Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

david_forde

Members
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by david_forde

  1. As far as I know, most organ-builders using CAD use 2D, and in addition to the aforementioned builders, P&S have used 2D (based on AutoCAD) for their work - like everyone else probably because before computers, most drawings were in 2D. I use AutoCAD for design work, and for most purposes this is ideal, though solid-modelling (like SolidWorks) is very clever and probably the way to go for the future (it seems the way that programme manufacturers are going, which will probably force our hands anyway). I'm inclined to think it is down to the preference of the designer - if one wants to model something to see how it fits together, then solid modelling is very attractive, but for routine work, like layouts, 2D serves most purposes. That said even a nominally routine item like a sliderchest could be easier in 3D - it is the multiple layers that complicate issues, and make modifications tedious, rather the trying to conceptualise something as 3D object. For most designers it is a question of affording time to learn a new system...
  2. This is an interesting proposition, but has been explored by many organ-builders with only occasional impact on the craft. 20th century organ-building is littered with examples of attempts to apply new materials and a ‘manufactory’ approach to the craft, but with little lasting success. As other have mentioned, Compton is the obvious example, applying as much innovation and standardisation to production as possible, but this proved unsustainable for a number of reasons. Notwithstanding the quality of most of Compton’s work (and the design innovations of Jimmy Taylor’s input), the key issue was (and still is) one of economics – to make standardisation ‘work’, high-volume production of a standard product is essential. Compton’s approach just about sustained the firm the in early 20th century, when the factory was producing huge quantities of instruments, but even then the firm struggled financially, with Compton eventually forced to relinquish ownership of the company he founded. Compton’s standardisation principle implied one style of organ-building – all well and good assuming the market place likes the style, but bad news when it goes out of fashion, or when organists want something slightly different. A quick look at the variety of opinion proffered to the specification proposals on here will give a hint as to how much design flexibility is required by the client. Remember Henry Ford’s thoughts on customisation of his factory product! Mechanisation of production is only of limited application in any craft and, for my money, organ-building is about as standardised as we would ever want it to be. Most organ-builders use standard production components (action parts etc) made in volume (with some degree of economy) by a few suppliers. The application of CAD and CAM help eliminate some of the cost associated with production, but the bulk of organ-building defies mechanical production – pipe-making is a good example. Planer-machines are used, but pipes are still cast, cut, made and voiced by hand and most people appreciate that this is an essential craft exercise where the craftsperson has a tangible connection with creation of a unique and quality artistic product, rather than something that just needs to be made well, to tight engineering and cost tolerances. What machine has ears that can determine musical sound without human involvement? This costs a lot in terms of man-power but is unavoidable. I recently read that the appliance manufacturer Whirlpool aim for less than one hour of labour input into the production of a domestic washing machine. That is about £20 cost for a product which we might expect to pay £400-£500 – the rest goes on design development, plant, overheads, distribution, support, management, marketing, tax etc, and profit of course. Even if it were possible, or desirable to mechanise the bulk of organ-building, what organ-builder would have the resources to develop and build the machinery required, and who would want an organ that is one of thousands made in an absolutely identical style? Volume demands mean that factory production is no more an economic possibility for a craft like organ-building than is it an artistically attractive one. As for alternative or improved materials, organ-builders are a rather adept at trying out new products – with more or less success. Compton seized on Bakelite in the 20s, the neo-classicists introducing aluminium, titanium, Perspex, fibreglass, chipboard, particleboard etc. Some of these have stood the test of time, others abandoned for reasons of questionable longevity or aesthetics. Bellows became schwimmers, which in turn became bellows again…and so the circle turns. Carbon-fibre is probably the most recent innovation – J.W.W./P&S used it in the astonishingly complex tracker action of a large organ for the US a few years back, though had to overcome a variety of challenges presented by some of the material’s physical properties. New production techniques were required, different approaches to gluing to connectors, and particular challenges in supporting horizontal runs had to be overcome. All of this implies a huge development overhead on any such project – and this in an industry that has precious little in the way of profit margin let alone any allowance for R&D. Good engineering (and indeed business) practice would demand that any new idea be thoroughly evaluated by the designer, and that comparison be made with existing options. If the new material does not offer a better alternative to the established product it would make little sense to incorporate it. If it is incorporated, long-term serviceability should be considered – organ-builders are skilled in wood, leather and other traditional crafts (and geared up in this respect) – how many are in a position to make an on-the-job repair on a ‘new’ material, and what is the implication for the maintenance cost of the instrument in the long term? Carbon-fibre is a good example in this respect – for a further insight I would recommend a read of the excellent article on tracker materials by Didier Grassin and Johannes Gunther in the 2003 edition of ‘Organ Building’ (and if you don’t subscribe already, do so if only for these occasional moments of real insight). New organs are their own prototypes – the ASDA £30 CD player, and the Jumbo-Jet both incorporate huge development resources whereas pipe organs do not – benefiting instead from years of received wisdom, and the occasional burst of real design inspiration (usually one in every generation). Organ-building is also a craft trade rather than a manufacturing industry and for my money this is one of its joys. Creative possibility is boundless in the tonal development, visual appearance and mechanical design; anyone after an alternative that is mass-produced and uses lots of modern materials is able to find such a product, only it has speakers instead of pipes.
