Page 3 of 4

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2020 7:30 am
by mdyde
Hello cromerobrill,

There is an option in the organ definition file format whereby a sample set producer can disable release trunction settings for the organ. That must have been set in those particular sample sets.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Sat Oct 31, 2020 9:08 am
by OAM
Thanks Martin,

yes, the due to the project intentions of maximal authentic sound and room impression, all release tail manipulations are disabled in OAM sets.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 4:22 pm
by Purator
OAM wrote:Thanks Martin,

yes, the due to the project intentions of maximal authentic sound and room impression, all release tail manipulations are disabled in OAM sets.


"Dear User, here is how you are supposed to enjoy that thing you pay so much money for. We also make sure that you will enjoy it exactly the way we want you to enjoy it, therefore we will make sure you can't change it or make it fit to your needs."

Fixed that for you. It is truly a shame that a software like Hauptwerk cannot show its full glory simply because it gets restricted for the sake of "authentic sound".

On the other hand - the price and the restrictions do not put me into the target audience of OAM anyway.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 5:11 pm
by josq
I think I do belong to the target audience of OAM.

Pricing: 2 badly recorded sample sets for half the price will not give the same enjoyment as a single well-recorded sample set. I trust OAM that this sample will be very well recorded.

Release tail truncation: is a compromise to sound quality. This compromise sometimes can be made to limit RAM consumption, but since the sample uses very little RAM anyway such a compromise makes little sense.

Moreover, sample set makers sometimes want to limit the possibilities to "abuse" the organ, to avoid all kinds of strange, bad sounding recordings that would not help to promote the product and the original. I think sample set makers should not be overly afraid for such manipulations, on the other hand, the owners of the original organ also have their demands. So sometimes a sample set maker is obliged to include restrictions, lest they will be prohibited to record the organ and sell the sample set.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 6:08 pm
by deWaverley
Purator - years ago I used to have similar feelings to those you have expressed, but I have come to understand and respect Prof Maier's point of view. He has an absolute passion to make the highest possible quality historical record of some of Europe's most significant organs.

He negotiates access to these historic instruments (usually in the face of opposition from the relevant authorities) because he can show them that his project is an honourable attempt to capture and preserve an exact record of the instrument - almost as an academic exercise (albeit lovingly), rather than solely for the user's personal entertainment.

I realise that this results in a frustratingly restrictive user agreement, but I understand the reasoning - and the quality of his results (and the instruments he is allowed to sample) are so extraordinary that it feels like a small price to pay.

I for one will be devastated when Prof Maier decides to "hang up his microphones" and retire from creating his little masterpieces.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 7:59 am
by m√ľnsterorganist
I also support the postion of Prof.Maier. HW is a wonderful thing to do for study or at home.But for me, HW doesn't belong in the public as a replacement for a pipe organ in a church or as a tinkering alienated.HW became known as an authentic reproduction of pipeorgans and in my opinion that should stay that way.We are proud to have founded a series "Famous organs as guest in ..." our city as part of a music school.If HW and thus the samples are changed by to many users, critics will rightly refrain from what is otherwise a very good thing.Dear Prof.Maier, carry on. Thir sets are also highly praised in specialist circles.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Wed Nov 04, 2020 8:04 pm
by sonar11
Wow, I had no idea OAM was such a bad faith actor. Maybe it's just a "europe" vs "north america" thing, but telling a customer what they can or can not do with a product is absolutely horrid. And you guys just lap it up, "yes please take my freedom of expression away".

I get more and more depressed with the Hauptwerk ecosystem everytime I login to look, which is almost reduced to quarterly by now.

What's next; is he going to insist on approving individual recordings on Contrebombarde to make sure they don't make the organ sound bad?

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2020 1:37 am
by josq
I don't think it is an Europe vs America thing, Silicon Valley has a track record in licensing too...

Yes, OAM wants to control what you record & publish... see https://www.organartmedia.com/en/license:

The licensee is not entitled to
1. modify or resample it, develop it any further or back, pass it on or copy it in any way, except a personal backup
2. remove remarks or keys which serve to identify and protect the database
3. gain or use information of any kind from the work or integrating parts of the database 
within other applications
4. publish sound recordings or use the database work for public installations without special permission
5. install Organ Art library based organs in public venues or churches

This is neither new nor unique to OAM. Sonus Paradisi: If you wish to distribute recordings of organ music made with the Sample set, you have to ask Sonus Paradisi for a written permission. http://www.sonusparadisi.cz/en/terms-an ... f-contract

I don't think this is a symtom specific the Hauptwerk ecosystem, but rather of the entire ecosystem of organs and organists. At least in Europe, organists an church boards are often VERY protective and possessive when it comes to the organ. Sample set producers have to work around that.

