How important is speaker quality to organs?

Very new to HW, and I understand almost nothing about speakers and amps.

I did, however, recently spend quite a bit of money on a pair of expensive speakers for my digital music. Amazing sound quality.

I recently saw a video online of a fellow, a very accomplished organist, with a state of the art, very fine cabinet, three manual dedicated HW controller. It was the latest greatest European HW organ with touchscreens built in and all that. Absolutely gorgeous instrument.

And sitting on top of that $15,000 (I assume) organ were four cheapie speakers! I looked them up and they were like $120 each. (I assume he also has a sub in the room.)

So now I'm wondering - if money was no object, when it comes to organs in a home environment, do very expensive speakers make a big difference? I *know* they do with regard to recorded music. I just graduated to my expensive Martin Logan speakers and the sound is breathtaking, a night-and-day improvement over my 35 year old cheapie Pioneer speakers. I now hear crisp high-hats, each squeak on a guitar fretboard clearly audible, voices almost like the person is in the room.

But the sound of a solo organ isn't as varied and complex as a piano trio and a singer. This guy who has four $120 speakers on his expensive organ ... if he traded them in for four much more expensive speakers, would the change in sound quality be as dramatic as it is when demo'ing recorded music? Or does almost any "reasonable" speaker get a similar sound, as long as it is strong enough to handle the wattage and dynamic range?

I've not been in a position to A/B-test cheap vs expensive speakers with regard to HW.

Can I echo this enquiry? I too have just started out with HW and bought, from Gumtree, a set of home cinema speakers and a Cambridge Audio amp for £100 just to get started. As I still have my VPO set up in the garage pending the spare room becoming free, I have not fully tested this setup, using only a pair of the speakers for now. The sound quality seems OK in the garage, but not as clear as headphones, which are not top of the range ones, but do make a very realistic sound.
People seem to favour Monitor speakers on this forum, but are they significantly better, or indeed different from normal HiFi speakers?

In the beginning man created organs.... They used cheap speakers, mostly in open back cabinets, low quality tube amplifiers and since it was new folks liked it.... The speakers were a major part of the sound "producing" element or system which consisted of a tone generator, amplifier and speaker. Note, I purposely omitted the switching or controls since it actually was not part of the sound producing equation.
If you have ever listened to a Baldwin, Lowrey, Wurlitzer, Hammond or any of the other many 1950 - 1980 era organs you will realize that they were a poor imitation of a real pipe organ....... some better than others...
With the advent of computers things started to change and one of the major advancements in technology was the ability to record the sound of a pipe organ and use a computer to play back the individual notes. The amplifier and speaker systems were no longer part of the sound producing system but instead they became a sound reproducing system. Big difference!
Because of this you want the best amplifiers and speakers that you can afford for a Hauptwerk (or any other digital sampling) system. All of the production, voicing, etc. etc.. of the sounds are complete before they go to the amp and speakers. The truer the speakers and amplifiers are at reproducing that sound the more realistic it will be.
Regards
Frank

OK, thanks, Frank - and Neumie, I don't mean to hijack this subject, but I am still a little in the dark.....
So my first question would be - powered monitors vs separate HiFi amp and speakers? What's better?

In my experience: yes, speaker quality does have a big influence. But there is an equal (or even bigger) influence of your room acoustics (I therefore use room correction software, you can search the forum for ARC2). Speaker placement is also very important. And the other components of the audio chain (sound card, cables) also have an impact.

I would say that all these factors create a chain that is as strong as the weakest link. For example, it does not make much sense to buy very expensive speakers if you are going to put them on the floor behind the organ case. On the other hand, if you are able to spend >$15.000, then it should be no problem to reserve 20%-30% of that amount on a good audio set-up, but you will have to distribute the money wisely among the audio components.

By the way, I would say that organ sound is quite demanding - frequency range and dynamic range extend much further than almost any other instrument. On top of that, you are bringing the acoustics of huge cathedrals to a small room in a house.

If money really isn't a limitation, then get a dozen those $10.000 sound cards/DAC's, let your speakers be custom-build, plan for >80 speakers to break the current record for a Hauptwerk set-up, rebuild your room with acoustically optimal materials, and to get it all done properly, hire a group of experts and enjoy their debates...

So my first question would be - powered monitors vs separate HiFi amp and speakers? What's better?

In a non-resonant studio environment it's probably true to say that good monitors will be more accurate than a good HiFi setup, though the difference is more blurred now than it was even a few years ago. Which would sound more musical to you personally, and in the listening space you have, is a different (and largely unanswerable) question.

A better question would be whether you are dissatisfied with what you are hearing now. If not, don't worry about it.

As you are expecting to move from the garage, I'd certainly wait until the setup is in the spare room before making any expensive decisions.

Nick

My only exception to using powered monitors is the fact of needing to run power in addition to the line level audio signal to each of them, esp if they are a distance apart. To me, a single amp output cable to each speaker seems easier. I've heard good sound coming from either powered or non powered systems.

Rgds,
Ed

Finally, someone started a new thread in this section! I was starting to wonder what was going on!

General rule of thumb, buy quality and you'll get quality. Yes, the speakers are important and this thread will eventually morph into a discussion and recommendation of several different speakers both powered and un-powered, I feel both are fine.

What's really going to be the most important above and beyond all else will be the actual speaker positioning and placement, how many channels of audio, how the audio is routed and so on. I have found concentrating on this area alone probably has produced the most profound difference in the sound no matter what the quality of the components. So if you couple quality with a well laid out and routed system, the results should be nothing short of stunning.

