Real pipe organ vs Virtual pipe organ

[Cromorne]

Hello,
I have just made a comparison between the sound of a real pipe organ and the same virtual pipe organ. Of course, nothing beats a real organ, but the virtual organ is still an excellent solution for practicing the organ at home.
What do you think ?
 

 

[Keitha]

They sound pretty close to each other, if not identical.  But, of course, they are being heard in the same acoustic, through the same speakers, via the same amplifier, in my living room. That said, if I had the space (and more cash!) I would buy a digital home practice organ.  I would even say that the latest and best digital software with high quality amplification and sufficient channels and speakers of the right blend and quality will, with expert voicing, sound excellent in a building with decent acoustics. I have trialled them in large churches and the sound can be remarkable.  Even if the acoustics are lacking resonance, that can, to a degree, be fixed to provide warmer reverberation.

That said, I think a good pipe organ has a 'living' quality that even the best digitals can't beat (but may do one day) - which is why I have spent a lot of time and energy on the installation of a pipe organ in my own parish church, which has been received with enthusiasm by the clergy and parishioners.

[Colin Pykett]

The video is comparing a recording of a pipe organ with a recording of a pipe organ.  That is not the same thing as listening to a pipe organ in a building and comparing that experience with listening to a recording of it.

[Cromorne]

7 hours ago, Colin Pykett said:

The video is comparing a recording of a pipe organ with a recording of a pipe organ.  That is not the same thing as listening to a pipe organ in a building and comparing that experience with listening to a recording of it.

Yes of course.  But although both are recordings, there are differences, have you heard them?

 

[Cromorne]

7 hours ago, Keitha said:

They sound pretty close to each other, if not identical.  But, of course, they are being heard in the same acoustic, through the same speakers, via the same amplifier, in my living room. That said, if I had the space (and more cash!) I would buy a digital home practice organ.  I would even say that the latest and best digital software with high quality amplification and sufficient channels and speakers of the right blend and quality will, with expert voicing, sound excellent in a building with decent acoustics. I have trialled them in large churches and the sound can be remarkable.  Even if the acoustics are lacking resonance, that can, to a degree, be fixed to provide warmer reverberation.

That said, I think a good pipe organ has a 'living' quality that even the best digitals can't beat (but may do one day) - which is why I have spent a lot of time and energy on the installation of a pipe organ in my own parish church, which has been received with enthusiasm by the clergy and parishioners.

We agree, nothing beats a real organ, the same goes for all instruments. Nevertheless, it is an excellent tool for working at home

[Colin Pykett]

30 minutes ago, Cromorne said:

Yes of course.  But although both are recordings, there are differences, have you heard them?

 

I doubt my opinion will be of much interest.

[pwhodges]

The nearest to a true comparison that I can think of would be to record the organ "live" at the same time and using the same microphones as the recording of the sample set, played back on the same system.  This would enable a comparison in which presence and setup of the sampling software was the only variable.

Paul

[Cromorne]

1 hour ago, pwhodges said:

The nearest to a true comparison that I can think of would be to record the organ "live" at the same time and using the same microphones as the recording of the sample set, played back on the same system.  This would enable a comparison in which presence and setup of the sampling software was the only variable.

Paul

this is the case in the video. Same microphones, same placement.

[John Robinson]

I agree with others.
Listening to the recordings on the same speakers or headphones, using the same amplifier, using the same electronic transmission, etc, etc, 
they are both going to sound very similar.
Quite apart from attempting to reproduce the real thing, there is also the matter of benefiting from having the real thing in more ways than just the sound.
Similarly, you could wear a cheap cubic zirconia ring and tell everyone that it's a diamond.  It might look the part, but is it really?  Alternatively, have a small electric car and imagine that you are driving around in a Rolls-Royce, but of course you are not!

[Keitha]

Just to add into the mix, in addition to pipe v sampled sound, we also have synthesised sound in digital instruments.  In my experience, having tried both in the same building several times, the best synthesised instruments beat sampled sound hands down - but still do not quite have the 'living' quality of a pipe organ - but they get pretty close.  One type of synthesised system has just had its first full revision - but I haven't tried it yet.  

[innate]

1 hour ago, Keitha said:

Just to add into the mix, in addition to pipe v sampled sound, we also have synthesised sound in digital instruments.  In my experience, having tried both in the same building several times, the best synthesised instruments beat sampled sound hands down - but still do not quite have the 'living' quality of a pipe organ - but they get pretty close.  One type of synthesised system has just had its first full revision - but I haven't tried it yet.  

At the risk of outstaying our welcome I’d echo this; and not just for simulation of pipe organs. It’s quite an old-fashioned view but I still think synthesised orchestral instruments are more useful and coherent in live situations eg theatre than sampled instruments. In lock-down I bought Organteq and found it very good for doing recordings of hymns etc.

[Colin Pykett]

11 hours ago, innate said:

At the risk of outstaying our welcome I’d echo this; and not just for simulation of pipe organs. It’s quite an old-fashioned view but I still think synthesised orchestral instruments are more useful and coherent in live situations eg theatre than sampled instruments. In lock-down I bought Organteq and found it very good for doing recordings of hymns etc.

