Page 1 of 1


PostPosted: Fri Mar 29, 2019 4:58 am
by lefranc22
A new example set: the Maltese organ of Naxxar (1775). This instrument was recorded in 2012 but the sample set was never made because of the death of the person who had to take care of it.
It is a very original organ; typical of baroque instruments from southern Italy and, in my opinion, this sample set is very close to the CD recordings that exist.

Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2019 7:31 pm
by bumblebee001
This organ is being distributed in breach of license conditions.

It is copyright and subject to legal prosecution.

No one other than me and the person who was entrusted with the job of creating the sample-set should have a copy.

The organ is not up to the standards expected by Maltese Historic Pipe Organs. There are several issues consequent upon how the samples were processed which is definitely not on a note by note basis as was specifically requested when Augustine was delegated for the job.

It is recommended that anyone who has a copy deletes it unless specifically approved by me in writing .

The recordings will be made again in due course rendering this copy of the Naxxar Sample-set obsolete.

Mark Bugeja MD
Maltese Historic Pipe Organs
marcusfb (at) gmail (dot) com

Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:00 am
by lefranc22

Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 10:15 am
by takatsa
This is the story of the Naxxar sample:
Mark Bujega contacted me through Gérard. He asked me to make a Hauptwerk sample set from an old recording. He made the recording of the organ of the Naxxar Parish Church in 2012. The 2-channel stereo recording is made from an organ close to Rode NT5 microphones.
Mark sent me the Principal 8 'recording. I checked the recording. The recording was of very poor quality, full of artefact noise, clicks, and faulty files were not repeated. In addition to the street traffic, a lot of crackling cracks came from the organ. The recording did not include staccato and portato release.
I wrote to Mark and Gérard that the recording was unsuitable for making a Hauptwerk sample. I suggested repeating the recording and describing the criteria for creating the new recording. In his reply, Mark wrote that repetition of the recording is impossible, he does not have permission to do so and does not have the proper tools and he is not healthy. He wrote that the record has been in his drawer since 2012, and if I can't help, he will be forced to put it in the trash.

I was thinking a lot about what to do. I made a small sample using Principal 8 'and recorded some audio demos with it. I sent audio demos to Mark, who liked the recordings and has sent me the download links of raw recording. Then I decided to take the job. Of course, for free, from friendship. I worked on the sample for 7-8 hours a day for almost a month. Meanwhile, Mark "came appetite". He wanted me not only to make a two-channel dry sample, but also to create a virtual wet sample by adding an artificial reverb. I wasn't happy about this because I was striving for the original sound. He also wanted to make an extended version of two manuals with a long pedal, with additional stops, and it would be no problem if these stops came from elsewhere. I did not fulfill these wishes.

Finally, the sample set was completed. The testers liked and received many positive feedback. Mark liked it too. We have agreed that the sample will be free, the sample will be detailed on my website, but the download links will be on his website. I uploaded the sample to my website and Mark also created a website that you can see here.
He has linked the audio demos uploaded to me to and the screenshot on my website. But there is no sign that my sample has been installed and tried by him.

A few days passed and I received a shocking email from him telling me that my sample set is inappropriate and I wanted to catch him. I'm sad and hurt and a little angry. I made a sample with friendship, for free, for a month's work, which he doesn't need now. But I don't want to get a month of work in the trash. That's why I put the sample download link on my website with a correct explanation. I also asked for support for Mark's work on my website. ... oad/Order/

Mark is now threatening with court. But I'll tell him that I'm going to remove the download links from my site as soon as he puts the sample download link (either my version or his version) on his website. The recording was lying in Mark's drawer for 7 years. He sought more sample makers for help, but everyone refused. I alone helped him. But I don't want to wait another seven years to be public. Who knows what will happen to me or what will happen to Mark or what will be with the Hauptwerk in 7 years?

Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:37 am
by bumblebee001
Regarding the use of "samples from other sources" was a reply to the noise of the mechanical action of the organ which I thought were missing from the recordings but that in actual fact are heard in the recordings of all the ranks. So the comment made of what I wrote is incorrect. Please Augustine do not mis-quote me.

I did send you the license agreement as was originally written by Panos for our other sample-sets. It clearly states that the samples are sole ownership of MHPO - no one else and for whatever reason. Your argument, Augustine, does not hold water and does not allow you to publish without my consent as the sole representative of MHPO even if I was going to throw the samples into the Trash Can.

Our understanding was that each note will be processed individually to retain the characteristics of this historic instrument. You assured me of this and wanted to work alone leaving sit and wait and not able to contribute to the development of the virtual instrument. It turns out that you processed very few pipes/ samples and using the xml extended the sounds to the rest of the notes for each rank and I am told you even created the mixtures yourself artificially using coding (not using the recordings I made).

Although the sample-set sounded very good, an expert I engaged told me all he had to say. We visited the organ again and indeed the sample-set sounds different in quality to the original.

I am not out to get anyone but I need time to decide whether there is any other possible way to improve the sample-set before release. I do admit to the numerous artefacts in the recordings that must have presented a lot of difficulty in processing but this was the challenge for Augustine who seems to think otherwise and thought it easier to sample the fewest samples possible and manipulate the xml file to achieve the rest. This was never the method approved and I do not wish MHPO to get negative publicity based on this instrument.