  3. I far as I am aware Alan Taylor is still in business, passing only the mechanical action component work to Renatus; the Taylor firm still producing outstanding transmissions and electrical components. Herewith a link to their fine drawstop unit - http://www.ajltaylor.co.uk/Drawstop/1947B/1947B.html Electric draw-stops usually have either one of two systems to produce a toggle, earlier forms using an electro-magnetic toggle, modern forms using permanent magnets. The early form (such as the Williams type) are not directly compatible with solid-state systems and are usually replaced with modern types when solid-state capture actions are installed, though at the Pro-Cathedral in Dublin, J.W.W., in their rebuild of 1995, retained the existing solenoids by cutting out the toggle circuit to allow a capture system - the result is a sloppy feel to the draw. Incidentally, the Willis 3 form are particularly fine, so I wonder if the current firm are producing them? My personal preference is for non-toggle electric keyboards - I find a toggle (whether magnet or toggle kick spring) contextually synethic when the rest of the action response is electric. As other have mentioned, the toggle can be adjusted to be pretty inoffensive, but can at times be dreadful - my worst experience of all being a Dutch electronic with an enormous toggle to overcome, follow by a practically 'all-spring' spongey feel that was simply tiring to play...all personal taste though I guess.
  4. Uk - Symphony Hall 82 stops, though of course several sections are on electric action, and electric coupling I think, Bridgewater Hall 76 stops (with electric coupling?), Eaton Square 65 stops (mechanical coupling), Bath Abbey 63 stops....
  5. Possibly not that mad at all, though I doubt the current organ market would stand the cost of developing such a system...otherwise it would have been done by now!
  6. True - perhaps I am being a bit pedantic, but in practically all actions the train is hung from the pallet, against the force of the pallet spring and the wind pressure. The roller forms part of an action train and is used to move the action sideways as required by the layout. It is possible to have a key action hung from an independently sprung lever between the pallet pull-down wire and the roller-board – sometimes used for dual key-action systems, where one hopes to avoid moving the tracker action train when using the electric system. The problem with that sort of system is that one plays against the retaining spring not the pallet…
  7. Wow – I didn’t think this would pick up as much as it did! The whole joy of mechanical action is that it encourages a level of precision that I for one can only aspire to (prompting the comment that I should be content with slow pneumatics, but enough of that). Even with limited technique (and a limit to the amount of time allowed to improve it), there is something very special about the experience of total control over the key action – yes a good action is exacting (at times embarrassingly so), but that is no bad thing…a bit like cabbage, not always appetising but very good for you! A point to note is that every mechanical action will feel different and as much depends on the design of the soundboard, pallets and keyboard as it does on the action train. The response will be different across the compass as the pallet size varies, to say nothing of the pallet-spring settings. Registration comes into the equation too – if one is playing on a soundboard with 10 stops and needs say 10mm of pallet movement to sound the full ensemble, it might be possible to fully sound a single 8’ flute within the first couple of mm of movement. If any sort of attack control is to be achieved, the ‘pluck’ element is of greatest importance which calls into doubt anything that obscures pluck in an action (whether through the engineering of the action or the use of assistance systems). This is why proportional electric systems seem a bit of a non-starter for me – as another correspondent noted, if there is no connection between the feel of the key and aural cue, there is little point in any control other than on and off. Perhaps proportional electric control has a more useful application in coupling, though to be honest electrical coupling on a mechanical organ makes the “mechanical” element a bit of a conceptual non-starter as far as I am concerned – better to be up-front and have electric action throughout. The idea of non-mechanical secondary pallets on the same groove is a dangerous one, calculated to ruin repetition – far better to have separate grooves, though even then the notes with on-off control will stick out like a sore thumb. On the subject of pallet-bounce, in my experience this has less to do with the pallets and more to do with the keyboard and action train – actions without traditional thumper-rails suffer as the momentum of the action is not arrested, a problem not associated with key tensioned actions. I encountered one organ with suspended action where compass springs were added to the keyboard to eliminate the problems of key-bounce – making the effort of suspending the keys utterly pointless…incidentally in suspended actions the keys hang from the pallets and not the rollers. Mechanical action is a real engineering design challenge for the organ builder – establishing how to balance control, repetition and weight could become a career odyssey! D
