Simon Walker
-
Posts
151 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Simon Walker
-
-
The Larigot was a little flûte.
Yes there were "Largo" and the like in Bach organs, which were synthese organs
from about all european areas ! And exactly like in modern synthese organs, those
stops differed sometimes much from the original ones.
Pierre
So folks...
If I was ever in the position (hopefully it might happen one day...) to rethink the spec on the instrument I play regularly these days what would you advise me to change. (talking hypothetically about the squeaky stuff here)
Swell - All the usual stuff inc. 16,8,4 reeds, includes nazard and tierce.
Great - excellent romantic great, usual chorus + 8/4 reeds. Includes a Mounted Cornet from middle C
Choir - wait for this... I hate it... lovely and original 8' dulciana, 8' unda maris, 8' gedact, 4' chimney flute
awful 1970`s 2' 'spitz principal' larigot 1 1/3, screeching III cymbal 29, 33, 36
Cremona 8' (it's actually a circumcised clarinet - dreadful)
Choir box is a modest size. Part of me wonders if all the swell mutations should be moved to the choir, in place of the cymbal. I really want to find a good second hand clarinet one day. The original is ruined.
Originally the choir spec was just 88,4,2,8. I like the versatility of a modern spec, but it can never be a true positive as it`s all small scale and theres no 4`principal, the box is too small for that and I LOVE the unda maris which I would definitely not sacrifice.
Given this information do you think the choir should be returned to original spec (all I need is a new 2`picolo and clarinet) or do you think there would be any justification in moving the mutations (hopefully aslo gaining a better 2 foot and clarinet also ) ie, 8,8,4,22/3, 2, 13/5, 11/3 clarinet?
Your thoughts appreciated! I love this message board.
-
My late father always bought Austin or Morris cars, and his Morris 8 lasted for 20 years before the running board fell off.
Rover cars were also excellent and it is sad that this brand name is now owned by Ford. I owned a Rover 75 which was excellent, and how I wish I could have purchased a replacement.
The problem is that there is absolutely no loyalty amongst the British people, and yet wasn't it Honda or Toyota that has had three serious recalls for faults so perhaps they are not so clever.?
I was gutted when MG ROVER went out of business with the Company being purchased by a Chinese Company.
The good news is that the Longbridge plant has partially reopened, and three new MG models are being introduced this year, and I believe that one will be a replacement for the 75( MG 3 ?)
The Chinese are banking on loyalty to the MG marque, but don't hold your breath.
Colin Richell.
Sadly... quality vs price was one of the reasons for Rovers demise. And the fact that that the 25 and 45 models were 10 years old by the end. I had a 25 model briefly and actually I quite liked the car. It didn't prove to be nearly as reliable as I expected, and i cursed it as a result.
One could compare the demise of Rover to that of the late, and I'm sure much missed organ firms H,N&B and R&D. Willis's made a comeback gladly. Any company which suffers a drop in quality and research and development is going to struggle. As with any firm which did great things in its day, we sorely miss the best products.
I was once offered a Rover P6 for 100 pounds. It wasn't all that bad either. Silly me for turning it down.
-
26 stops at £400K = just over £15K / stop:
Love your comments about British Leyland MM! Personally I always saw more advantage with Citroens for engineering - which was mostly the cause of their financial woes rather than underinvestment. Buy a DS or 2CV - their design is sheer genius. My Deux Chevaux has taken me all round the country. Or if you need a bargain a CX or GS are very well engineered too. I find lots of organists like classic cars - something to do ones ability to appreciate aesthetic value I think.
Going back to the new organ proposed for Edington - doesn't 400k look like a modest sum when you consider its sizable spec and lovely casework design? I imagine there might already be a hefty donation in the pot. Does anyone know whether it's going to be all new or are they using bits of the old instrument? Spec looks just right to me - though I'm surprised there isn't another 16' on the pedal. The old organ has a violone...
Anyway folks... what do you think of the idea of them commissioning a new instrument? I think it's very wise indeed. And I'm sure it will be a very successful decision. I bet the BIOS folks would like to get a Grade II listing on the old one though, as it was mostly original and in many ways a very worthy organ. It just didn't make enough sound for when the place was full in the festival and a bit more versatility for accompanying will be very welcome. The worst thing was that it was more than a semi tone sharp to my memory!
