My take on 4 different audio groupings and loading options

[mdyde]

Hello Marc,

Unless I've missed something here, in my example #2 because of the way I set up 1-2-3-4 as a separate audio group and chose cyclic witin octaves, and sent all manual ranks to 1-2-3-4, that it would be cyclic within octaves?

Correct.

but as I report the realism dropped like a rock.

My suggestion is that the realism dropped hugely because you put *mono* outputs into the group, i.e. the ranks would be sounding in mono, rather than having (half as many) stereo outputs.

Problem is one pair up front for me is a larger tower pair and I'd end up with pedal notes going all over the place, some to the preferred tower destination and some not.

You do need all speakers that participate within an audio group to be identical, otherwise the results will be noticeably uneven.

Hello Martin,

So if I understand this correctly, if I set up 1-2-3-4 as an audio group and choose cyclic within octaves, I will get cyclic within octaves but it will be in mono, and in order to get cyclic within octaves in 'stereo' I need to add one more pair to the group, that being 3 pairs?

Marc

Hi Marc,

Yes that is correct. And additionally if you have 8 audio channels in your ASIO interface you can mix all three pairs down to one pair and send that to a stereo input subwofer and headphone amplifier. Just remember all six speakers must be identical.

Thomas

Thanks, Thomas! As they say, you learn something new every day and I'm glad this was brought to light. As I mentioned, using my example #2 with the St. Max sounded very mono to me and as it turns out I was right, I just didn't know for sure that was actually what I was hearing or that would be the outcome and now wonder how many here reading this have truly understood this up to now. Kind of reminds me of the confusion I've seen here regarding the left / right component in the rank table loading stuff. As I say, even though I have one pair of speakers up front that don't match the other 2, just for test purposes for starters I may still create an audio group of 6 channels front and 2 to the rear just to see what I get. My 1010 LT is capable of 10 channels total and ideally I was recently thinking of adding a fourth pair to the front for either a cyclic or a divisions routed arrangement anyways, so I'm glad this came up!

Stay tuned!

Marc

Hi Marc,

I think the number of pairs should be a prime number above 1. 3, 5, 7, 11, 13 etc. So 3 pairs or 5 pairs not 4 pairs.
If you use 3 pairs then they should be all the same. The rear group and the subwoofer can be driven from the mix down channels and they do not need to be identical but in a perfect world.....

Also a good use for the SPDIF is the mix down channel (nos. 9/10).

Thomas

[mdyde]

So if I understand this correctly, if I set up 1-2-3-4 as an audio group and choose cyclic within octaves, I will get cyclic within octaves but it will be in mono, and in order to get cyclic within octaves in 'stereo' I need to add one more pair to the group, that being 3 pairs?

Hello Marc,

In Hauptwerk a logical 'audio output' is an entry in the left-hand browse list on the 'General settings | Audio outputs' screen. When you put more than one of those logical audio outputs into an audio output group, then Hauptwerk will use the group's distribution algorithm (e.g. cycling) to assign each pipe to a logical output within the group.

However, the key thing to understand is that each logical audio output can itself be either mono or stereo; you select that via the mono/stereo channel format property of the logical audio output (in the right-hand pane, on the 'General settings | Audio outputs' screen). If it's a stereo output then of course you also need to select *two* device channels (speakers) for it, i.e. both one for the left and and one for the right (also as properties of the logical audio output, on the 'General settings | Audio outputs' screen).

Hence you can either put mono or stereo outputs into any audio output group. If they're stereo, i.e. if each one has a pair of speakers then Hauptwerk will cycle between the stereo *pairs* of speakers, rather than between individual speakers (which is what would happen if you defined the logical outputs in the group as mono, which you must have done in your previous tests, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to have only four speakers assigned separately to four logical audio outputs).

You could potentially have just two stereo outputs in a group (e.g. device channels 1/2 for the first, and 3/4 for the second), and Hauptwerk would then still sound in stereo and successive pipes would alternate between the two stereo *pairs*. That could have some of the benefits of multi-channel audio, compared to having just a single stereo pair, but having three stereo outputs would probably have significantly more of those multi-channel audio benefits. (As Thomas mentioned, prime numbers of pairs are probably ideal.)

Thanks, Martin and Thomas!

I'm going to review my settings, perhaps there was something I had set incorrectly. As I mentioned, I've already used my example 2 with the zuric v5 and it was quite good, since then I changed a few settings while I was testing with this particular instance of HW, then went back to how I thought I originally had it set up for example 2, maybe I overlooked something.