My expert and I have indeed decided to do the recordings from scratch after getting the approved co-operation of the Parish Priest and the local sacristan but we are unable to do so at the present time for a variety of reasons. Basically (a) the expert resides in another country and will not be back here for the task until at least October this year; (b) the church is currently engaged with other liturgical services connected to lent and Easter.

I do not wish this set to be distributed as it is and any distribution is being done without my consent and against the legal rights I enjoy as the sample provider and representative of MHPO.

Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:37 am
by bumblebee001
(apologies for double posting)

Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 12:30 pm
by takatsa
Everyone can examine my sample and see that there is no manipulation. But I would also like to download the raw sound recordings to prove this. Then everyone will see who is right. Interestingly enough, you now recognize the need for a brand new recording. You have not done so before, but I asked for it. No problem, as soon as the new sample set you create is ready, I will immediately remove the link from my website. Until then, there's the correct information on my website that you don't like. For my part, I ended this discourse.

Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:25 pm
by bumblebee001
You may have rested your case but I'm not finished yet. Your stubbornness is downright arrogant, strikingly offensive and pretty ridiculous at best.

In spite of all that, I am publicly and voluntarily extending a hand of friendship (even if you clearly do not deserve it by your sheer arrogance) by suggesting, perhaps even insisting, that the sample-set is renamed as Baroque Italian Organ with a text file which clearly specifies the primary source (organ, parish and MHPO ownership) and that it was heavily digitally manipulated (for the reasons you know well) so that there should be no confusion with the new samples that I plan to record and the actual sample-set I want to publish. The set should also include the license agreement a copy of which you have and which you complained about because it was password protected (this was done for obvious reasons). I don't see why you should not be able to copy the text and paste into the sample-set. I managed to copy the entire protected document, photos and all, into a new unprotected document without any difficulty.

I would however still need to endorse these changes to ensure that what you write or include is correct and not confusing or inflammatory and covers everything that needs to be stated. The sample-set remains subject to distribution from MY website not yours. Yours should carry an appropriate link to my website.

Thankfully, I am not as hard-headed and as you confirm, I took your advice after pondering long and hard about it and once I got the acknowledgement of the Parish in question to ensure I can re-sample the instrument.

The sample-set as released is still in contravention of copyright laws and license even if it is freeware (rather than shareware) and more so if any donations are made to either of us at the expense of the other (by the way that goes for me too!!!!).

I don't think I can be more reasonable than this - despite your persistence in breaching the law with utmost impunity! I give you 7 days to agree and put into effect the proposed changes and conditions.

Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 3:37 pm
by bumblebee001
PS. I would be creating the new sample-set myself and with people I can trust, people who are patient and polite. Don't worry - I will not burden you with the responsibility.

Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:48 pm
by engrssc
I might be wrong, but I don't think this Forum is the proper place to voice these personal disagreements. For one thing, I don't believe any of the rest oif us are interested. Maybe Brett can comment.


Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:49 pm
by josq
This forum is not a good place for legal disputes.

Two remarks:
I think many people here can testify that Augustine is not an arrogant person, whatever else might have gone wrong.

Copyright law may apply in favour of Augustine. I am not an expert, but given his efforts and the extent of modification that you suggest, his release may have sufficient originality as a derivative work.

I wish you both good luck in resolving this issue

Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 4:51 pm
by engrssc

Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2019 5:07 pm
by bumblebee001
Indeed..... but he may not refer to it as the Naxxar organ from Malta and use my samples to derive his own. He can do so for his own pleasure - yes.... but not for public consumption on the pretext that he spent a whole month on it.

I recognise his efforts and why I am extended my hand to reach a mutually agreeable solution.

The case highlights the contentious issues surrounding copyright, originality, ownership etc a subject which some may be interested in but effects everyone to some degree or other at some point.

You all use Hauptwerk and the samplesets made available (free or otherwise).... so this subject is useful to learn about and even if one is not interested, it is bound to effect all of us in one way or another. eg can one sell a cd of music played using HW software and be legally secure? Can one earn money freely playing at weddings and funerals using such software and sample-sets? These are two points that come to mind. Creation of sample-sets is yet another facet.

One must also point out that the photos used were taken by my son on my behalf and the HW user interface (console) was created from these. The photographic material identifies clearly an organ which the sample-set ill-represents.

Re: AVO Naxxar

PostPosted: Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:18 am
by bumblebee001
I am happy to say that Augustine and I have been in touch with one another and trying to understand each other. Although the sample-set is still available contrary to my wishes, we are discussing the direction to take in a more reconciliatory tone.

Re: Naxxar

PostPosted: Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:44 am
by bumblebee001
The sample-set is available though my website: This is the official download site.

Anyone who has already downloaded the sample-set through the Augustine Web-site is strongly encouraged to re-download and re-install. The new files have been renamed, text files edited and license conditions included.

Please copy me with any comments you send to Augustine regarding this set. We are in this together.

Thank you in anticipation for your co-operation.