JJK

Double quint? Is there one anywhere???

10 2/3 on pedal, 5 1/3 on manual

I'm with you on this. A pedal twelfth is 5 1/3, an octave is 4' and a superoctave is 2', etc etc JJK

I agree with you about channels - the more the better. Although you can have 30 or more channels on the phoenix system (and other systems), of course it costs money - mainly in amplifiers and speakers - and takes up space. And therefore starts to erode the key advantages of digital organs! JJK

Both Phoenix and Wyvern (for custom instruments) get their consoles made by Renatus. So there is really little difference between a Phoenix and a Wyvern Phoenix apart from samples. Phoenix seem to have access to a wide range of samples. My 3m Phoenix has 3 independent sets - english, french and german - and I was not restricted on choice. I guess that Wyvern would have a similar range. JJK

This also allows every note of every rank to be tuned independently. I believe this makes a big difference to the end result, when compared with other sampled systems which tend to allow only complete ranks to be tuned relative to one another. JJK

My experience is that the better the digital organ they sell, the more likely they are to agree that pipe organs are better! Maybe this is because the best simulators are made by people who understand pipe organs, and therefore understand the limitations of the simulator. As I've posted before, I am convinced that the key limitation is the loudspeakers - show me one that doesn't signifcantly distort the sound, especially when several "pipes" are channelled through it (as they are in all economically viable digital organs). I think the best policy where a digital organ is needed in a church (valid reasons being lack of money and/or space), is to specify a digital equivalent to the size of pipe organ that would best fit the building, and spend any surplus money on improving the speakers/channelling. Multiple specifications can be excellent for practice instruments, but probably rather confusing on a church instrument. JJK

Yes - I found them too staid. But neither do I like to hear Franck rushed - it has to be just right, which is a bit of a subjective judgement. I haven't heard the Pincemaille Franck, but I do quite like his Widor: I'll try to get hold of a copy. Thanks v much to all for so many suggestions - it seems there is a lot of listening to do. JJK

Well I reckon that, if for a moment we ignore the acoustic into which the organ sounds and consider the case of a digital organ in a real building, with no simulated reverb, then there is not much approximation involved in representing the electronic signals of each rank, at least for a sampled instrument. It would be reasonably accurate, provided that each sounding pipe is sent to a separate audio channel and loudspeaker - and there lies the problem - it would involve an unreasonably large amount of audio equipment. Sampling can give a good representation - if long samples are recorded per pipe, along with the starting and finishing transients. Hence I still think that channels/speakers are the limiting factor in this case. Synthesis may be a different matter - but I guess that would take us further off topic....... I am sure that good digital organs sampled from these two instruments, if coupled with accurate representations of the acoustics of these two buildings, would also be distinguishable from each other. However, I think this is where the parallel processing involved becomes unfeasible - to do it properly you'd have to separately convolve each pipe's sample with the response of the room. If this were possible then I reckon through two speakers you could get a result comparable to a stereo CD. And maybe better, with more channels, but I haven't got my head around what's involved there! Such a "stereo CD" organ simulator would be for use in a dry room - the acoustic as well as the organ is simulated. For a real building (ie where the organ is sized to suit the actual building), then no artificial reverb is needed - but multiple channels would be needed to reduce the worst of the distortion. Yes I agree. For home organs, I think the issue is the processing involved in the simulation of the pipes/acoustic combination - it can't really be done properly yet, but it may be soluble in a few years time. For churches/larger buildings I think there is a more fundamental limit. You really need a lot of independent sound sources speaking into the building - which will always be expensive. I can't see any technological change coming to change this - so I'd agree that pipe organs will have the edge for the forseeable future. As most decent digital organ makers would acknowledge. Sorry to go on a bit, and a bit off topic, but it's something that's been exercising my mind as I try to persuade my church of the right decision for a new organ! JJK