Marc

[mdyde]

Hello Marc,

There's no way you could have set up your 'example 2' routing as anything than mono because it wouldn't be possible to have four stereo outputs in an output group using only four speakers -- four stereo outputs would need eight speakers.

Hello Martin,

I'm not sure where the 4 stereo pairs part got into the conversation, but I follow you. The original plan for example 2 was to set up 1-2-3-4 as a separate audio group (hence 2 stereo pairs), make use of the algorithms for that group, set 5-6 which is on the pedal by itself as a separate audio group, and finally 7-8 as the last group for the rear surround. I reviewed my settings from the other night and I caught an error I indeed made. I had 5-6 accidentally set separately as each being mono which would explain the less than desirable outcome. I corrected 5-6 back to stereo and reloaded the set, the sound came back nicely, I then reconfigured 1-2-3-4-5-6 as one audio group (3 stereo pairs) for every thing up front and 7-8 for the rear surround, I'm making a comparison as we speak.

Marc

Well, very interesting! Even though only 2 of the 3 pairs of speakers up front match, it gave me a good idea of how things would sound if all 3 matched using the 1-2-3-4-5-6 arrangement. You kind of gain in one area and lose in another. Most immediately noticed was a good 20% drop in clarity but in this case not in a bad way. I'd describe the sound as buttery smooth, the stereo field stayed nicely open and expansive, if you're playing mostly chords things are awesome! The drawback comes when I played solo stops against foundation chords, the cromorne in particular, then you've got this nice expansive sound and all of a sudden one stop sounding from the left, then a few notes way over from the right and back and fourth and so on. If it weren't for this I'd say in ways I almost like it better, but in other ways I still like my divisions routed scheme. Tough call!

We could get really crazy here and set up an audio group of say 3 pairs, send all foundations or more so stops that get used with others and take advantage of the algorithms, then for those more solo stops set up another stereo pair group or two for those stops so you don't get the very noticeable back and forth part. Could be interesting!

Marc

You should have the three speaker on the left set close together (maybe stacked vertically?) and the three speakers on the right set close together.then the distance from the players head to the right speakers and distance the players head to the left speakers should be equal and the same distance used to separate the speaker groups. This should center the image on the player. This requires that the speakers be up at ear level.

This should realistically reproduce the organ case stereo image.

But there are many other arrangements. YMMV

Thomas

You should have the three speaker on the left set close together (maybe stacked vertically?) and the three speakers on the right set close together.then the distance from the players head to the right speakers and distance the players head to the left speakers should be equal and the same distance used to separate the speaker groups. This should center the image on the player. This requires that the speakers be up at ear level.

This should realistically reproduce the organ case stereo image.

But there are many other arrangements. YMMV

Thomas

Hello Thomas,

It was just a few weeks ago you might recall you and I were chiming in on another thread here concerning the benefits of stacked speakers with the listener and the speakers in a triangular relationship to each other, been in that camp for at least three years now and might even be able to claim fame to that one along with having the speakers way up off the floor, then again maybe not, but if I stack them any higer I'm gonna have to cut holes in the ceiling and they're going to be in my bedroom upstairs! I've got a shelf system now where I can position the front speakers vertically about 6' apart (best) or can move them around any way I like. Keeping the lowest towers for the pedal @ 6' apart and moving the upper smaller 2 pairs of speakers inward closer to each other messes up the sound, keeping all @ 6' apart and as close to stacked as possible sounds best by far. Now that I've played around with routing again and have now had a chance to re-look at things (and haven't thought of it or tried it) I'm wondering how a combination of foundation stops sent to 3 pairs using the algorithms and a couple more separate stereo pair groups (not using algorithms) for the solo stops might sound together, it could be done with10 channels which I can come up with if I pick up a digital to analog coverter for 9-10 on my 1010LT.

Marc

Hello all again,

I got to thinking that perhaps ranks of similar family and timbre grouped together in their own audio groups would makes sense and sound good, after all you wouldn't think a reed and a flute would fare well sounding from the same pair of speakers. Well, that idea didn't pan out either. Selectively grouping similar sounding ranks together in their own audio group resulted in a loss of realism as well. For wet sets, each division routed to its own audio group (stereo pair) with stacked speakers still offers the best realism and wins in my book.

Marc