This is the main reason why I worry about all these BIOS certificates - when you have changing requirements and funds for a new instrument then having a historic listing getting in the way is just going to prove to be a big pain in neck. Good for Edington. I look forward to hearing the new instrument on Radio 3 when it arrives.
-
The three things I look for are; 1) in the Sw buildup, what comes first - Trumpet or Mixture - 2) which one brings on the Sw Oboe - 3) which one is the Solo/Choir Clarinet on. The rest I do by hand.
This reminds me... when I started as organ scholar as St. Mary's Edinburgh (truly gorgeous, if rather subtle sounding Willis Harrison... lovely!) I was strictly forbidden to draw a 2' or mixture before the swell trumpet. At least that was the case in any Stanford, Howells or Dyson etc. even Sumsion. I was told - 'always reeds before mixtures' and rightly so I think. Exactly the opposite of what I'd been encouraged to do earlier in my education.
-
A good bit of advice for accompanying, especially when on an unfamiliar instrument, is: USE THE DIVISIONALS! ... And locate the all important Great to Pedal of course.
Many organists these days are over reliant on general pistons. Here in North America many organists don't seem to get our concept of setting up divisionals as a crescendo - I really don't know why. Perhaps it's because they don't do as much accompanying as the British do. (No daily choral foundations...)
When you only have 30 mins prep time, there really is no time to set up generals, and without care it can lead to disaster. (It only takes the wrong general to be pushed and hey - you`ve got tuba to great when you really didn`t want it!) Making the most of divisionals is much safer when practice time is limited.
-
OK, I'll dive straight in myself. I've done this in a number of cathedrals and churches over the last ten years, usually with about twenty minutes of slightly self-conscious preparation while visitors potter around. I have a cursory look at what's set on the divisionals on the general purpose channel (or a standard accompaniment channel if the resident organist's thoughtful enough to leave a hint sheet on the music desk for visitors) then plunge in. Very often the divisionals do the trick, usually with a little judicious hand-registering in certain combinations. Some instruments seem to need more study - Gloucester is one that took quite a while to understand, for instance - and some seem to guide you along gently. I aim to get to the stage where, when the choir pitch up, I can work on the communication between conductor/choir and organ without having to worry too much about console management. Sometimes it works, sometimes not.
Longest time spent familiarising: about two hours one evening before a visiting weekend at Gloucester (necessary). Shortest time was setting up for Finzi's 'God is gone up' at Wells in about four minutes. (The rest of evensong took care of itself as we went along
)All I can say is.... you're very brave!
I always try to avoid having to do without adequate practice time. I've seen several (otherwise competent) organists come really unstuck when the preparation time hasn't been made.
Of course, some very experienced organists have the ability to gain familiarity with a new organ very quickly. For a person not used to doing this I'd seriously advise booking plenty of practice time. Insist upon it!
-
Indeed!
-
Thankyou Pierre! Your explanation is very clear.
It seems to me that organ builders in North America seem include 5 rank Cornets as 'grand solo stops'. At st James Cathedral Toronto the 5 rank cornet is on the Great at the front of the church, where as the chorus reeds are on another manual at the back (auxilliary). If the cornet is supposed to support the reeds in a Grand jeu... this seems fairly pointless! Similarly it's compass is from tenor G, but there are no more pipes in the top octave... This example isn't too loud, but others around take your breath away!
I take it that (mutation wise) one should stick to the sesquialtera for Bach chorales... but often the cornet decompose is all you have if there's no sesquialtera. I take it this isn't really correct?
Does the idea of drawing an 8ft with mutation, ie, tierce or larigot alone have any historical basis prior to the 1950's?
At Chester we had a sole tierce on the great, no twelfth (though the stop head did actually say twelfth! I never found a use for it there on its own in any early music.
Again I can't say I've ever found uses for nones and septiemes.
-
Hi folks...
Can someone enlighten me as to just what the appropriate usage and thinking is behind the different kinds of mutation stops? Having mostly played UK romantic organs with few options when it comes to mutations (I'm too used to having to fake 'cornet' sounds with little more than a twelfth on the great!) I get baffled about what I should use when playing some of the big modern organs over here in Canada which seem to have everything!
