Concerning pipes and sound

[Stanley Monkhouse]

Where does sound come from in flue pipes? If the body, why are pipes planted with mouths uniformly orientated? Does it actually matter, or is it simply that it looks good to the tuner?

Why does it matter in pulpitum organs which way soundboards are orientated: east-west (eg Lincoln, York, Ripon, Wells) or north-south (eg Gloucester and presumably new Manchester) - especially when sound bounces about in those large buildings?

Does it matter where big pedal pipes are situated? Do sound waves of low notes behave differently from those of the rest of the compass? Taking Ripon as an example, the pedal flues and 32 Bombardon are in the choir aisles east of the screen and in effect in a separate building with the mouths of the biggest open woods below aisle floor level. There is little space over the screen organ, and the openings from choir aisles to transepts are merely doors, so how does the pedal sound carry? I'm not aware of Ripon pedal being considered inadequate when heard from the nave. Or Lincoln - and Selby - where the 32 flues are in a triforium.  And why was Downes determined to discard the 32 wood at Gloucester? Was it merely his doctrinaire prejudice because the pipes were yards away?

Where does sound come from in reed pipes? If hoods help prevent insects losing their way, why are not all but the smallest non-capped pipes hooded?

That'll do for starters.

 

 

[John Robinson]

What an excellent post!

I am almost certain that the majority of the sound from a flue pipe comes from the mouth (though I stand to be corrected!), I'd be very interested to hear responses from more knowledgeable members to the several other questions.

I do hope you receive a comprehensive list of answers!

[Stanley Monkhouse]

Thank you, Mr White Rose Man, now tinged pink. I could add more! At Southwell, by no means high or wide, the old HNB organ on the screen was hopelessly inadequate in the nave, despite the Great then being on the west side and Swell shutters opening west. This was said to be part of the reason for the installation of the separate organ in the nave triforium. It was also said (Ken Beard I think) that the lantern swallowed up the sound. And yet the lantern at Southwell is puny compared to say that at Ripon where there is not the same problem. And at York and Lincoln the lanterns are gigantic, yet the organ sound penetrated the enormous naves, though not well, better than at Southwell, IMO. Type of stone? Southwell, York and Ripon all have wooden nave roofs. (I'm talking of York organ 1960 to 2019). 

[Colin Pykett]

On 23/06/2020 at 16:32, Stanley Monkhouse said:

Where does sound come from in flue pipes? If the body, why are pipes planted with mouths uniformly orientated? Does it actually matter, or is it simply that it looks good to the tuner?

 

As usual, it doesn't look like an organ builder is going to be bothered to respond to this so you'll have to put up with my purple prose.

Answer to Q1 above: from the apertures at the mouth and top if not stopped.  There is some radiation from the body but it's less.  Uniform mouth orientation - not so much because it looks good as for convenience for the voicer, but sometimes nearby pipes have to be rotated to prevent acoustic interaction such as pipes 'pulling' each other in frequency.  Sometimes ranks are made with staggered mouth heights for similar interaction reasons when planted on crowded soundboards.

 

On 23/06/2020 at 16:32, Stanley Monkhouse said:

Why does it matter in pulpitum organs which way soundboards are orientated: east-west (eg Lincoln, York, Ripon, Wells) or north-south (eg Gloucester and presumably new Manchester) - especially when sound bounces about in those large buildings?

 

One reason can be the acoustic screening one rank by another which occurs on crowded soundboards, or to provide better acoustic line of sight for unenclosed ranks so they are not screened by a swell box for example.

 

On 23/06/2020 at 16:32, Stanley Monkhouse said:

Does it matter where big pedal pipes are situated? Do sound waves of low notes behave differently from those of the rest of the compass? Taking Ripon as an example, the pedal flues and 32 Bombardon are in the choir aisles east of the screen and in effect in a separate building with the mouths of the biggest open woods below aisle floor level. There is little space over the screen organ, and the openings from choir aisles to transepts are merely doors, so how does the pedal sound carry? I'm not aware of Ripon pedal being considered inadequate when heard from the nave. Or Lincoln - and Selby - where the 32 flues are in a triforium.  And why was Downes determined to discard the 32 wood at Gloucester? Was it merely his doctrinaire prejudice because the pipes were yards away?

