Sample selection help

I am interested in the purchasing the Skinner 1928 sample. It is offered in two forms Wet Or Dry. - I am using the
Hauptwerk V1 advanced license. I know one can adjust the reverb with that program - I did it with the free St.Anne sample. — so the question is —- Which one would you experienced Hauptwerk-ers recommend The wet version or the dry version?

Thanks for your input
Armand

I’m guessing you mean you have Hauptwerk V5. I would order the dry, since you can add reverb to your liking, and there are plenty of options. you can also add reverb to the wet, but if it is already too wet for you there is not much you can do. I would say for V5, I feel wet versions are more for people with multi channel setups. I’m not sure which Skinner sample set you are considering, but I recall there is one that does not have short releases, which would make it hard to play fast music on.

[mdyde]

[Topic moved here.]

I love the dry version. Such clear authentic sound! I route it to 4 stereo divisions around the house and add Johannus DSA-4 surround reverb from the 4 corners of the space.

Thanks for your input

I gather that if an organ is too wet you can reduce the reverberation by truncating the release tails when you load it, although I havae never actually tried it and I don't know to what extent the sound suffers (perhaps somebody can enlighten me?). There seem to be several reasons why one might want to do this:

1. The organ is to be played in a reverberant space such as a church, where dry samples sound much better than wet ones.

2. In order to add customised reberberation, e.g. with an external processor / software or with the impulse response system included with Hauptwerk V. I understand that this is less realistic than preserving the original reverberation of the acoustic where the samples were recorded, however.

3. Where RAM is in short supply this can reduce the requirement.

Truncation cuts off the pipe decay/reverb tails. It does not, however, alter the natural acoustics of the main sample loops, which themselves contain reverberation. So in a set sampled in a very reverberant space it may not produce the desired result with truncation.

I tried this with the Bovenkirk and Metz, for no particular reason — maybe I was bored that day — as an experiment to make it a bit less wet, and really didn't like the result at all. It just sounded "odd". I did this after having some local organists at my home installation for a demo. Oddly (in my opinion) some of these folks weren't enamored with the natural reverberation in these sample sets — although the same instrument, if it were dry, playing in my living room would have likely been harsh and not very satisfying at best.

So I think it all depends. If you're going to truncate tails, you are probably better off with a not terribly wet sample set to begin with.

YMMV

Thanks you everyone for your suggestions and comments.
- I now have my Rodgers 670 Hauptwerk system installed - up and running.
I will be installing the The Weigle Organ from Pipeloops and probably the 1928 E M Skinner.
Thanks again

Truncation cuts off the pipe decay/reverb tails. It does not, however, alter the natural acoustics of the main sample loops, which themselves contain reverberation. So in a set sampled in a very reverberant space it may not produce the desired result with truncation.

I tried this with the Bovenkirk and Metz, for no particular reason — maybe I was bored that day — as an experiment to make it a bit less wet, and really didn't like the result at all. It just sounded "odd".

This is where surround sound sets really shine. You can route the long reverb to the back speakers which offsets the reverb truncation in the front speakers. For a couple of my favorite Surround Sound sets, I've taken time to find the right formula. For the front or close samples of a SS set, I start with loading only a Diapason chorus and try different short decay settings. Loading only 3 or 4 ranks makes the subsequent Cache rebuilds time efficient. I try to find a setting that has the least abrupt reverb cut off. Since my middle speakers will have the Nave or Near samples routed to them, it softens the cut off from the Front set. Yes, I do the same truncation experiment for these mid samples to have the reverb tail be a little longer than the Front sets. The rear (surround sound) speakers are course get the full release. The result is sound flowing from front to rear! This varies per sample set. Looking at my notes, for the Armley-Schulze, the formula is:
Chancel (Front) 720ms
Nave (Middle) 1.5seconds
Surround (Far) Full release
BTW, there are a few exceptions; for a couple of reeds in the Chancel, I gave them the 1.5seconds for reverb as the truncation sounded odd. That discovery came after playing it for awhile. Also, the volume for each surround division is important too, the Chancel being the loudest. The whole concept is to have the articulation of a dry set in the front, some reflections in the Mids, and full reflections in the back.

For my "maybe I was bored that day" experiment I tried creating a "poor man's" surround sound in Hauptwerk V by taking a dry or moist set and routing the same stereo signal to the back speakers with a generous amount of a large convulsion reverb model. It didn't sound natural at all but more contrived. To be honest it was a quick test. I realize I probably may need to add some additional reverb to the front set (and trim the back) so it has the flow I achieved with the true SS editions. Has anyone else tried doing this?

Danny B.

Truncation cuts off the pipe decay/reverb tails. It does not, however, alter the natural acoustics of the main sample loops, which themselves contain reverberation. So in a set sampled in a very reverberant space it may not produce the desired result with truncation.

I tried this with the Bovenkirk and Metz, for no particular reason — maybe I was bored that day — as an experiment to make it a bit less wet, and really didn't like the result at all. It just sounded "odd".

This is where surround sound sets really shine. You can route the long reverb to the back speakers which offsets the reverb truncation in the front speakers. For a couple of my favorite Surround Sound sets, I've taken time to find the right formula. For the front or close samples of a SS set, I start with loading only a Diapason chorus and try different short decay settings. Loading only 3 or 4 ranks makes the subsequent Cache rebuilds time efficient. I try to find a setting that has the least abrupt reverb cut off. Since my middle speakers will have the Nave or Near samples routed to them, it softens the cut off from the Front set. Yes, I do the same truncation experiment for these mid samples to have the reverb tail be a little longer than the Front sets. The rear (surround sound) speakers are course get the full release. The result is sound flowing from front to rear! This varies per sample set. Looking at my notes, for the Armley-Schulze, the formula is:
Chancel (Front) 720ms
Nave (Middle) 1.5seconds
Surround (Far) Full release
BTW, there are a few exceptions; for a couple of reeds in the Chancel, I gave them the 1.5seconds for reverb as the truncation sounded odd. That discovery came after playing it for awhile. Also, the volume for each surround division is important too, the Chancel being the loudest. The whole concept is to have the articulation of a dry set in the front, some reflections in the Mids, and full reflections in the back.

For my "maybe I was bored that day" experiment I tried creating a "poor man's" surround sound in Hauptwerk V by taking a dry or moist set and routing the same stereo signal to the back speakers with a generous amount of a large convulsion reverb model. It didn't sound natural at all but more contrived. To be honest it was a quick test. I realize I probably may need to add some additional reverb to the front set (and trim the back) so it has the flow I achieved with the true SS editions. Has anyone else tried doing this?

Danny B.

Maybe you should try convolution reverb to avoid the 'convulsions'?