So here goes...
What is a Larigot 1 1/3 intended for? And similarly a 1' stop?
What is the technical difference in sound and usage between a 'cornet de compose' and a sesquialtera?
When should one use a V rank cornet? (They often seem far too loud for Bach chorale preludes...)
What is a Septieme 1 1/7 intended to be used for? And some of the other really high stuff eg... none 8/9's?
The majority of my repertoire is romantic, but I do play plenty of Bach and Buxtehude. I regret to admit that I have neglected learning much music composed earlier than that. In the past I've found attempting French classical stuff just pointless when you played a father willis every day! Hence I can claim to be fairly expert at romantic registration and performance practice, but a bit lacking in knowledge when it comes to these tinkly sounds!
The other thing is.... I've just heard so much inappropriate use of mutations over the years... frankly I think there are a lot of organists around who don't know as much as they should about historically aware performance practice! So please share your knowqledge!
C-D
-
Has anybody noted this Birkenhead instrument up for grabs?
http://www.ibo.co.uk/IBO2005/services/redu...iew&index=0
Instrument ref 275.
Poyser of Chester is not a builder most have heard of. However I have played this one by Poyser, which is near Chester. http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=D08363
As far as I am aware the Eccleston instrument is entirely Poyser built (not a rebuild of the previous instrument)- the previous Gray and Davison was not a success for some reason. This 1910 instrument is one of the finest small instruments I have ever played. Honest - the spec is somewhat ordinary I know, but the quality of the voicing is just magnificent. Creamy, lucious flutes, gentle warm strings, bold diapasons, smooth oboe, fiery cornopean. Lovely action, with a good firm touch. Mechanical octave couplers too! Henry Poyser was obviously a very talented organ builder, shame the firm didn't have more prestige. (They had the maintenance contract at Chester Cathedral for a long time I believe)
So I wonder what this redundant instrument will be like - high praise according to the advert. Anyone ever seen or heard it? It's very small, and I just thought it may be of interest to someone for a small chapel, church or house. I bet this one is really worth having.
-
I, personally, would not be happy using anything other than the Rutter score. However, when I was at Chester, we had the Roger Ducasse piano reduction edition (the original one I think ...) My boss was convinced it was the best. If you're very good at playing piano transcriptions of orchestral scores on the organ (as with mozart masses etc etc) perhaps challenge yourself! I'd keep things comfortable at go with Rutter - it will be much less of a head ache.
-
A hypothetical to take this down a slightly different route -
Organ, big, old (late 1700s), not certified but probably should be.
Taken out of old case and placed in new one, with logical expansion (double flues and octave reeds).
However, new one cannot be positioned ideally in building; most effective way of getting sound out from compromise location seems to be to adopt a completely new style, a little along the lines of Clifton RC cathedral (see here for those not familiar).
Alternative appears to be disposal of instrument.
Which is the better option - re-clothe in alien outfit, or bin? Do you think a BIOS inspector, being faced with something which looks like the link but in reality is jam-packed with 18th century pipework, should write out the certificate? Or should he put the designer in prison?
If an establishment really wants to get rid of an organ - I think they should be allowed to put it up for sale. If no-one wants it it will only be neglected and that does nobody any favours.
However... I could never condone breaking an old, original, 19th C organ, let alone a 18th C one and using the pipes in a new organ if the old one could be considered historic.
I would only find it acceptable if the old organ was already something of a mongeral (ie pipe work of different ages), or the instrument couldn`t be considered of great value historically.
I say:
If the instrument is worth saving - make sure it`s saved.
If it`s not of any use to anyone, well then we just have to accept it.
Sadly over the coming years more instruments will become redundant as more churches close. We won`t be able to save them all. Let`s try and make sure the very best are preserved. I have to say Cynic and his Benchmarks recording label are great publicity for the better historic instruments around.
-
Thankyou to all the folks who responded to this thread, and of course any additional comments would be great.
Our organ heritage in Britain is very important indeed, and must be protected as necessary. At the same time we must also try to ensure the future of organ building, and organ usage within our churches. Therefore it's been very interesting to read the views people have on preservation and historic status, as well as the comments on the musical value behind all this.