But maybe OAM better explain themselves.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2020 2:00 am
by Purator
josq wrote:This is neither new nor unique to OAM. Sonus Paradisi: If you wish to distribute recordings of organ music made with the Sample set, you have to ask Sonus Paradisi for a written permission. http://www.sonusparadisi.cz/en/terms-an ... f-contract

I don't think this is a symtom specific the Hauptwerk ecosystem, but rather of the entire ecosystem of organs and organists. At least in Europe, organists an church boards are often VERY protective and possessive when it comes to the organ. Sample set producers have to work around that.

This is one of the reasons why I am such a big fan of IA's PAB. From the EULA:
LICENSEE MAY USE THE PRODUCT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES
WITHIN MUSICAL COMPOSITIONS, AND MAY CREATE DERIVATIVE WORKS OF DIFFERENT PUR-
POSE THAN THE PRODUCT SUCH AS SOUND RECORDINGS OR PERFORMANCES OF MUSICAL
COMPOSITIONS, BASED ON THE PRODUCT AND MAY ALSO SELL THESE DERIVATIVE WORKS
WITHOUT PAYING ANY FURTHER ROYALTIES TO ENTEL.

Now, if I only could have the dry and unprotected sample sets of SP with a license like the one from IA... but, well, one can dream. And I had an email conversation with Jiri and I can understand his point of view there.

josq wrote:But maybe OAM better explain themselves.

Yes, that would be the best at this point.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2020 8:09 am
by voet
One thing that might appeal to both sides of this discussion is to allow the user to adjust the output of the sound either closer or further from the pipes as some sample set producers do. This would allow someone to hear the organ at various vantage points--nearer to the pipes, or further into the room. It seems to me that this would not compromise the integrity of the original instrument.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2020 8:37 am
by IainStinson
From earlier in the thread...
The Steinmeyer will be released in surround format with adjustable listening position.
Prof. Helmut Maier.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Thu Nov 05, 2020 10:03 pm
by Martin Kondziella
As the titular organist of the Steinmeyer organ, I can clearly say that the church authorities would not have consented to sampling if it had been possible to manipulate the reverberation in the desired way. Many other sample sets are available for such experiments.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:21 pm
by adrianw
the church authorities would not have consented to sampling if it had been possible to manipulate the reverberation in the desired way


I shall just twiddle the reverb knobs until I like the sound. Wicked, I know. Don't tell them.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:48 pm
by JulianMoney-Kyrle
Martin Kondziella wrote:As the titular organist of the Steinmeyer organ, I can clearly say that the church authorities would not have consented to sampling if it had been possible to manipulate the reverberation in the desired way. Many other sample sets are available for such experiments.


Which way are you referring to? Having the option of changing the balance between different microphone positions is something that I greatly appreciate. After all, there is no single correct place to sit in most churches in order to listen to the organ. And indeed two different sound engineers recording the same organ aren't necessarily going to make the same choices about how to go about it. To my mind this is a far cry from truncating release tails or adding artificial reverberation.

After listening to David Goode's recordings of Bach on the Metzler organ at Trinity College Cambridge (where I was an undergraduate) I decided to get the Poblet sample set from OAM (another Metzler). There is no doubt that it sounds magnificent, and the long natural resonance of the Abbey is part of that sound. However, I have found that I don't play it very much because I find it difficult to hear the fine details of what I am playing, and if there were another set of channels with a closer microphone position I think I would use it a lot more. I know Prof. Maier recommends using good-quality headphones when listening to his samples, and I do own a pair of AKG 701's, but my hearing has been damaged by chemotherapy (I don't think many oncologists realise how common this is with cisplatin) and I find that if I listen with headphones it tends to make my tinnitus a lot worse for days afterwards. Instead I have a multichannel system with 7 pairs of studio monitors plus a sub-woofer, which works well for most other organs.

Re: 1925 Steinmeyer Berlin (III,71) work in progress

PostPosted: Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:26 am
by vpo-organist
JulianMoney-Kyrle wrote:I have found that I don't play it very much because I find it difficult to hear the fine details of what I am playing, and if there were another set of channels with a closer microphone position I think I would use it a lot more.

This is indeed the relevant point, what M.Kondziella somewhat negatively calls "experimenting"!
You can turn it as you like. It is a disadvantage for the user if the reverb flags cannot be cut off. The church has big acoustics, which can be a disadvantage when practicing. Now there is no need to discuss that you can't turn off the acoustics in the church either (I'll never play this organ in my life). But we have a PC and software that makes this possible. So it is a pity or rather a step backwards that the option is not available.