  8. Do you mean the shutter front itself or the control system? On the shutter front, I don’t think you can beat solid timber shutters, though I’ve come across all sorts (apart from the metal versions apparently found in organs like Atlantic City). It depends on how important you think the transmission of sound through the closed front is - I think that solid shutters give the best closure. Most of the new organs I’m familiar with (largely the work of one particular builder) have swell boxes made with a timber frame, ply on the outside, with anything from painted hardboard through to white-melamine beauty board on the inside face, and polystyrene aero-board in between. The shutters on these organs are usually made of 6mm ply on a solid frame with aero-board inside – certainly making for very light shutters. The idea was to create a highly reflective interior and whilst this might help the box open sound, I’m convinced that the reflection prohibits a good pianissimo effect, whereas a traditional box will absorb some sound when closed giving better results. J. W. W. did a line in hardboard boxes in the 60s – what opinions do readers have of these? If one has to have electric action, the best option is a good whiffle-tree engine (of say 16 stages) but there are a number of caveats there too of course. They are expensive, tend to be noisy, take up a load of space and need high wind-pressures to work well. On the plus side one has the pneumatic force of 16 motors moving pretty much at once which means that a slam in either direction is achievable in theory at least. The concertina engine system is limited by the fact that pneumatic force is applied to the area of basically one motor, even if all stages engaged, and tend to be far more sluggish as a result. If one has the resources to ensure high wind pressure, and as many stages as possible, then a whiffle-tree could do the trick…I played an organ for several years with a second-hand 16-stage engine running on blower-pressure (about 4.5 inches) – it was pathetic; you could the move the pedal and wait a couple of beats before you heard any difference… Independent shutters make the time element less of a concern, but usually at the expense of subtlety – try a cinema organ to find out! The Wurlitzer system certainly moves quickly, but is a lumpy, ‘wooshy’ sort of crescendo, fine if you want to slam the box open and shut, less good if you want to move gradually. As for inertia – I suppose reducing the mass of the shutters will help (hence the endless variety of tricks used, including drilled, hollow etc. shutters). One can also improve mechanical control by gearing the trace mechanism so that the initial movement is very gradual, then speeding up as the shutters reach the fully open stage and ideally slowing down just before the end of the run to counteract the run-away effect of momentum – just needs a good engineering brain to do this! It is possible to get this ‘cam’ type action the wrong way round of course… I have no experience of two independent fronts on one box, but I’m sure other commentators will have plenty to say on this – I think our hosts did this on their organ in St. Albans…maybe we’ll hear what the result was like! The Willis ISG system is very clever – probably one of the most imaginative pieces of electric action engineering from the Willis atelier. Risking offending Mr Wyld again, it is theoretically not infinite at all – offering (as far as I can remember) five or six speeds in each direction, from a glacial one-minute full travel, to an incredibly fast slam in either direction. The infinite bit is down to the player deciding how much movement and how fast and moving their foot as required. As the open and closed directions are operated pneumatically, power is not an issue (assuming high wind pressure) and no springs or weights are required to hold the box open or shut. Doubtless a system that would become second nature with a bit of experience, I believe two issues have stood in its way – one being the very fact that it is so different traditional pedals which means it is very scary for first time players who don’t have the time to get used to it – we all know how off-putting a bad experience can be! The second reason is that because it was a Willis “exclusive” it was never going to be widely adopted – has Willis encouraged other builders to incorporate it when it first appeared it might have achieved more acceptance. The indicator bit always puzzled me - ok you might need to glance at these if you haven't been playing on the encolsed division, but if you are surely your ears might tell you how open or closed the box is? Now that we are in the micro-processor era, the Willis ISG could be updated to make a very clever swell engine. The technology already exists as it is used in the direct electric swell motors made by Laukhuff, Taylor, Peterson et al – basically using a computer to identify the positions of both the swell pedal and the shutters and then to instantly operate the motor to make up any difference. The problem with the electric motor is, once again, speed – just look at the stats. Adapt the Willis engine, which is of course pneumatic (power you can store!), to this form of control and bingo – fast and precise! All you need is someone to work out the programming so that the processor can establish how fast the pedal is being moved, and engage an appropriate speed stage in the engine - I should patent this idea…lol. That said I believe the Peterson electric system responds to the speed of pedal travel as well the position. Either way it might be easier to save the expense and move the console closer to the organ and do it with a mechanical trace… All in all, I don’t think you can do better than mechanical control for a swell pedal – I wonder what is the longest run achieved mechanically? I believe that the swell trace in Liverpool Met goes down into the car park and back up again… D
  9. That's a bit of an unfair generalisation about British pneumatic actions - the Willis TP action in Dundalk in Ireland has worked well for years with minimal attention. I think it is more of a case of the design and construction of the action - risking a generalisation, I'd say that if a TP action is slow there is a good chance that it always was. Damaged tubing has a lot to answer for too. I've played some early 20th TP actions (in the style found in German trade consoles of the time - favoured by several organ builders in the British Isles) that were pretty miserable after restoration... The best TP actions seem to soldier on and on...and some of these are British!
