Jump to content
Mander Organ Builders Forum

Interesting repair story


mrbouffant

Recommended Posts

Although the newspaper article mentioned the repair cost as being only £10, that did not, of course, include the time and expertise of the repairers which - if costed realistically using commercial accounting principles - would have been substantial.  For this reason faulty digital organ transmissions are often considered beyond economic repair.  So replacement is the more usual option and this easily can cost upwards of £20k as the article suggested.  Another reason for replacement rather than repair is that electronics rapidly becomes obsolete, so it often cannot be repaired anyway.

Old fashioned electromechanical systems which use relay technology rather than electronics are often repairable, though there might again be a substantial labour overhead involved if the fault or damage is extensive, such as might occur following a lightning strike to the building resulting in burnt wiring, etc.  'Diode keying' is a halfway house between fully electromechanical and fully digital (computer controlled) transmissions.  It is more amenable to repair than the latter but, yet again, often with a significant labour overhead unless the fault is localised and easy to locate.

It is interesting that the church in question was in Southampton.  Some years ago (c. 2008) the splendid dual purpose Compton organ in the Guildhall with its twin 'grand' and 'variety' consoles was brought back to life through patient renovation of its original electromechanical action, including its clever capture combination systems on both consoles.   The action had therefore lasted over 70 years at that time, a feat which any form of electronically controlled system could not possibly compete with - though this statement is rather a non sequitur, considering that transistorised electronics doesn't go back that far anyway, but it makes the point.  So maybe mrbouffant's remark that the article presents 'a good argument against solid state electronics vs. more traditional technologies' is indeed worth thinking about more often when organs are restored.

Notwithstanding everything said above, I send congratulations to those who got this organ back into speaking condition through their labour of love to the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is something of a surprise as I know the church and organ quite well, qualifying that by saying it could be twenty years since my last visit and hearing the organ played.  It’s a substantial three-manual, originally Peter Conacher & Co, circa 1932/36 but at some stage converted from two manuals, replete with tubas 8’ and 4’ (NPOR N11636).  The organ was rebuilt by the local firm of Bishop & White with tonal alterations intended to produce a more ‘classical’ sound and, indeed, David White of that firm was formerly the organist and the main force behind the tonal changes. On retirement he moved to the Isle of Wight, and I don’t know who maintained the organ thereafter.  For the revised specification as rebuilt by Bishop & White in 1988, with new detached console centrally in the west gallery and revised tonal schemes see NPOR D03460 and photographs.  Further work in 1994 included a new mobile console at floor level.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am curious as to why solid state systems have a comparatively short life if they are correctly installed and not interfered with.  There are no moving parts so surely all they have to do is sit there and work.  A number that I've seen have no dust protection so perhaps that is a factor?  Or are there intrinsic issues with solid state components that limit their life?

I was told a few years ago by the then MD of one of our leading firms that the system they used was future proofed in that if a fault developed on a circuit board they might not be able to buy that particular board to replace it, but they would be able to buy a board that would do the same job and fit in the same place.

That's encouraging but not the same question - why is a limited life expected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consumer-grade electronic components are manufactured down to a price for today's throw-away society.  People like Mr Gates don't want computers to last a long time because then he wouldn't be able to sell as much software.  The same applies to washing machine and central heating boiler manufacturers, etc, etc.   Until recently discrete transistors and commonly-used integrated circuits cost just pence, in fact they almost cost nothing at all in quantity and then all you are really paying for is testing, packaging and shipping.  The effects of the pandemic have distorted this picture in recent years though one can probably expect the situation to recover in time, although shortage of silicon is a longer term problem looming on the horizon.  The components can be made much more reliable, for use in satellites, avionics and safety-critical systems for example, but their cost is then enormously higher.  One could not realistically expect manufacturers of pipe organ transmissions to use these, as then people wouldn't be able to afford them at all.

I wrote an article about it, relating to the organ scenario, if it's of any interest to those who want to dig a bit deeper:

http://www.colinpykett.org.uk/reliability.htm

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascinating - thanks. After reading it, pessimistically you have to wonder when the next failure in the Southampton transmission will happen, although great plaudits to those who did the repairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking slowly about this a bit more, I wonder why organ electronics are so expensive?  I guess most systems are bespoke and the market is small.

My last involvement with computers other than as a user was in the days of HP9830s and DEC PDP-11s so I can only speculate from a position of ignorance, but wonder why a simpler, perhaps PC-based, transmission system is not available.  Something like Hauptwerk is obviously not the same as a transmission but shows what can be done with a reasonably standard computer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NERD ALERT - let me apologise first of all for banging on about this, as I fully understand that many members might feel the forum is being hijacked.  My excuse is that this sort of information is difficult or impossible to get hold of elsewhere, and my experience over many years is that there are also those who need or want it.  So here goes.

----------------------

Each system is indeed bespoke, customised to a particular organ, but the installation (labour) costs are significant.  Each contact in the console (keys, pedals, stops, pistons, swell pedals) has to be physically wired to a local multiplexer in or near the console which scans the contacts.  The number of connections in the form of soldered joints is therefore large (typically several hundred).  The multiplexer then sends signals down a small cable using MIDI or some other data transmission protocol to the computer, which might be some distance away and nearer to the pipes. 