Despite my rather negative start to this thread, it's been interesting, and I think a good thing to see peoples positivity and enthusiasm to some older instruments. It will certainly be interesting to see what happens to all these historical instruments over the coming years. I imagine some difficult decisions will have to be made when church closures happen. I hope this scheme has success in doing what it set out to do - preservation of historically valuable and worthy instruments.
-
Despite this post being 'off topic' (it's been said before by our hosts that electronic organ chat isn't supposed to be held on this forum) I do think this important news to the organ industry in general.
It doesn't seem long ago that Copeman Hart organs were regarded by many as the best digital instruments available. The console design by that firm was of the best quality too. Do others agree with me in thinking that the sounds of Copeman Hart instruments have started to lag behind the competition recently? Is the C-H name still going to be available?
-
Size should not come into the 'Historic' equation - St George's Hall historic and Adlington Hall not?
Agreed - size should not necessarily come into the equation. However - surely no-one could sensibly argue that there is any comparison between a 1930's Harrison octopod and Adlington Hall! It's also in a church it's not realistically big enough for (it was typical in the North east to go for quality over quantity at this time if the church was on a budget!)
The other Harrison of 1931 in Helmsley just mentioned looks more the part for some recognition. It's a good size and spec, and I'm sure proves both delightful and versatile. I would also say the console position within the case is an interesting feature.
At the moment, to qualify for a Grade II historic certificate the BIOS criteria is ' organs which are good representatives of the work of their builder, in substantially original condition'. I think the criteria should be amended to include the following. 'And of excellent musical value, and sound mechanical design'
What do you folks think?
-
======================
My hope is that the very few remaining early Brindley instruments, (prior to his retirement from the firm), are appreciated for what they are and awarded whatever certificates are available by the BIOS.
MM
MM
Hear, hear!
This is the sort of thing BIOS certificates are really for!
-
I think it used to be the case that anyone could nominate an instrument for a HOC but certainly from around Oct 2009 a nomination form was introduced as the scheme became more popular. I assume you certificate pre-dates Oct 2009.
PJW
Having looked it up - the certificate is dated 2010. So this can`t be the case. I wonder what is going on here?
-
Dear Mr Clarion Doublette - when someone writes this, there is almost always a good reason for doing so and directly second-guessing the church and diocese is apt to create difficult situations for people.
Your 'real improvement' may be someone else's 'wanton destruction'. There are too many instances where people have turned up, hacked the top two-thirds off a Dulciana rank and called it Fifteenth, or added totally inappropriate fractions and upperwork. Frequently, the people who do these things are not as talented as the original builder. In rare examples, they are (Roger Yates for instance).
I would tend to trust that a builder of Harrison status knew perfectly well what a Fifteenth was, but chose not to include one; and therefore the rest of the pipework wasn't voiced to accept blending with higher partials, and the choices made in winding and soundboard design would be ideal for wind-hungry 8' stops and Harmonic Flutes but would make life very hard for a 2' sufficiently delicate to work with fundamental-heavy stuff.
I can't say that I agree with every BIOS certificate ever issued, but it seems to me that the protection of good organs from the whims of organists, organ builders and diocesan organ advisors (who are usually just as human as everyone else involved) is a sensible priority to have. It also seems extremely right and proper that someone outside the church (e.g. a DOA) should be able to instigate that process to protect instruments from the whims of clergy who are often hell bent on throwing them away. It may frequently be a useful certificate to wave in insurance claims, too.
Thanks for that Hecklephone!
1. Oops - my fault for not reading to the end of the post. The truth is, I worked out which instrument it was from a post on an earlier thread I was just reading. I shall edit and amend as necessary.
2. I totally agree. I was just giving an example of what someone might want to do, and as Altopedal has said - this kind of modification has been successfully implemented in some places. Not so long ago I saw a Larigot 1 1/3 which had started life as a viole d'orchestra. Needless to say it wasn't very successful! My point is that a sensible and well thought out, good quality modification carried out by professionals normally produce good results! Obviously one consults others on these things to make sure the decision is a good idea. In the case described, it would in my opinion make a big difference in the effectiveness of the instrument, however if the dulciana is found to be of use to the needs of the services there - let it be!