  10. Hmm - now that is something I hadn't considered - worth noting that the 128 steps are in a magnet travel of 8mm.... The idea is that after the pluck of the pallet has been overcome (and the note starts to sound) the travel (both distance and speed) from that point to the fully open position can be precisely controlled – thereby emulating the control available with mechanical action. Emulating because it is of course a stepped system (all 128 of them) rather than the infinite control offered by tracker action – though I imagine dividing 8mm into 128 steps means the steps are practically imperceptible! Is this system of musical/aesthetic merit? Should we accept that we need tracker action if we want infinite control and ‘on/off’ action if we want the flexibility offered by electric action?
  11. oops - thank you for spotting that error!
  12. Hi all, Has anyone had any experience of the ‘intelli-key’ or similar systems for action control? In particular has anyone tried the “128 gradations” of control offered by Eltec Automazioni (see the ISO journal...or see http://www.eltecautomazioni.com/Eltecautom...i/UK-Eltec.htm)? The philosophical question is whether proportional control is appropriate for non-mechanical action organs – should we expect electric actions to behave exactly like tracker organs, or should we be happy with the ‘on and off’ control offered for the last hundred and a bit years? David
  13. Good plan (and similar to my suggestion in principle!), but how would you distribute the approx. 30 stops over four manuals and pedals? As for dual mechanism - I agree, hardly appropriate for the proposed layout, and far better to have one good action and console, and spend the money on pipes!
  14. Further thoughts on this - is the organ supposed to be a three manual with Great, Swell and Choir or a two manual with another section in the nave? What is it expected to do? The ideal (!) layout rather depends on the purpose.... David
  15. French perhaps - providing that the pipework is scaled and voiced in a French style - it always seems a bit triste to draw a Trompette and hear a Tromba… If the west-end section is rather far away I’d go for a two-manual Great II, Swell III and part Pedal scheme in the choir, with a third Bombarde/Resonance (yes French terms I know…total hypocrisy) and big pedal stops at the west – played from manual I. A thirty stop limit seems a bit tight but here’s my paper spec (I’ll leave the scaling, mouth widths, pressure, voicing etc. to your imagination): I’m assuming electric action given the layout…I can’t do less than 33 stops and still would want more….not even a clarinet to play with… III Sw P8, F8, S8, C8, P4, F4, P2, MIX, T16, T8, O8 - 11 stops II Gt P8, F8, S8, P4, F4, F2 2/3, Gems2, 1 3/5 - 8 stops I Res P16, P8, Har.F8, P4, P2, MIX, T16, T8 - 8 stops Small Pedal Subbass 16-8, P8-4 - 2 stops Large Pedal Open 16-8, P4, MIX, T16-8 - 4 stops Couplers: I, II, III-Ped II-I, III-I III-II As for part enclosing the west end section - I dunno - I'd sooner save the money by skipping the swell box (and engine) and have a few more stops instead - alternatively try enclosing the west reeds... Off you go readers - tear this one apart!
  16. Not wishing to sound as though I want the last word on this subject, I rather think there are significant differences between the sensations of weight and spring tension in an action, though if the main action is in anyway heavy you are right suggesting that an additional spring may not be noticed. Bearing in mind the original posting, in a modern action I’d wager it would be felt – witness the feel of those modern consoles with compass springs on the keyboards (admittedly an extreme example). If the Willis design is applied to coupling alone and not to a main division train I’m sure, in the correct context, it feels quite apt. The comments regarding the prejudices of your he/she organist seem rather a shame, not displaying much faith in the ability of a good player to distinguish between a good action and an indifferent one. I’m sure experience has much to answer for in that respect. Have many people attempted to copy the Willis design? I ask as I am fascinated to think that it might need any form of copyright protection so long after its patent. While we're on the original posting, maybe Mr Mander would share his experiences with the 'intelli-pallet' in the US...perhaps all this talk of lever-pneumatics is now old-hat!