 

Doesn't matter too much for big flues as opposed to reeds because they have so few harmonics of such low frequencies that the sound can bend round obstacles which are small compared with the wavelength.  What is the wavelength?  Open pipes are half a wavelength long; stopped ones a quarter.  Therefore an obstacle would have to be enormous in all three dimensions for it to be 'noticed' by a sound wave at such low frequency.  (It's the diffraction phenomenon).  The issue is the same as where do you site your sub woofers for your hifi - it's not particularly critical compared with where you site your tweeters, which must have direct line of sight to your ears.  Same for organ pipes.  So, yes, LF sounds do behave very differently at the lowest frequencies, particularly below 16 foot C - that 32 foot bottom octave is quite singular acoustically.

There's a particular issue in this lowest octave re open vs stopped.  An open pipe radiates from top and mouth.  The two signals are out of phase, so there is a horizontal plane halfway up the pipe where you get phase cancellation - in an anechoic chamber.  But organs are seldom built in anechoic chambers, so in practice this effect is not an issue in ordinary spaces.  This is due to reflections which mix up the sound and prevent the 'cancellation circle' being formed.  However a stopped flue in this 32 foot lowest octave only radiates from its mouth, and this means the sound space is robbed of a very useful additional source of sound as far as mixing-up is concerned.  Consequently one can get 'acoustic holes' more often at certain points in the building with a stopped 32 foot flue than one does from an open rank.  The holes form at certain locations if the direct sound from the pipe mouth happens to be in antiphase with that of a strong reflection from a wall.  Because of the very long wavelengths the physical extent of these holes is very considerable.  With the open rank there is an additional sound source, which therefore fills in the holes to some extent.  Moral: don't be tempted to economise by using 32 foot stopped basses.  They are not as bad at 16 foot because the wavelengths are shorter so the holes aren't so large and noticeable.

Can't speak for Ralph D - who can?  Maybe he mentioned it in 'Baroque Tricks' which I haven't got the time to look up for you at the moment.

 

On 23/06/2020 at 16:32, Stanley Monkhouse said:

Where does sound come from in reed pipes? If hoods help prevent insects losing their way, why are not all but the smallest non-capped pipes hooded?

 

The top or wherever else the aperture happens to be, and to a much less extent from the body.  Re hoods, good question.  Cost has to be a factor.  All that clever skilled mitreing and soldering costs time and money.

 

On 23/06/2020 at 16:32, Stanley Monkhouse said:

That'll do for starters.

 

Thank heavens for that.

[Stanley Monkhouse]

Thanks Colin. Now get to work on my supplemental questions in my response above to John Robinson. Please!

[pwhodges]

On 23/06/2020 at 16:32, Stanley Monkhouse said:

And why was Downes determined to discard the 32 wood at Gloucester? Was it merely his doctrinaire prejudice because the pipes were yards away?

He wrote:

"A 32-foot extension of these [Bishop 16'] open wood pipes - although judged unsuitable by Father Willis a few years earlier - was also inserted in 1921; and since there was no room for these huge pipes anywhere near the organ, they were carted off into the North triforium of the choir, East of the crossing!  Only the sensitively reverberant acoustics of this remarkable building created the illusion that their sound belonged to the distant organ at all!"

And later:

"The 32-foot Open Wood was unceremoniously thrown out for the irrelevancy it was."

"...the fullness of the 16-foot giant-scaled wooden pedal pipes (renamed Flute 16-feet) completely compensating the lack of a 32-foot register."

"...only a few deplored (for sentimental, nostalgic reasons) the destruction of the vague, disembodied blandness of the previous rebuild with its honking Tuba, large woolly Great Diapason and booming 32-feet..."