3. Please would you explain in more detail your comment about winding and sound board design? I`d be interested to know more. I`d be interested to know why this is, as many instruments of that period have gentle fifteenths and twelfths all on the same sound board and winding. I accept your comment about the voicing. That`s when the skills and experience of the organ builder advising on any potential modification comes in to good use - if best left alone they should say!
4. Indeed - I take your points here. I just worry that if too many of these certificates are handed out it will devalue the whole point of them. For example - in an insurance claim, if the company finds out that there are over 200 (yes that`s right - over 60% of instruments) listed instruments in the county - they`re not going to take much notice of the merits of the scheme. Neither are clergy and other authorities if they want to throw an instrument out if this system is over used.
Thanks again for your comments - this is very interesting stuff.
-
David,
That description very nearly fits the one at Gainford Parish Church, which I mentioned http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=N13278
Though it has a full swell compass as far as I can remember. Fabulous instrument.
-
Thanks for that Chris B...
Are you talking about St. A***********? (Post edited to preserve anonymity of church) (which I have played and liked as it happens... and I did try and send you a personal message about it. let me know if you didn't get it)
Anyhow... That spec, and many similar, (16 8884 8848) could be greatly improved if the dulciana on the Great was replaced with a 2' fifteenth. It would give the instrument a proper chorus on the great and bridge the gap between the flue work and that enormous Cornopean on the swell! With no oboe to accompany and two small 8fts on the swell - the dulciana surely won't get used a great deal.
My worry is this - should you ever want to make a sensible spec change/modification, something to really improve the instrument, properly thought through and everything, the BIOS certificate will just get in the way. The BIOS people will send you on a guilt trip for wanting to alter a 'historic instrument'. I don't think this is justified - do you?
-
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I have played a few times at St.Sepulchre's and I gave a (pretty standard) recital on it some fifteen or so years ago now. It is a superb organ of its type, designed IIRC by Sir Sidney Nicholson. I originally typed the word 'little' in the previous sentence and have taken it out. It is a small specification, but the tone and effectiveness of the instrument were well up to the needs of the building for all that.
I suppose this information is correct, that the organ really isn't used now? I only ask because the director of music, Andrew Earis is a committed pipe organ guy and a splendid player. What happens for a broadcast is not necessarily a true reflection of what usually happens!
That really is an interesting instrument... the smallest spec I've ever seen to include a 32' !!! And what a glorious case!
Does anyone know why this instrument came to be so much smaller than its predecessors bye Gray and Davison and Walker's?
-
The organ at Nevilles Cross, along with St. Margrets down the road are really nice instruments. And on a couple of "organ crawls with the local association many years ago, we ame across some equally quality small organs, found by Richard Hird, who is/was a BIOS adviser, and co writer of the book on the cathedral organ along with JBL, the director of music.
One of Richards favourite was a small willis that was housed in the chapel of Sherburn Hospital, and later re housed at the church at Brancepeth http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=R01230
Peter
Hello Peter,
I don't doubt for one moment that the Neville's Cross organ is a nice instrument - but does it really deserve a Historic Certificate purely on the basis of age/originality? After all there are lots of small Harrison instruments around, and many have more versatile specs than that one... (a rather confused swell organ in my opinion).
I worry that the honour of gaining a historic certificate will wear off if too many are issued to unremarkable instruments, and its value will therefore be degraded in the minds of the public and church authorities.
The organ at Brancepeth church is lovely, and I've played it lots. Obviously this IS remarkable and thoroughly deserves its historic status, as indeed do a good number of others in the county - but surely this has got a bit out of hand.
-
Folks - let's not loose sight of the point here...
Is a 1 manual 5 stop pleasant but unremarkable instrument, not really adequate for music or leading the worship in it's setting, worthy of being recognized as of historic value, purely on the basis of it's age and it's notable builder?
Similarly, is modest 2 manual organ similar to many others around worthy of this for the same reason of age and a notable builder?
But why is Durham Cathedral's organ not worthy of one? This instrument was a Willis master piece, and since has become a Harrison show piece too. There is so much remarkable stuff in it, remarkable case pipes, layout for its time, fabulous Willis swell, one of the best examples of a Harrison Solo, complete with a full string chorus which is very rare. It also has a slightly out of place looking 1970's positive - but who cares - everything about this instrument is lovely, and it deserves to be recognised as one of the best in the country. Why does it's lack of originality stop it from being eligible for at least a certificate of recognition from BIOS?
