Recently I’ve been reading some interesting resources online, and thinking about next steps for Hauptwerk. Here are some websites that I have been reading, that many of you would be familiar with:
http://lawrencephelps.com/indexa.html
http://www.pykett.org.uk/completed_work.htm
http://cbfisk.com/charles-fisk/
One point that Lawrence Phelps makes in many of his articles is that the sound of a combination of pipes is more than the sum of its parts. He argues that when several pipes are winded from the same wind source, it affects the amount of wind each gets, how the wind goes through the pipe, etc. I would also add that the acoustic mixing, including adding and subtracting of sound waves in the air, is also distinct for multiple pipes sounding at the same time. Now, most Hauptwerk sample sets are made up of each rank or set of ranks sampled chromatically. That means that when more than one stop is drawn, several independent wav files are played back at the same time. This approximates the sound, however I would argue that the true sound, or a more authentic sound is a recording of the same stops sampled when drawn together. That means that more realistic than playing multiple recordings at once is playing a single recording of those same stops. As Colin Pykett also observes, this would also reduce the amount of intermodulation distortion, particularly for those who listen to Hauptwerk in Stereo, which is still the most popular way to listen to Hauptwerk.
The main problem of course, is the amount of extra RAM such a sample set would take up. However, not every combination necessarily need be sampled. Commonly used combinations, such as the stops that make up a principal chorus, or the 8 and 4 foot flutes +/- the reeds in the division, the Plein jeu or Grand jeu, the 8 foot stops together on a romantic organ, would be more than necessary for most uses. The challenge, however, would be to program an ODF that allows to dynamically switch which samples are used based on what stops are drawn. I’m not sure if this is possible with the current version of the ODF, but it definitely would not be possible in the CODM as it now is. The other aspect, is that sample sets would need to be recorded new, or re-recorded, to take advantage of this technology, since none currently does this.
Part 2 of this conjecture is what Charles Fisk calls “articulateness” of an organ. Basically, when more than one pipe is winded from the same source, and a note is held, then another note is played, it causes a waver in the wind supply to the note that is being held. This helps our ears detect the rhythm of the notes, but is not universally present in all organs (though definitely in baroque era organs with slider chests, and modern examples built after that design). To increase the realism in these kind of organs, in addition to sampling each pipe’s speech and cut off, it would also make sense to sample each pipe as a second pipe is played, and after the onset waveform, the recording of both pipes together. This will accurately reproduce the articulateness of some organs. As with the previous example, not all combinations of keys necessarily need to be sampled, but I think it would make sense to sample the most commonly used combinations (say, all the 3rds, or the notes within a 5th of the other note, or all the notes within a 5th in commonly used keys). I’m sure the wind model simulates this to some extent, but again, the greater realism would be to reproduce it in samples. Again, I also don’t know if the ODF would support this, but I think it would result in a greater level of realism if it could.
Perhaps some would ask why this is necessary, and I would admit it is not strictly “necessary” to the enjoyment of Hauptwerk. However, I think it would introduce a greater level of realism, and for a small sample set, the extra RAM consumption wouldn’t be too onerous. Perhaps others don’t agree with the opinions of Phelps, Pykett, and Fisk on these subjects, but I think it makes for an interesting discussion about the future of Hauptwerk. Perhaps sample set makers will balk at the extra work that making such a sample set entails, but if one does it and it becomes a popular set, would it be worth the effort then? Perhaps these subjects have been discussed before, but in the light of frequent Hauptwerk updates and greater availability of large amounts of RAM, I think they are interesting to discuss now. What do others think of these points?
http://lawrencephelps.com/indexa.html
http://www.pykett.org.uk/completed_work.htm
http://cbfisk.com/charles-fisk/
One point that Lawrence Phelps makes in many of his articles is that the sound of a combination of pipes is more than the sum of its parts. He argues that when several pipes are winded from the same wind source, it affects the amount of wind each gets, how the wind goes through the pipe, etc. I would also add that the acoustic mixing, including adding and subtracting of sound waves in the air, is also distinct for multiple pipes sounding at the same time. Now, most Hauptwerk sample sets are made up of each rank or set of ranks sampled chromatically. That means that when more than one stop is drawn, several independent wav files are played back at the same time. This approximates the sound, however I would argue that the true sound, or a more authentic sound is a recording of the same stops sampled when drawn together. That means that more realistic than playing multiple recordings at once is playing a single recording of those same stops. As Colin Pykett also observes, this would also reduce the amount of intermodulation distortion, particularly for those who listen to Hauptwerk in Stereo, which is still the most popular way to listen to Hauptwerk.
The main problem of course, is the amount of extra RAM such a sample set would take up. However, not every combination necessarily need be sampled. Commonly used combinations, such as the stops that make up a principal chorus, or the 8 and 4 foot flutes +/- the reeds in the division, the Plein jeu or Grand jeu, the 8 foot stops together on a romantic organ, would be more than necessary for most uses. The challenge, however, would be to program an ODF that allows to dynamically switch which samples are used based on what stops are drawn. I’m not sure if this is possible with the current version of the ODF, but it definitely would not be possible in the CODM as it now is. The other aspect, is that sample sets would need to be recorded new, or re-recorded, to take advantage of this technology, since none currently does this.
Part 2 of this conjecture is what Charles Fisk calls “articulateness” of an organ. Basically, when more than one pipe is winded from the same source, and a note is held, then another note is played, it causes a waver in the wind supply to the note that is being held. This helps our ears detect the rhythm of the notes, but is not universally present in all organs (though definitely in baroque era organs with slider chests, and modern examples built after that design). To increase the realism in these kind of organs, in addition to sampling each pipe’s speech and cut off, it would also make sense to sample each pipe as a second pipe is played, and after the onset waveform, the recording of both pipes together. This will accurately reproduce the articulateness of some organs. As with the previous example, not all combinations of keys necessarily need to be sampled, but I think it would make sense to sample the most commonly used combinations (say, all the 3rds, or the notes within a 5th of the other note, or all the notes within a 5th in commonly used keys). I’m sure the wind model simulates this to some extent, but again, the greater realism would be to reproduce it in samples. Again, I also don’t know if the ODF would support this, but I think it would result in a greater level of realism if it could.
Perhaps some would ask why this is necessary, and I would admit it is not strictly “necessary” to the enjoyment of Hauptwerk. However, I think it would introduce a greater level of realism, and for a small sample set, the extra RAM consumption wouldn’t be too onerous. Perhaps others don’t agree with the opinions of Phelps, Pykett, and Fisk on these subjects, but I think it makes for an interesting discussion about the future of Hauptwerk. Perhaps sample set makers will balk at the extra work that making such a sample set entails, but if one does it and it becomes a popular set, would it be worth the effort then? Perhaps these subjects have been discussed before, but in the light of frequent Hauptwerk updates and greater availability of large amounts of RAM, I think they are interesting to discuss now. What do others think of these points?