Marc

This answer to this depends on whether you love the sounds of,
a Baldwin, Lowrey, Wurlitzer, Hammond,etc.,
or the magnificent sounds of a Real Pipe Organ !

I have 9 Professional quality, self powered speaker cabinets here,
and my HW organ is very enjoyable to play, and listen to.

But it does not compare to the sounds of the live Pipe Organs
that I cared for for 50 years in the business !
I cannot utilize umpteen dozen speakers here,
and still have a happy home to live in!

If you want to build a large wall of small inexpensive speakers,
properly connected and powered, you will be rewarded by sounds
that will surround you ! (Re: say a wall of "Sweet 16's) if any one beside me remembers them ?

Mel

But it does not compare to the sounds of the live Pipe Organs
that I cared for for 50 years in the business

That fortunately (or not) is a given. Hauptwerk and "proper" sample sets is an answer if done properly. I've heard some in home real pipes that were, let's say lacking, due to less than great acoustics. In almost all cases these real pipes were moved from a more suitable location and not (able) to be voiced to meet the "needs" of the new space. Then there is the idea of perception. My mind can't quite fit a large cathedral (sound) into my 13' X 25' room. To this end, hearing a large H/W organ via a good set of "cans" somehow works better for me. Passing around multiple sets of earphones for multiple listeners isn't really feasible either. So what's the answer?

OTOH, hearing a good Hauptwerk installation in a suitable space is quite convincing. Any ideas about which came first, the chicken or the egg? My vote goes to the chicken.

Rgds,
Ed

A home set-up using quality speakers either powered or non powered coupled with a quality amp(s), 8 to 10 channels, speakers properly positioned and routed will give very good, realistic, and satisfying results. Sample set perception will vary by user and will boil down to personal preference, but any will be improved and benefit by the above mentioned.

Marc

... you will be rewarded by sounds that will surround you !
(Re: say a wall of "Sweet 16's) if any one beside me remembers them ?
Mel

I not only remember them, I built a few!

But then I also worked for Rodgers, with their similar M-13s.
And Allen also built "Sweet 16s", Virgil Fox had a couple dozen
on his 4 manual Allen touring organ, I set them up a few times.

I have always liked lots of channels and lots of speakers on any
electronic organ, I think Hauptwerk makes them even better.

Steve.

To answer your question, quality of your setup is very important.
I have used many speaker types in my setup from celestion to Kefs and every step up made a real improvement. Now in my setup i use custom made quality speakers with Heil air motion transformers as mid/high speakers and bi-amplification (3x Qls qa100 true digital amps) and only one stereo pair speakers in the front. Playing with multiple front pairs wil compromise the stereo image in my opinion.The recordings are done with two microphones and reproducing the samples with only two speakers gives the most accurate reproduction of the stereo recording.
Jos mentioned the use of Arc2 room correction. I also use this software because this corrects the room resonances and high frequency absorption most rooms have and makes the frequency curve at the organ bench flat within 1db margin thus reproducing exactly the sound that enters the microphone(assuming that the mic. also has a flat curve). Also phase problems in the speakers are corrected. This software improves the sound also a lot.

Regards Jan

A home set-up using quality speakers either powered or non powered coupled with a quality amp(s), 8 to 10 channels, speakers properly positioned and routed will give very good, realistic, and satisfying results. Sample set perception will vary by user and will boil down to personal preference, but any will be improved and benefit by the above mentioned.

Marc

It's not the fact of whether they're powered or non-powered that matters; it's the design of the speaker. Are they "flat", designed to reproduce every sound as accurately as possible, or do they lack midrange and emphasize bass + treble, which most people find most appealing?

The reason most of us recommend powered speakers is because powered speakers are most often designed for recording studio usage, which means flat frequency response. They are generally more accurate sounding speakers than home theatre speakers.

There is also the issue of mixing recording studio gear with home theatre gear. The line-out signal on the sound cards we use (typically meant for studio usage; rme, motu, focusrite etc) matches the level required by the powered / studio speakers. When you run the line-out into a home theatre receiver, the receiver has to work much harder to boost the signal; the volume has to be turned up really loud, and this introduces the hum / noise of the amplifcation into the speakers as well. It's a harder, nosier sound when played through home audio equipment, versus using powered speakers which plays back effortlessly with no extra noise.

Playing with multiple front pairs wil compromise the stereo image in my opinion.The recordings are done with two microphones and reproducing the samples with only two speakers gives the most accurate reproduction of the stereo recording.

When you divide up a stereo sample into multiple front channels, you simply divide up the ranks (or divisions) into different pairs. When you place your speakers correctly, you are just moving the 8' flute slightly to the right or the left, or maybe you are moving the swell to the left or the right etc, much like it is in a real organ. It's not breaking the stereo effect. In fact, you are broadening / widening the sound, it becomes harder to detect that you are using individual speakers. You can do this without breaking the stereo effect because each pipe is recorded separately from each other. This allows you to place the choir division on speakers that are vertically / physically higher than (say) the great division.

In addition, you forget that adding multiple channels reduces the strain and distortion of individual speakers. Maybe instead of 1 speaker playing back 64 notes it only now needs to play back 32, just by adding one extra pair. Moving from 1 stereo pair to 2 pairs reduces the workload of the first pair by half.

If you doubt the effectiveness of multiple stereo pairs, I would encourage you to visit someones setup who has this; I myself was converted to this approach when I visited the Johannus organ factory in your country some time ago and heard their concert organ in the large show room there. The sound was incredibly broad and clean (though the recorded samples themselves did not match typical hauptwerk quality), and it sounded like sitting in front of a real organ; you could not turn your head a few inches and point to the individual speakers, it was just a a wall of clean sound, much like sitting in front of a real organ chest.