What in your view makes an instrument worth the recognition of being historic?
I would certainly prefer to see worthy instruments protected regardless of pedigree and age. I would like to think that unremarkable old instruments are not given an undue amount of recognition - after all we have loads of them.
-
I love old organs. In fact I'm positively mad about historic instruments. I can't get enough and love going around the local villages to home and making new discoveries.
The historic certificate system is a great idea, and it makes sure we are aware of our organ heritage and will help to encourage a serious amount of thought behind any proposed restoration or modification. I'm glad to see that many people have been working hard to promote this and prevent some of the vandalism which did go on in previous decades.
However... has some of this gone too far?
The following link goes to the page prepared by the organ adviser of County Durham.
http://www.duresme.org.uk/NEorgans/dur_organs.htm
It lists organs in the Diocese and comments on their status - historic or not historic. Most of the instruments he has recommended for a BIOS certificate has now got one listed in the NPOR records.
"Of approx. 232 pipe organs in 293 churches in
the Durham diocese, this provisional assessment
finds some 62% of the organs notable or worthy, as
follows:
Grade I = 18 organs [8%]
Grade II* = 34 organs [15%]
Grade II = c.85 organs
Cert.of Recognition for pre-1850 cases and/or known
historic pipework = 4 organs"
This is great stuff - County Durham has lots of old, largely unmolested instruments. Most are small, as the north has never been that wealthy, but the quality is normally good. However is this really a historic instrument?
http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=N14963
And this - http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=N14949
And this - http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=N14957
And if those are included why isn't this rather lovely Binns organ? (which I have played and loved it)
http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=N04230
Indeed it is not the only Binns organ in the survey without a recommendation for a certificate. (Certainly there are similar Binns organs in other parts of the Country with certificates like the one At St. Thomas Great Junction Street, Leith, Edinburgh recently up for sale)
Anyhow, the purpose of this post isn't to have a go at the choices of organs made here to be recommended for certificates, but rather to question - what make an instrument historic?
I see every reason to list instruments which are remarkable for whatever reason, but when they're just old small instruments, and there are many other better examples by the same builder surviving - why bother? And what if the church in question suddenly has a requirement and resources for a better instrument? Take for instance my first example- I had to play a wedding on this a few years ago and I couldn't help but think what a horrible inadequate little box of whistles it was. The case (or lack thereof) is just ugly and the nave really could do with more than just 5 stops. The chamber would certainly have room for an instrument twice the size, and if the church ever wanted a bigger instrument (unlikely, but you never know...) why should they be forced to keep it?
And why should age necessarily come into it? (In the classic car trade they often talk about 'modern classics')
Arguable this is one of the finest instruments in County Durham. http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=D03660 . It's been a successful instrument and is the choice 2nd choice asside of Durham Cathedral for organ recitals. But because it's a 1989 rebuild of a previous instrument this is not historic. But surely one day it will be and we should recognize this fact and encourage it to be preserved.
On the other hand this instrument http://www.npor.org.uk/cgi-bin/Rsearch.cgi...ec_index=N14914 is a pitiful specimen. It makes a puny sound which struggles to have any impact even in the small building. I don't remember any one stop on it sounding remarkable, and some of it being unfocused and just woolly sounding. But this one had to be given a 'historic' restoration (when a lot could have been done to otherwise improve it) and I think it got grants for that reason. The only reason it's historic is because it contains Postill pipework, and it's an early Harrison job form the 1870's. None of that makes it musically successful however. Historic it is, quality is isn't. Sowhy should it gain recognition?
Anyhow... I'd like to here your thoughts on this. No offence is meant at any time to the good people of BIOS and their historical opinions, I just want to question this issue 'What is historic, and what is worth preserving?'
)
Indeed!
Solid state combination action
in Nuts and bolts
Posted
Hi folks... sorry to continue to bombard you all with questions, but I suppose that's what we're here for.
I'm wondering what new solid state combination systems retail for. Does anyone know roughly how much?