  17. Mr Wyld, I am inclined to think that most sensitive players would feel the springs labeled B and Q on the diagram of the Willis lever on your website…
  18. The greatest problem with the Barker Lever device (including the V. Willis derivative etc) is that it introduces a spring to the action train that is at best noticeable and at worst gives a horrible harmonium type feel to the action. Kenneth Jones Inc. (in fact the work of Trevor Crowe) designed a quasi-servo pneumatic action that overcame this problem, avoiding secondary springs. It was applied to two organs by the firm in the early 1990s. It is a ‘quasi’ servo in that it operates another pallet set from a main action train rather than replacing the direct mechanical connection on one individual train. The system uses jockey-pallets on an enclosed power-motor, with a floating lever to trace the precise movement of the controlling and output actions – the output thereby follows the key exactly. When working within reasonable limits (i.e. acting on one extra set of pallets) it is very responsive and impossible to catch out in terms of response and repetition – if overloaded it gets slow…rather like most pneumatic based actions of course. It was applied to the four manual/six division NCH organ in Dublin, but alas it was expected to drive several intermanual couplers – a bit overambitious. I believe that this organ has been recently fitted with electric coupling throughout…something of a volte-face for an organ builder who previously eschewed any alternative to mechanical action. This is a shame as the servo-system in itself is a very clever design (though like all such mechanisms expensive to construct) and deserves to be revived in a more realistic application – maybe one day it will!
  19. With regard to the work at Eaton Square, I can offer some information on this (as I have been involved in the process) - as originally built the organ proved mechanically unreliable and though tonally impressive, was lacking in terms of overall finish. The reasons why this was the case are many and not all for open discussion, but this must have been a somewhat pressurised time for this relatively small firm, producing three four manual organs in quick succession alongside a range of slightly smaller (but at times quite high profile) jobs in Cambridge etc. The mechanical re-engineering has eliminated all the electrical assistance on the manual divisions (a particular source of unreliability and poor repetition), and the entire coupler chassis has been replaced to allow a re-engineering of the couplers, key-tensioning and step-down elements of the action, and to eliminate the sensation of 'sponge' in the action. Further action problems had also been encountered in the incredibly dry atmosphere of the church. The outcome of the recent work is a much more reliable and positive action, with a real pluck point and none of the horrible indefinite sponginess associated with modern tracker-actions that are geared down too much (found with alarming frequency elsewhere). It is heavy-ish as one might expect on an organ this size, but really good to play. The wind-system is being revised (partially complete) as the original design was particularly unstable, even with the Jones trademark draw-stop controlled concussion dampers - new conventional bellows have been added to this end. The remaining work includes revision of the Pedal division to incorporate more stops on purely mechanical action, and to further improve the wind-system. Beyond the mechanical elements, the plan (I believe) is to do the tonal finishing that the organ needs, refining some of the less sociable elements of the sound etc. The work is being undertaken by the Irish organ builder Trevor Crowe - formerly Jones's tonal director. Trevor (engineering and music degrees amongst other achievements) resigned his position at Jones around the time the organ was being installed (for various reasons). He was responsible for the tonal finishing at Emmanuel Cambridge amongst others, and is a particularly fine voicer – interested parties should try the work he has completed on his own account, particularly the large 50-ish stop three manual mechanical action organ in St. Bartholomew’s in Dublin, which stands head to head with the work of many a bigger name (and might I dare to say, stands higher than some). As for why this organ needed this work so soon – many factors, not least that a new organ has no prototype and when new and daring ideas are attempted sometimes they don’t work – solving such problems can be costly and may eat into time that would otherwise be spent elsewhere on the job. The Eaton Square organ is one of the most original and brilliant concepts executed in modern ‘British’ (actually British Isles or, to be truly loyal, Irish) organ building – it is a testimony to the people at St. Peter’s that they recognise the rough diamond they possess and are willing to invest in finishing it properly – it promises to be one of the finest organs in the country when it is complete.
  20. Fellow cat loving organists/organbuilders might be interested to know of two moggies immortalised in a London pipe organ. The late Stephen Ridgley-Whithouse's cats influenced the names of two Solo organ stops at St. Peter's Eaton Square namely the Tibia Sylvestris and the Viola Felix - you guessed it - Felix and Sylvester!! The organ (built by Ken Jones in 1992/93 and now undergoing a staged process of re-engineering and refinishing by Trevor Crowe) is well worth seeing and playing, and not just for these two stops. David PS - the Tibia is actually a Spitz Flute, and a nice one at that!
×
×
  • Create New...