I think that sampling technology is now extremely good, and that the sounds of individual notes of individual stops can be indistinguishable from real pipes. But I'm also convinced that loudspeakers and number of audio channels are a real limiting factor. With loudspeakers, the main culprit is intermodulation distortion - created from sum and difference frequencies of two or more notes. The way to mitigate this problem is to have as many separate loudspeaker/amplifier channels as possible, so that, for example, the individual notes of a chord are sent to different speakers, and the same (but, at least in good organs, slightly detuned) notes of different stops are also separately reproduced. Each speaker is then doing a simpler job, and distortion will be of the harmonic variety, which is much less noticeable. A multichannel approach also means that the mixing of the different sounds is carried out acoustically in the room, where reflections and reverberation will modify phase of the sounds, and not electronically, where phase cancellations may occur, creating at worst a very artificial sound. This doesn't really explain why CD recordings can sound so good. Is it psychological? Or maybe it is because they are reproducing a real organ in a real building - the mixing of sounds is typically done in the building, before the microphone, so there will be no horrible phase effects. In theory, it should be possible to simulate this, using a reverberation algorithm and applying to the sounds of each digital sample individually before conversion to audio. However, whatever anyone's sales blurb may say, this is not feasible at present due to the phenomenal processing power that would be needed. Maybe in 5 years time? In any case, CD reproduction still suffers from intermodulation distortion through the loudspeakers; I suspect that people are so exposed to canned music these days that it is less noticeable. But whenever I really listen to real instruments in the flesh, I realise that recordings still don't come close. JJK

I spent some time last weekend listening to some recordings of the Franck Priere - but couldn't find anything I felt really hit the spot. It's an amazing piece IMO, but difficult to bring off convincingly (along with a lot of Franck). I have Sanger, Rubsam, LeBrun complete sets - all good performances, but somehow lacking something. Does anyone have any alternative suggestions? I heard the Peter Hurford did a complete Franck, but I can't trace it - does anyone know if it exists, what it's like, and wht instrument(s) was used? Many thanks JJK

Is that the same as "What shall we do with the drunken sailor"? - which I think is best used to celebrate the Assumption of the Virgin Mary (considering the chorus). BTW, did you know it's in the Dorian mode? JJK

Without being sexist, it would be interestimg to know if female organists find it easier to talk while playing - I suspect they may. Being male, I find it difficult enough to talk, let alone while playing! JJK

I believe the difference between the best digital instruments and the also-rans is enormous - and I think this is not just due to the technology used. The number of channels deployed, and the quality of the speakers is a big factor - and those things don't come cheap. But even the best simulators don't really match a good pipe organ - loudpeaker distortion and nowhere near enough channels being the limiting factors in my opinion (even if you have a lot of channels, you're competing with an instrument with thousands of channels). This article is quite interesting: EndofPipeOrgan JJK

Lack of space, lack of money, or cloth ears

Indeed - very helpful thank you. I'm lucky enough to have one of the original CDs, and it is in my opinion a really excellent recording. Prices for secondhand copies on ebay went crazy, so even if CD-R is not quite as durable, it's much better than nothing! JJK

Maybe the problem is longevity? JJK

Not that small, surely? When I was there it certainly had 3 manuals - and I'm sure it was tonally all original Binns. I agree, a nice instrument, and one of the few remaining romantic organs in Cambridge. JJK

I'd like to place a vote for the Beckerath in Clare, Cambridge. Controversial I know, and maybe not without its problems, but I had a few lessons on it in the 80s. It was a complete revelation to me - the first time I'd played a decent tracker action - and I discovered how in for example a Bach fugue, it was so much easier to coordinate manual and pedal parts on such an instrument. Since then, I've never liked it where instruments have EP action to the pedals and tracker to the manuals - it feels all wrong. Are the feet so insensitive it doesn't matter? Anyway, I reckon the Clare instrument has real character. JJK

.....or perhaps a Bach motet -not many German words in the B minor!

Sometimes, just sometimes ...... I well remember him telling us (in the CUMS chorus) telling us how we had to pronounce the word "Vater" in the B minor mass - with the merest hint of a smile

I remember hearing this at the time - but someone (can't remember who) told me that Cleobury started the rumour as a joke to see what would happen. It did elicit some letters from the greatly outraged! JJK

Well I think Harrisons recently built a new 2m organ in Douglas. That's all I know. JJK

I can find a lot to admire in this organ (with the definite exception of the 32' reed) - and it does attract some top recitalists - but I don't really like it; there is something missing and I find it leaves me cold. I'm not really sure why - but I know a few people who feel the same way. As a separate matter, it is rather unattractive and inappropriate visually IMHO. JJK

So who is it? Not a name I recognise. JJK