Paul

[Stanley Monkhouse]

Thank you Paul. I read that in Baroque Tricks too, but it doesn't explain what went on his mind. Nor does it help with the question of why if FW and RD felt them "unsuitable", AH did not. We shall never know.

[pwhodges]

The last sentence I quoted makes a doctrinaire bias clear, I think.

Paul

[Colin Pykett]

2 hours ago, Stanley Monkhouse said:

Thanks Colin. Now get to work on my supplemental questions in my response above to John Robinson. Please!

OK Stanley, since you asked so nicely, and because it's far too hot to think of going outside, here goes (with apologies to John if he thinks I'm paddling in his pond) ...

Avoiding comment on your criticisms of specific organs and instead taking your words generically at face value, one which is 'hopelessly inadequate in the nave' is by definition unfit for purpose.  It simply cannot be loud enough, because if it was loud enough then it would be heard better.  But loudness is not simply a matter of making the pipes louder e.g. by increasing the wind pressure, although this can work after a fashion.  It's a subjective phenomenon which also depends on how the acoustic power of a given sound is distributed in frequency, and for an organ this means that its sound at or approaching the full power of the instrument should have the benefit of lots of high frequency reinforcing ranks (i.e. mixtures) as well as loud harmonically-rich stops (i.e. reeds).

Robert Hope-Jones did not realise the importance of mixtures because (a) the music establishment of the day since approximately Berlioz increasingly hated them anyway so he probably wouldn't have landed so many important contracts had he used them; (b) he happened on the scene when gas or electricity was suddenly becoming more available in towns for raising the wind and thus for delivering hitherto undreamed of pressures more easily (even his hand-blown tiniest instruments were voiced typically on 6"); and (c) his electric action was the means whereby he was able to confidently open his valves against these pressures even with the full coupler complement he provided.  So his organs were usually deafeningly loud in the absence of mixtures.  Although this approach therefore worked as far as sheer loudness was concerned, it meant that many of his stops were coarse-toned.  But if mixtures will do the job without resorting to the H-J loudness method, then this defect can be avoided, or reduced.  Often, though, one needs to use both approaches, and it's worth recalling that Gottfried Silbermann seemed to have twigged that high-ish pressures were the thing to generate power and presence even when mixtures were used as well.  He used typically nearly 4" even in his smallest 2-deckers in village churches such as Fraureuth.  I imagine that some members of the congregation (plus the organist) could well have left a service with tinnitus if they were sitting near the instrument.  It confirms that organs of that era were probably not of the shy and retiring type often assumed (at least by some in this country) in the mid-20th century when the neo-baroque movement was at its height.  So maybe in some organs from that period there had been misguided or uninformed pushiness from sundry advisers who insisted on something which might have been beautiful and 'authentic' in some ways, but in others it resulted in instruments which just twittered uselessly away because they were ill-matched to the building.

As to the other architectural acoustics issues you raised, I can't comment much on lanterns, but glass has a low acoustic impedance (because windows flex, diaphragm-like, whereas the walls of the building do not) and therefore it lets the sound out.  The lower the frequency the worse this gets, thus buildings with acres of glass can allow too much very low frequency energy to escape and so the organs within can sound thin and scratchy.  (This effect is why one often hears the pedal stops faintly booming away first as one approaches a church through the churchyard).

But returning to where we came in, an organ which isn't loud enough in the first place simply won't be adequate - which seems to be rather stating the obvious, and I now wonder why it has taken me so long to say it.  As far as Southwell is concerned, it would be nice to get a view from John Norman or Paul Hale perhaps ...

[Stanley Monkhouse]

Thank you Colin. Pre-Nicholson/Wood Southwell is interesting. Until 1970/1 the Great, with Pedal big stuff, was in the south nave triforium - presumably in part a recognition of the acoustic problem. In 70/71 the Great, much reduced in size, was squashed into the Caroe case on the screen leaving only pedal open woods and big reeds in the nave triforium. When accompanying a nave congregation (I speak from experience) only (almost) full Gt and Sw had any impact at all - and that not much, and the pedal reeds were overwhelming (the tuba - always a splendid stop at Southwell - had plenty impact, of course). I'm not questioning the quality of organ building, but rather what seem to be the peculiar acoustics that mean that the old screen organ sound was swallowed up in a way that did not seem quite so severe in other places. The stone is Permian sandstone and all sandstones are - correct me if I'm wrong - sound absorbent (Carlisle, Manchester, Chester, Lichfield) though most are "redder" than Southwell's. Maybe that is a factor.

Quote

 

 

[Rowland Wateridge]

I could write at considerable length about the acoustic complexity at Winchester Cathedral, but won't save to say that when the Father Willis organ was installed in 1854 it was expected to accompany services in the quire which was then very much more enclosed than it is now.  The introduction of nave services in all cathedrals created a new situation - and a harder job for the organ - particularly one badly-positioned like Winchester's in an enormous building.  There the vaulting of the tower, quire and presbytery, and the flat-roofed transepts are of wood.  Everything else, nave, retrochoir, eastern chapels and all aisles are stone vaulted - limestone from the Isle of Wight and Caen.

Incidentally, the non-reverberant acoustic at Lichfield Cathedral (also discussed on an earlier thread) is due to much of the vaulting there being of plaster - not stone - used in the cathedral's extensive 18th/19th centuries restorations.

Stanley specifically asked where the sound comes from when flue pipes and reeds are played.  I expected a reply from one of our organbuilder or tuner members but Colin Pykett confirms my largely amateur thoughts that sound is created internally in the pipe at the mouth of a flue (whether open or stopped) by waves and vibration, and by the vibrating tongue of a reed and in its resonator.  We all know the effect of putting a stopper in the top of a pipe or drilling a small hole at the centre point of the back of a pipe or resonator.  Sound cannot emerge from the top of a stopped pipe.  Can someone more expert expand on this (or provide corrections!)?

A close friend, Professor James Wilkes of the University of Michigan (an Englishman by birth and an organist) gave an illustrated lecture on "Sound-production in Organ Pipes" to my local organists' association back in 1998, and I vividly remember his holding a lighted candle at the mouth of an open flue pipe.  When the note was played, the candle extinguished. He then repeated this with the candle directly above the top of the pipe.  The candle stayed alight.

Over to others more expert to clarify, correct or expand on the above.

 

 

 

[SomeChap]

From the Southwell Minster website (I'd guess this is written by Paul Hale?):

Quote

[The 1971 organ made] little impact in the nave and sounding completely unbalanced in the quire.

It was soon clear to Paul Hale, arriving in Southwell as Organist & Rector Chori in 1989, that a single organ on the screen could not satisfactorily cope with the musical and liturgical demands of both nave and quire, for two reasons:

• sound does not carry past the crossing under the central tower.
• organs can in any case only speak in one direction.

Possibly Mr Hale might be along to fill us in, but surely the crowding in the case was also a factor, along with the soundboard layout?   Was the old Great under the Swell box perhaps?  I think the old choir was enclosed, so there were two biggish swell boxes in there - did that box the great in? Was the great masked by 16ft basses inside the case perhaps?

Another difference re York, Lincoln and Ripon is that the pulpitum is much higher WRT the arch it's under at Southwell, so there is hardly any height above the organ.  It's really quite striking when you look at them next to each other:

York: 

Ripon:

Lincoln:

... and Southwell:

... and the Southwell front pipes are only 8ft!   It's hard to believe there's a 4-manual organ in there.

Colin, just as an FYI, the Southwell crossing space actually has no glass in it.  However the misunderstanding over the word 'lantern' prompted your very useful observations about glass's low acoustic impedance at low frequencies, so all is not lost!

I think the type of stone is a big factor as well, yes.  Thankfully the Binns/Wood has no trouble filling the Southwell sand-stone nave (to put it mildly!).

[Colin Pykett]

3 hours ago, Rowland Wateridge said:

...

A close friend, Professor James Wilkes of the University of Michigan (an Englishman by birth and an organist) gave an illustrated lecture on "Sound-production in Organ Pipes" to my local organists' association back in 1998, and I vividly remember his holding a lighted candle at the mouth of an open flue pipe.  When the note was played, the candle extinguished. He then repeated this with the candle directly above the top of the pipe.  The candle stayed alight.

Over to others more expert to clarify, correct or expand on the above.

Yes, this is a commonly-performed demo, but of itself it doesn't mean that more sound is emitted from the mouth than the top.  I obviously cannot know what Prof Wilkes intended or said at his lecture though.   However the air flow through a pipe consists of two components: the bulk unidirectional flow of air coming up the pipe foot from the chest and through the flue slit formed by the lower lip and languid, plus the vibratory (to and fro) component starting at the mouth and going into the resonator which results in the sound.  It might be easier to comprehend by taking an electrical analogy in which both DC and AC can exist in a conductor at the same time.  In a flue pipe no sound is radiated by the bulk flow, and most of this air exits at the mouth into the atmosphere, with a minority carrying on up behind the upper lip and through the resonator (the pipe body) to exit at the top.  It is the bulk flow which blows out the candle, not the vibratory component, so this is most readily blown out near the mouth where most of the flow emerges.  (There is also an additional effect to take into account in that the bulk flow speed is greater at the mouth owing to the restricted area of the flue slit from which it emerges, whereas at the top of the pipe the area is much larger so the flow rate per unit area is much smaller for the proportion of the flow which travels up the pipe.  Thus the flow speed is also smaller at the top.  It's similar to the familiar garden hose in which one restricts the outlet area to get a faster jet and vice versa).

I haven't done the experiment with a candle, but have used a piece of paper instead with various large flue bass pipes in organs which allowed safe access to both ends of the pipe.  Both at the mouth and top the paper flutters, whereas at the mouth it also gets blown noticeably sideways by the bulk flow.

[John Robinson]

On 23/06/2020 at 23:44, Stanley Monkhouse said:

Thank you, Mr White Rose Man, now tinged pink.

Southwell, York and Ripon all have wooden nave roofs. (I'm talking of York organ 1960 to 2019). 

Still pristine and unadulterated white despite my present location, I assure you!

Yes, of course, I'm sure that stone roofs carry the sound of an organ better than wooden roofs which, I'm sure, must absorb much of the higher harmonics.

[John Robinson]

12 hours ago, Colin Pykett said:

OK Stanley, since you asked so nicely, and because it's far too hot to think of going outside, here goes (with apologies to John if he thinks I'm paddling in his pond) ...

Absolutely no apologies needed!

I found your explanations both interesting and enlightening and I agree with them entirely.  I might add that I respect and enjoy the benefit of your far greater knowledge of the subject.

I have heard for myself that organs with relatively low wind pressure can be at least as 'loud' as the high-pressure ones which held sway in this country in the early 20th century.  There are far more important factors in play: location within the building, the building itself, the use of strong mixtures, etc, etc.

My personal preference has always been for a brighter sound, especially since my hearing has begun to deteriorate!

[Stanley Monkhouse]

John, my hearing deteriorates too, high frequencies esp, so women's voices are harder to hear, and those of many young people who speak as if they're on helium. Organ wise this has two unexpected consequences. (1) Although high tones disappear, screeching mixtures are almost painful. (2) isolated notes above about F42 (from CC) sound out of tune.  

But I'm going off topic. Just goes to show how subjective it all is and how we should take the opinions of others with barrowfuls of salt. Indeed, I sometimes think organ tonal "experts" should have a certificate of normal hearing, whatever normal is, if they expect to be paid for their services. 

Loss of hearing is not without its benefits of course. As a now retired clerk in holy orders, I can tell you that latterly PCC meetings were verging on the blissful. 

[Colin Pykett]

6 hours ago, Stanley Monkhouse said:

...

Just goes to show how subjective it all is and how we should take the opinions of others with barrowfuls of salt. Indeed, I sometimes think organ tonal "experts" should have a certificate of normal hearing, whatever normal is, if they expect to be paid for their services.

I agree with this sentiment Stanley.  Even ordinary age related hearing loss (presbyacusis) is so gradual that it comes upon you almost unnoticed over decades, often starting in the late 40s.  Yet unless one has an audiometry test done and sees the resulting audiogram (which can be a shocking experience the first time round - take my word for it!), many people won't even know they have it.  The consequences can be profound, especially for those whose professions involve their ears such as tuners, voicers and sundry 'organ experts'.  Consequently some of them blithely continue to do what they have always done, relying on their aural memory which was hard-wired into their brains when they were children yet which becomes increasingly detached from the reality of their defective hearing as they age.

Since I now have moderate presbyacusis, I no longer attempt to pontificate on the tonal characteristics of organs either pipe or digital, except for my own purposes.   As you implied Stanley, it's not much different to taking pocket money off infants otherwise and quite wrong in my view.  A recent example concerns a sample set which I developed for my digital organ using my uncorrected ears.  Yet when I played it using graphic equalisers set to compensate for my hearing loss (using a recent audiogram as a guide), it was intolerably shrieky in the upper reaches of the compass especially with higher-pitched stops and it required completely re-regulating.

I'm not implying that the problem affects everybody in the business, but at the same time it's not one which should continue to be swept under the carpet.  John Norman is a respected professional who set a good example when he wrote an article entitled 'The ear can't hear as high as that' (Organists' Review Feb 2011) in which he admitted that his own hearing no longer allowed him to hear the top few notes on a typical organ.  That's my experience also, for what it's worth, but the reality is that it's worse than that in practice because it also means that I can no longer properly regulate such a stop over its top two octaves or so without using some form of audio correction.  Nor can I properly assess the timbres of many stops even lower in the compass because of their extended harmonic retinues.  As we've debated exhaustively on previous threads, hearing aids are of dubious value to a musician, and I've found the best form of correction to be graphic equalisers which can be set to compensate for my audiometry curve to a reasonable extent (though not completely, and this disparity is likely to get worse as time passes).

Yes, it is off-topic, but it's important in view of the fact that many of those involved in the organ world are members of the gerontocracy, a good proportion of whom will have varying degrees of presbyacusis if not more severe hearing impairments.  So I agree that it's worth airing the subject now and again in my opinion.  You suggested that organ tonal "experts" should have a certificate of normal hearing.  Maybe prospective customers should ask to see a recent audiogram before retaining them?

[....]

10 hours ago, John Robinson said:

Absolutely no apologies needed!

I found your explanations both interesting and enlightening and I agree with them entirely.  I might add that I respect and enjoy the benefit of your far greater knowledge of the subject.

I have heard for myself that organs with relatively low wind pressure can be at least as 'loud' as the high-pressure ones which held sway in this country in the early 20th century.  There are far more important factors in play: location within the building, the building itself, the use of strong mixtures, etc, etc.

My personal preference has always been for a brighter sound, especially since my hearing has begun to deteriorate!

I find what you said regarding organs with low wind pressure rather interesting, as this is something that I have wondered about.

I was recently looking at the specification of a rather impressive organ built for a university in Houston Texas and I recall reading somewhere that this massive organ has very small scale pipe work. However when I went back to check on the description of this organ I couldn't find where I had read this, so I'm unsure if that is true or if I may have just imagined that.

http://cbfisk.com/opus/opus-109/

This isn't the first time this has happened as I remember once reading in an article about the organ at Holy Trinity Cathedral in New Zealand that the pipes were suppose to be on a mid or small scale but I can't find where I read that. Plus looking at the size of the instrument and the space it seems unlikely that the pipes would be on a small scale.

http://www.nicholsonorgans.co.uk/pf/auckland/

[John Robinson]

14 hours ago, Stanley Monkhouse said:

John, my hearing deteriorates too, high frequencies esp, so women's voices are harder to hear, and those of many young people who speak as if they're on helium. Organ wise this has two unexpected consequences. (1) Although high tones disappear, screeching mixtures are almost painful. (2) isolated notes above about F42 (from CC) sound out of tune.  

But I'm going off topic. Just goes to show how subjective it all is and how we should take the opinions of others with barrowfuls of salt. Indeed, I sometimes think organ tonal "experts" should have a certificate of normal hearing, whatever normal is, if they expect to be paid for their services. 

Loss of hearing is not without its benefits of course. As a now retired clerk in holy orders, I can tell you that latterly PCC meetings were verging on the blissful. 

An interesting point.  Actually, I find that my hearing aids help generally in attempting to correct my loss of high frequency perception and in many situations I am quite happy with things.  However, when listening to Priory DVD demonstrations of various organs and specific stops, especially 2' and higher, above a certain point on the keyboard the sound completely disappears.  I am sure that is due not to an inferior sound system, which mine is not, but due entirely to my ears.  I'm sure a point must arise where, however good the hearing aids, a sound cannot be amplified when the ear is completely unable to perceive that frequency level.

Conversely, when watching the television news, using the same sound system, I am quite repelled by the sharpness and power of some ladies' voices, especially American ones for some reason.

However, I too find a distinct benefit to my hearing loss.  As my father before me often did, I can justifiably claim that I hadn't heard something which I actually heard but didn't want to hear!

[Dafydd y Garreg Wen]

8 hours ago, John Robinson said:

Conversely, when watching the television news, using the same sound system, I am quite repelled by the sharpness and power of some ladies' voices, especially American ones for some reason.

American accents generally (regardless of sex) have more “twang” than British, that is the higher harmonics are more developed, which gives them more carrying power etc. This is why a party of Americans will seem so noisy. Combine that with the higher pitch of a woman’s voice and you get the sharpness and power you refer to (exactly the same phenomenon we’ve been discussing above in connexion  with “strong” mixtures, perceived loudness, etc.).

[Stanley Monkhouse]

John: "However, I too find a distinct benefit to my hearing loss ..." As I hint, there are several benefits, and not being "able" to hear what is said to me is more often than not a great blessing. SWMBO is deaf too, so it's really quite blissful. We send each other Facebook and email messages.

[S_L]

1 hour ago, Stanley Monkhouse said:

SWMBO is deaf too, so it's really quite blissful. We send each other Facebook and email messages.

I'm used to IMO & FYI but SWMBO was a new one - and then I remembered Rumpole!!!!

[John Robinson]

7 hours ago, Dafydd y Garreg Wen said:

American accents generally (regardless of sex) have more “twang” than British, that is the higher harmonics are more developed, which gives them more carrying power etc. This is why a party of Americans will seem so noisy. Combine that with the higher pitch of a woman’s voice and you get the sharpness and power you refer to (exactly the same phenomenon we’ve been discussing above in connexion  with “strong” mixtures, perceived loudness, etc.).

Yes indeed.  That makes  a lot of sense.

[John Robinson]

5 hours ago, Stanley Monkhouse said:

SWMBO is deaf too, so it's really quite blissful. We send each other Facebook and email messages.

John: "However, I too find a distinct benefit to my hearing loss ..." As I hint, there are several benefits, and not being "able" to hear what is said to me is more often than not a great blessing. SWMBO is deaf too, so it's really quite blissful. We send each other Facebook and email messages.

Haha!  I'll suggest that to 'Marge'!

Fortunately, she has very good hearing so I don't find I have to repeat myself at all.
On the other hand, she does... quite a lot.  In fairness to her, though, she doesn't often become too angry with me!

[Paul_H]

Some fascinating questions and answers here.  With a nod to one of Stanley's original questions, and hoping that YouTube links work on this board, here's an interesting trip inside the Boardwalk Hall organ in Atlantic City, following the 64ft Dulzian CCCCC pipe as it travels upwards through various levels of the organ and seeing what happens when the "sound" comes out of the blunt end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAj0mMWHzxc

Chris Nagorka's channel on YouTube has a lot of fascinating "insides" videos of this organ, well worth checking out.  Enjoy!