I also feel we might be outstaying our welcome here, but I might as well join the party ...

A reason why synthesised sounds can (in principle) be more attractive is to do with voicing flexibility.  With sampled sounds you are pretty much stuck with what you've recorded beforehand.  Although things like loudness and treble and bass rolloff can be adjusted for each sample if necessary, these are relatively minor tweaks.  Changing the timbre and other  speaking characteristics (such as the attack transient) of a recorded organ pipe to the extent that a voicer can do with a real one is not possible.  Nor can the simulated pipe be redesigned from scratch by changing its scale or other parameters.  It's much like listening to a CD of an organ - whatever you do to the sound by twiddling the controls on your listening system, it will always sound more or less like the same instrument.  With synthesised sounds this restriction does not exist - you could turn a simulated flute pipe into a tuba if you so desired.  The only limitation then becomes the skill of the voicer and how much money you have paid to the manufacturer to do on-site voicing (some of them make several ranges of basically similar organs but of which only the more expensive come with a detailed tonal finishing option).

So compared to this, I think the OP's demo recordings which kicked off this thread rather miss the point.  They merely demonstrate that recording an organ in two different ways produces very similar sounds.

[sbarber49]

On 10/02/2024 at 21:24, pwhodges said:

The nearest to a true comparison that I can think of would be to record the organ "live" at the same time and using the same microphones as the recording of the sample set, played back on the same system.  This would enable a comparison in which presence and setup of the sampling software was the only variable.

Paul

Or a Hauptwerk sample set of an organ compared with the real organ, live,  in the same building - a "battle of the organs". Did they do that in Salisbury when they, I think, had a hauptwerk installed using the Salisbury sample set?

[pwhodges]

Salisbury used the (unreleased) sample set while the actual organ was out of action (rebuilding the blower room, as I recall); they also used a French sample set for some voluntaries, I think.  I never heard or saw any comments on how well it was received.

The organist at the time had built a replica of the real console for his home use, and I suppose that got used in the cathedral.

Paul

[Peter Allison]

All this talk about sample sets and a Hauptwerk organ, yes, its obvious that pipes are the best and always will be, but for major churches and/or cathedrals to actually use one, for whatever reason, its a major decision to use them. We are now in 2024, and they will only become more popular, so they need to be talked about objectively, I reckon. Its like the great debate that is going on with EV cars verses internal combustion engines, they have their place and are not going away anytime soon.

Salisbury is a very good example. Who may be next in the future? Durham Cathedral😁

[pwhodges]

Here is a similar comparison made by an American sample set producer:

https://www.contrebombarde.com/concerthall/music/57796

Paul

[Contrabombarde]

You'd be unlikely to ever get a completely "fair" comparison. I doubt many pipe organs that have been sampled also have MIDI connections, and to have two identical recordings complete with same wrong notes etc, you would need to (1) record the pipes of the actual organ being played, whilst (2) simultaneously recording the notes being played via MIDI, then (3) a bit later, play back the MIDI recording (ie electronic equivalent of pianola paper roll) on the same registration but playing through software and speakers.

You would have had to set up a properly decent set of speakers and amplifiers inside or beside the organ case, to listen to the virtual recording.

And you'd have used the same type of microphone and in the same position for recording "organ" and "sample". Positioning of mics for sampling might need to be much closer to the pipes to avoid echos and other background noise than if recording an organ recital, so again unlikely to be an identical set-up. 

That way you could compare how the piece sounds if the sound was routed through pipes or software.

As for Colin's point about synthesised sound versus sampled sound, I guess that's a matter of considerable argument between electronic organ manufacturers which shouldn't be a focus of a pipe organ forum. I would off a friendly challenge to Colin as to whether the flexibility of synthesis allows for enough random "defects" whether in tuning or in tone to maintain the listener's interest for very long. Regardless of how well regulated a builder tries to voice a rank of pipes, there will be one or two pipes that stand out very slightly, and increasingly so over time due to not keeping in tune as well, dirt, saggy feet, building resonances etc and that infinite pipe to pipe variation is one of the things that makes a real pipe organ (or sampled pipe organ where each pipe is sampled) so "real". Not sure how easy that is to replicate with synthesised tones and I haven't found the results as pleasing because they are too bland and even where I have been aware of that technology being used.

I think that virtual pipe organ technology can be transformational for learning and practising - for example learning to play French baroque on a French baroque sample set forces you to play totally differently to if you were trying to learn the piece on an Arthur Harrison pipe organ. Furthermore, having access to an organ console with pedals at home is an affordable option for far more young people today than ever before and I think virtual pipe organs afford us an unprecedented opportunity to promote learning the organ to children who would never previously had access to an organ. But I really don't think they are especially suitable for public installations. In other words, they can have an important role but it needs to be in the right setting and context.

[John Robinson]

Well said, Contrabombarde.  I do agree that 'toasters' have their place, especially as home practice instruments for example.

I'd just like to add that I wonder how many serious musicians would prefer to listen to an electronic piano or electronic violin at a formal recital.