After the computer has done its thing (see *** below), there is then a similar demultiplexer arrangement, implementing the reverse operation to console scanning.  This is connected to the computer using, again, another small cable connection.  The demultiplexer decodes and then fans out the signals from the computer into a large wiring array connected to all the chest magnets, swell engines, slider solenoids and drawstop/stop key magnets to move the stops back at the console when the pistons are pressed (two magnets per stop).  Here there is a requirement for a separate magnet driving circuit for each and every magnet, either built into the demultiplexer unit or existing as a separate sub-assembly somewhere else in the setup.  Magnet drivers are required because of the significant current demanded by each magnet.  The driver circuits might each consist of a small circuit incorporating a separate small transistor, or several of them might be integrated into a series of small driver IC packages for economy and footprint reduction.  But, again, the numbers of connections to be made at the demultiplexing end will be at least in the hundreds, or thousands for a fully unified theatre organ of any size, and the number of magnet driver circuits will also be in the hundreds or thousands.

The systems from different manufacturers are proprietary and therefore different, so the above is only a highly condensed description of what they do at a basic level.  For instance, in some systems the combination system might be separate to the scanning system rather than being combined with it as suggested above.  But ultimately all systems have to perform the same operations in one way or another.

So besides the computer itself, quite a lot of interface hardware is required (particularly at the demultiplexer end) and A LOT of wiring has to be done.  The cost figures bandied around are therefore those to install the complete system, not just to purchase it, and this has to include a significant labour charge.

-------

***  But exactly what advantages does computer control offer over old fashioned electromechanical actions  and (to some extent) diode keying?  There are two main ones:

1. Instead of unwieldy fat cables an inch or more in diameter connecting the console to the organ, containing hundreds of separate wires, only a small flexible data transmission cable is required (or even just a wi-fi connection in some recent systems).

2. Instead of needing vast numbers of large ladder relays to implement coupling, extension and borrowing, all interconnected with fearsome fat cable harnesses, the computer does these jobs instead.  So if you press a key, it will work out for itself instantaneously which pipe(s) have to sound depending on which stops are drawn, including couplers.

These advantages are particularly compelling in the case of organs with lots of unification (extension) such as theatre organs, which in their heyday needed an entire room to house all the relay work.

But it's stating the obvious that the advantages are only realised as long as the system keeps working.  If it goes wrong it's a serious matter and that's when the fun begins ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for a very clear and well explained summary.  It leaves me increasingly grateful for solid Victorian tracker action, but increasingly concerned that small country churches need to be very aware what they are taking on with modern electric actions.  It's a different situation for large, well funded institutions with high six or seven figure rebuild costs where the initial cost and that of subsequent maintenance are (I suppose) considered to be part of keeping a big instrument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to agree.  With a mechanical action organ I feel I am playing a real, respectable musical instrument which can also justify its existence to a violinist, say.  There is a sort of satisfactory psychological link going back to the earliest days of the organ in that they, too, have always worked like that.  It just feels right aesthetically.  With electric actions, and particularly those using electronics, that satisfaction isn't there - for me.  I'm not sure that violinists would want their instruments to work via electric action.

But these are personal opinions of little value.  However, writing this reminds me of one of the best and least biased articles I have come across regarding electronic transmissions.  It was issued by the American Institute of Organbuilders, although the date is not quoted.  From  its content I would say it's about 10 - 15 years old now, so some of the detail is out of date (e.g. many of the CMOS 4000 series logic chips are becoming difficult to obtain now, despite the varying statements in the article).  Nevertheless in my opinion it makes exactly the right points:

https://www.pipeorgan.org/wp-content/uploads/protected-files/Solid_State_Switching.pdf

I think this was quite a brave attempt by the AIO at addressing a difficult question, considering that it represents (and is funded by) both organ builders and by the manufacturers of electronic transmissions in the US.  The article also confirms how sensitive the matter is within the trade, in that it was written anonymously.  This aspect is something I have encountered myself over the 24 years since I first began writing about it, with some well known correspondents scarcely ably to contain their annoyance that the topic was being raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting tension between designing for reliability and longevity versus cost and (in)abiity to repair here. Reminds me of an organ crawl I once went on which included two organs, one of which had recently been rebuilt with solid state electric action, the other was a Victorian tracker. After playing the first few notes of the first organ there was silence. Something had gone badly wrong, and nothing would bring it back to life. We traipsed round to the second to find an unusable cypher on the Great. But a quick inspection behind the music desk identified the offending tracker and within a few minutes we had repaired it and enabled a successful visit to go ahead. A few days later the builder of the first instrument came round and identified a fuse had blown.

So yes, there's something in there about being able to identify and fix mechanical problems if you have an idea of what you are doing.

Building my own house organ (a four manual Hauptwerk) was an invaluable lesson in the interface between organs and electronics. Whilst there were no pipes at the "other end", there was more than enough to learn about console design complexities and a huge amount of soldering to do - and that was just for pistons and expression pedals. I actually found the piston rails to be the most complicated thing to build in the entire console. Colin raises a good point about the need to eliminate vibration in contacts and I wonder whether Hall effect or reed switches are an aceptable and underutilised solution?

But the elephant in the room is that eventually every organ will need a thorough restoration, in which soundboards and reservoirs will probably need taking out for refurbishing or renewing  and the way organs are designed nearly always makes that incredibly costly. With diminishing congregations it becomes increasingly difficult to impossible to find tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds. Not every church will be able to win a sizeable grant to fund the restoration, and even grants often require matched funding which may be out the question. What then is the solution for preserving organs whose actions and other innards are dying where finances don't permit more than a tune and occasional maintenance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...