 pm
Location: Canada

Postby positive » Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:53 pm

Lougheed wrote:
I also don't understand why there are ten test files, for only three perspectives! (I would have hung in there for three recordings!)

Still, I understand that this marketing approach will interest some, so to each his/her own.

Lawrence


Statistics. If you would have only three recordings, you could possibly arrive at the correct answer "per exclusionem". In this way with many test samples, the chance to "guess" the correct answer (for a free sample set as a reward,) is substantially diminished.

EDIT: after listening to the test in Sennheiser HD650 headphones, I can recognize the difference between the tracks but I am unable to assign which one is which. At the most, at times, I had the feeling that I can "feel" what may be the wet-direct vs. the wet-diffuse..
positive
Member
 
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:15 am
Location: Scottsdale, AZ

Postby Nick18 » Thu Oct 09, 2008 3:26 am

Lougheed wrote:To be honest, I've listened to a few of the test tracks, but have lost interest. Listening to the same music over and over again isn't something I want to spend time doing.
Me too...
A test is fun, but this one is confusing and boring.
Nick18
Member
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:22 am
Location: The Netherlands

Postby kvaca » Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:18 am

1.positive is right-there are ten files becouse of statistics and reward
2.the test is easy for people who are able to hear the differences in recorded output of those sample sets/dry w.convolution,wet-direct,rear/
3.the test is maybe not good idea for people that likes to talk about the differences in those sample sets but actually cannot hear them,or are unable to sort them-it seems to me that they are very angry and often call it boring and confusing
4.the CD quality of files is enough to make good decisions/compare it to many demos ONLY in mp3 quality promoting very expensive sample sets/
Additional info- for those kind peole who want to participate on the test-up to two release samples were used/normal,short/ and up to 3 IRs for dry set were used.
kvaca
Member
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:02 am

Postby www.orgeljournal.de » Thu Oct 09, 2008 5:34 am

Image

Click here: Hauptwerk-News for German readers
_________________________________________



kvaca wrote:Additional info ... up to two release samples were used/normal,short


1. Thanks for your information. (Who are you? I'm Matthias. :wink:)
But only two releases are really not enough. What a pity!

2. "The reverberation time is up to 4 seconds"

3. I repeat: This organ calls for high standard.

Best regards,
Matthias

_________________________

Image

www.Orgeljournal.de
www.MusikundTheologie.de

_________________________
www.orgeljournal.de
Member
 
Posts: 118
Joined: Sun Dec 23, 2007 4:48 pm

Postby Anton Heger » Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:04 am

But only two releases are really not enough. What a pity!

In my opinion, Zwolle and Forcalquier are both very attractive organs!
With respect to the number of releases, the difference in sound between for example the wet Litomysl (with 1 release) and those two organs (with 2 releases) is enormous.

Would a quality-step from 2 to 3 releases again so impressive?

Anton Heger
Anton Heger
Member
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 2:14 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Next

Return to Hauptwerk instruments

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests