sound Hinz vol 2 + 3 comparing vol 1

The tech for Echo finally got back to me. He said they are sending me a loaner until they get some more in to send me a permanent unit. No more details though, so by that I gather mine can't be fixed. I suspect a bad chip on the MB. I peeked inside of it before I sent it off, and it looked like there were only two main components. The MB with all of the processors and the power supply. With the surface mounted components it's probably nearly impossible to change out a bad chip so the board becomes a throwaway. I assume the AF12's are made in China or such, obviously not at their home base anyway. Hopefully they won't charge me a bundle.

So once I get my Audiofire 12 back I'll load volumes 2 and 3 and see how they sound.

Eric

Hello all, Simon as well,


On U-tube is a very interesting video to see: a recording Hinz sample set with added reverb (with Ambiance).
Everybody can hear the major difference: with reverb added the sound is fantastic real.
This is exactly what I miss now in the added Volume 2+3.

Harm

Hi Harm,

You have the link to this video? Added reverb, that surprises me. I have a mixdown for two rear speaker that I'm using with the Bovenkerk which make a big difference, makes you feel more like you're in the church. I would think adding more reverb to the rear would be excessive.

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9YhsTTKHpE

I can't see how adding some reverb to the reverb built into the sample results in an accurate sense of the reverb at any particular place in the actual building. It makes it more reverberant to be sure, but does it result in any sense in a true reproduction of what the Hinz actually sounds like? I don't see how that is possible unless you took dry samples and added a convolution which had been taken in the church.

I can't see how adding some reverb to the reverb built into the sample results in an accurate sense of the reverb at any particular place in the actual building. It makes it more reverberant to be sure, but does it result in any sense in a true reproduction of what the Hinz actually sounds like? I don't see how that is possible unless you took dry samples and added a convolution which had been taken in the church.

Rob,
It does seem peculiar to add reverb to a very wet set. With my setup, the reverb signal sounds only in the rear of the room, while the "unaltered sample", wet in this case, sounds from the main front array. It does not "muddy" the sound to my ears. It just stretches the church part of the acoustics back farther, leaving the main organ in front. To me it is a very pleasing effect. It didn't cost me anything to try it - I use this system for my dry samples; I have just automatically turned off the surround when loading wet samples, assuming the reverb would be excessive. Suprised? Yes! I still need to go to Kampen to compare.

Hello Eric,

When your Audoifire is back, please load volume 1 first and play. Add pedal stops and couplers full and play.
Then load volume 2 (and 3) and play, then listen good to the sound. Add pedal stops and couplers again.
You will hear a clear difference, in my opinion the most in the pedal stops, not the true sound as it must be.

Again: if you never have been there it is difficult to judge the sample set to its full value.
A Boverkerk recording (I have about 50 CD's) is not the best way to compare, each recording is different (logical)

Lia, thanks for the URL link to the U tube video, I was forgotten to mention it.

Yes, it seems strange to add reverb to a wet set, but it has much to deal with the position of the micriphones and the position of a listener, and it is a rather personal thing. Some don't like too much reverb.

Rob, just listen to the demo and you will hear it.

Nevertheless I say again that the Boverkerk sampleset is my favorite, no other can compare it (till now..)

Hearing from you,

Harm

Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9YhsTTKHpE

Thanks Lia.

The effect is quite interesting. It does seem to increase the tremulant and seems more pleasing to listen to. I wonder how it would sound with the BWV565 or other powerful, lively piece.

If I did add reverb like this I would probably want it in the rear channels only. Actually though listening to Jiri's Freiberg demo sample set, the rear surround channels don't appear to have more reverb. time, just more of a wash of it with attenuated high frequencies.

I'm curious to try this Ambience reverb though when I get a chance. I guess to use it though I'll have to load HW as a VST, something I haven't done before.

Maybe someone else will try it and give us their opinion. It does seem strange to add reverb to reverb though, one would think it wouldn't sound real.

Eric

Hello Eric,

When your Audoifire is back, please load volume 1 first and play. Add pedal stops and couplers full and play.
Then load volume 2 (and 3) and play, then listen good to the sound. Add pedal stops and couplers again.
You will hear a clear difference, in my opinion the most in the pedal stops, not the true sound as it must be.

Hearing from you,
Harm

Harm,

So when volume 2 and 3 are added, if I just play the same stops as volume 1 has, will it sound different than it did when just volume 1 was loaded?

In other words does just the loading of volume 2 and 3 affect the sound of the existing volume 1 sounds, without playing any of the added volume 2 and 3 stops?

Thanks,
Eric

Hello Eric,

Yes, unfortenately it seems to be. But who am I to state this?
I am only curious if you came to the same conclusion. I hope I am totally wrong!
Because it is my aim to get the complete sampleset of this famous organ.

Remarkable is however that the seperate Vox Humana with tremulant is sounding VERY natural! (volume 3)

It wonders me.

Harm

[mdyde]

Hello Harm,

The Hinsz volumes II and III organ definitions do load exactly the same samples for the volume I ranks that the volume I organ definition loads. I.e. there is literally no difference at all in the samples for those ranks.

You mentioned that you're using the Basic Edition. Could it just be that you've had to use lower audio quality/resolution settings for some or all of the ranks for the volume II/III organ definitions on the 'Organ | Load organ, adjusting ...' screen in order to fit the (much larger) volume II/III organs within the limit of your computers memory (or the 3 GB memory limit of the v3.30 Basic Edition)?

That could make a noticeable difference in quality/realism for the ranks.

Hello Eric,
Because it is my aim to get the complete sample set of this famous organ.

Harm

Harm,

So if I understand you correctly, you don't even have volumes 2 and 3 yet?? If not, from what are you basing your assumptions? Just demos? You answered yes to my question that just the loading of volumes 2 and 3 affect the sound of volume 1??

Thanks,
Eric

This thread has brought up the question as to whether adding reverb to a wet sample set might be effective. So, I have given it a try. Recently I uploaded the Jan Zwart piece, “Alle Roem Is Uitgesloten,” to contrebombarde. That upload used only the natural reverb that comes with the Caen CC samples. Today I uploaded the same piece, but with 40% Lexicon reverb added. For what it’s worth, one can listen to each and judge the value of the added (Lexicon-type) reverb, in this case. It definitely makes the space seem larger.

As was mentioned on this thread, reverb might be added to get the sound to seem more like the listener is used to hearing (farther from the pipes, perhaps). I tried it hoping to come closer to the thrilling sound of the Hinsz organ. I sort-of succeeded I guess. I still have the sound of the big French Romantic organ, but the acoustic environment is greatly expanded (or perhaps one could say the listener is farther back from the organ).

The original version:
http://www.contrebombarde.com/concerthall/music/2252

The reverb’ed version:
http://www.contrebombarde.com/concerthall/music/2295

For those who are interested in how the reverb-added recording was accomplished:
The MIDI file of the piece is played on an XP 32-bit PC.
The PC MIDI output goes to the MIDI input on the Mac Pro.
The Caen organ is loaded on the Mac Pro and plays the MIDI information.
The audio optical-digital output of the Mac Pro goes to the coaxial-digital input on the Lexicon MPX-400. (I use an optical-to-coaxial converter from CablesToGo.)
The coaxial-digital output from the Lexicon goes to the coaxial-digital input on the Tascam US-144 audio interface back on the XP computer.
The music is then recorded on the PC using Sound Forge. The audio is digital all the way, including the added reverb.
Sound forge is then used to save the 24-bit, 48000 Hz file to disk,
And Sound Forge is then used to convert the file to 16-bit, 44100 Hz and then to an mp3 file so as to conform to contrebombarde requirements.
(Note: both the MPX-400 and the US-144 have been discontinued and replaced by newer units, though drivers are still available, fortunately for me.)

I set this whole thing up actually so I could add some clean reverb to dry sample sets when I feel the need to record them. Since I have invested mostly in dry sets for the multiple speaker set up, I need the help of a reverb of some sort when recording directly in the computer.

I have never gotten into the newer types of computer software reverbs as yet. They may well do a much better job than the Lexicon. Nevertheless, I think I will conclude that adding reverb to a wet set can be worth doing, under certain circumstances.

Leo Chris.

As a regular player of the Hinsz I really don't see (hear) the differences between the volumes. I have noticed other qualifications on another forum where someone describes the full sound (of almost all stops drawn together) as realistic, but the individual stops not.
I wonder whether the specific form of fame of this organ that is bound to certain types of Dutch choral music might be at work here.

Hi Martin,
I have Hauptwerk Basic and Hinz Volume 1 now at the moment. So I load the organ in 16 bit full (3 gig).
So what you suggest is not the case I think. (before that I must buy HW full!)
In case of buying Volume 2 I have listened carefully to the demos: volume 1, added vol 2 and vol 2+3 on the Milan site.
I know they are demos, but still Volume 1 sound more real to me then added volumes 2+3. I wonder why, that's all.

After hearing the Utube video (with added reverb Ambiance) is is remarkable to me the advantage in ambiance of the sound.
I see several members are surprised to hear a certain advance by adding (some) reverb to a wet organ set.
It is in my opinion a real possibility to get some wet sample sets to a higher level.

Eric:
I answered Yes, because I hear it. And I am curious if this is realy true.
Again: knowing the organ and ambiance of the church made me come to this comment.

But let me see it clear: it is not my intention to harm the business.
Brett and his team are top quality in virtual organ product, I have already made other organists very interresting in this fhenomen!

Regards, Harm

This thread has brought up the question as to whether adding reverb to a wet sample set might be effective. So, I have given it a try. Recently I uploaded the Jan Zwart piece, “Alle Roem Is Uitgesloten,” to contrebombarde. That upload used only the natural reverb that comes with the Caen CC samples. Today I uploaded the same piece, but with 40% Lexicon reverb added. For what it’s worth, one can listen to each and judge the value of the added (Lexicon-type) reverb, in this case. It definitely makes the space seem larger.

Listening to both your renditions through headphones, I can hear a difference in the sound of the room, even though the organ sounds the same. That is how I can best describe what I hear in my home when I apply Lexicon reverb to the rear speakers. It does not change the sound of the organ, but seems to enlarge and expand the "church" around me; (in a simplified sense) that really is what we experience in real life. Isn't Hauptwerk exciting with its endless possibilities?

Roy