It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 3:56 am


Franck Chorale #1, Take 1.1 with different acoustic space

Discuss and share submissions to the Contrebombarde website.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

jcfelice88keys

Member

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:24 am

Franck Chorale #1, Take 1.1 with different acoustic space

PostTue Jan 06, 2009 2:03 am

Hello friends,

Here is a 1.1 version of the Franck Chorale in E. I kept the original performance and registration intact, so one may compare the PAB organ's perspective convolved into a different reverberant space.

http://www.contrebombarde.com/concerthall/music/663

as contrasted with the original performance submitted 24 hours earlier:

http://www.contrebombarde.com/concerthall/music/658

I'd like to share with you how I created the crescendo in the Maestoso section (370 to about 400 secs): First volley of sound consisted of full Grand Orgue alone, followed by adding full Positif (swellbox closed then opened), followed by full Recit (swellbox closed then opened).

This portion and the one at the end of the piece involved cases where I had to manually turn down the gain, because the extra sound level was overloading the mp3 copy. If the G.O. sounds thin at first in the Maestoso section, it is because I had to turn down the gain before the swellbox crescendi began. One way for you to get back some of the broader sound is for you to manually increase the volume of your own speakers. Surely the sound will be louder, but it will also be fuller.

Enjoy. As always, comments of all type are welcomed. It is with these types of discussions that this forum is at its best.

Cheers,

Joe
Offline

jcfelice88keys

Member

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 12:24 am

Thoughts on commentary received in Concert Hall website

PostWed Jan 07, 2009 9:32 am

Hello to Messrs. Bayless, Telemanr, Stefanussen and giovdan .... as well as other listeners of the second (version 1.1) performance of the Franck Chorale #1.

I am glad that you each found a difference in the character of the sound between the two performances. This was the intended effect.

As noted in my opening statement, this was the IDENTICAL performance (captured in Digital Performer as a pseudo-tape recorder) as the wetter version. It was even the same gain-ridden performance! To those who haven't yet seen this thread, I indulged in a bit of gain-riding of the original audio output in its conversion to mp3, so as to reduce distortion inherent in that format.

The only difference between versions 1.0 and 1.1 was the choice of reverb convolution impulse response. Everything else was left untouched.

I featured the first performance of the Franck in a large church setting (9 second reverb tail), because another person in Hauptwerk forum thought the Passacaglia's reverb was of a cathedral. (The Passacaglia was actually performed in a <6 second church impulse response; so I promised in another thread that I would provide a performance of some Franck in a cathedral setting.

In the Contrebombarde Concert Hall website, when other people cited that the first Franck performance sounded "thin" (I agreed that it could have sounded fuller), I fed the exact dry audio output into a concert hall impulse response.

The response from the listeners was that the instrument now had more fullness or presence; other opinions were that the wetter sound was preferred.

The point is this:
If one chooses to truncate the PAB release tails (as in my case, to get more stops loaded into my 4GB RAM limit set by the macintosh 32-Bit operating system) and apply subsequent reverberation, the sound of the organ has the potential to become completely changed to suit your needs and preferences.

Perhaps I have been doing an unintentional disservice to Csaba Huszty's marvelous library, because I truly believe that forum members have been listening to the "Joseph Felice" version of PAB, rather than enjoying the immense beauty and wide capability of this instrument! My apologies to you, Csaba, if I have done anything wrong.

Whenever Hauptwerk incorporates a convolver of its own into the software, or if Inspired Acoustics includes the same feature in a future release, I believe much of the relatively cool reception about its sound will come to a halt.

I do know that some organists prefer the Cavaille-Coll sound, or the Aeolean-Skinner sound, Silbermann, Flentrop, Schitger or English sound, etc. etc. -- and that as completely fine and understandable. The PAB is an organ of the concert hall and is suited to the concert hall repertoire and experience. The people who actually own this sample set are quite happy and satisfied with it.

We are almost too fortunate to have the tremendous number of sample libraries available to us, as close as our computers and keyboards, and costing perhaps 80%+ cheaper than an a mass produced electronic organ. As a personal note, I would hate to go back to having only the mass-produced electronic organs as a choice for an organ in the home.

I shall climb down from my soapbox. Thank you for having read this far.

Joe

Return to Contrebombarde Concert Hall

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests