Re: Customizer feature

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Customizer feature

jbeach2646
Sven,  is the “gain” of the Fluidsynth Sound in the Customizer equivalent to the channel-velocity setting in MIDI or is it a special jOrgan-proprietary feature which sets the loudness for a particular instance of Fluidsynth Sound with one soundfont ?
 
The reason I ask is that I am curious if it would be possible to have a feature added to the Customizer for  Loudness controls for each of
the Divisions (keyboards) of a disposition as an alternative to the Fluidsynth Sound “Gain.”
 
I constructed my soundfonts based on the organ “families of tone;” one soundfont of  flutes,  one of diapasons,  one of strings, one of reeds and one of mixtures, rather than on the Organ Division concept where all the ranks/stops of a given division are in an individual soundfont for that specific division. 
 
It is desirable to have the ranks/stops of the pedal division speak more loudly than the manuals, or, at least, to have the ability to regulate the volume of ranks/stops in the pedal division, separately from the manuals. 
 
Would this be better effectuated with a slider volume-control to which are referenced all the ranks/stops of the pedal division?  As you have probably inferred from what I have described, since my soundfonts consist of individual, organ-tonal groups without regard for division, the current capabilities with the Gain of Fluidsynth Sound regulates the volume of all of the ranks of a given tonality, regardless of the division in which the ranks/stops are located.   Appropriate, differing attenuations for specific ranks of stops are set in the instrument of the soundfont or in the preset of the soundfont. 
 
Are pipe organs ever constructed with tonal groups standing on windchests, all reeds on one windchest under a given wind pressure, all flutes on another at a given wind pressure, all diapasons on another at a given wind pressure and all strings on another at a given wind pressure? 
Or, are they generally always constructed with the pipes of a given division (swell) all on one windchest? 
The advent of electricity must have made definite improvements in the amount of flexibility in the placement of ranks to effectuate optimal
results in a given acoustic ambience.   I am trying to make my understanding and reasoning conform to the exigencies of historical reality while taking advantage of the possibilities afforded by virtual technology with MIDI and the specified constraints dictated by the protocol. 
 
In conclusion, I could set about reworking all the soundfonts to be comprised of divisional ranks/stops which would then comply with the Customizer Fluidsynth Gain as it is now configured.   Is this necessary?
 
John Beach
 
 
 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Customizer feature

Sven Meier
Administrator
Hi John,

>is the “gain”  ... a special jOrgan-proprietary feature which sets the loudness for a particular instance
>of Fluidsynth Sound with one soundfont

exactly, it is passed to the fluidsynth instance when it is created.

>Would this be better effectuated with a slider volume-control to which are referenced all the ranks/stops
>of the pedal division?

Yes, this is the recommended solution.

> Are pipe organs ever constructed with tonal groups standing on windchests, all reeds on one windchest
>under a given wind pressure, all flutes on another at a given wind pressure, all diapasons on another at a
>given wind pressure and all strings on another at a given wind pressure? 

I would think so, but this question is better answered by the real organ professionals.

Have fun
Sven


On 27.01.2015 20:15, [hidden email] wrote:
Sven,  is the “gain” of the Fluidsynth Sound in the Customizer equivalent to the channel-velocity setting in MIDI or is it a special jOrgan-proprietary feature which sets the loudness for a particular instance of Fluidsynth Sound with one soundfont ?
 
The reason I ask is that I am curious if it would be possible to have a feature added to the Customizer for  Loudness controls for each of
the Divisions (keyboards) of a disposition as an alternative to the Fluidsynth Sound “Gain.”
 
I constructed my soundfonts based on the organ “families of tone;” one soundfont of  flutes,  one of diapasons,  one of strings, one of reeds and one of mixtures, rather than on the Organ Division concept where all the ranks/stops of a given division are in an individual soundfont for that specific division. 
 
It is desirable to have the ranks/stops of the pedal division speak more loudly than the manuals, or, at least, to have the ability to regulate the volume of ranks/stops in the pedal division, separately from the manuals. 
 
Would this be better effectuated with a slider volume-control to which are referenced all the ranks/stops of the pedal division?  As you have probably inferred from what I have described, since my soundfonts consist of individual, organ-tonal groups without regard for division, the current capabilities with the Gain of Fluidsynth Sound regulates the volume of all of the ranks of a given tonality, regardless of the division in which the ranks/stops are located.   Appropriate, differing attenuations for specific ranks of stops are set in the instrument of the soundfont or in the preset of the soundfont. 
 
Are pipe organs ever constructed with tonal groups standing on windchests, all reeds on one windchest under a given wind pressure, all flutes on another at a given wind pressure, all diapasons on another at a given wind pressure and all strings on another at a given wind pressure? 
Or, are they generally always constructed with the pipes of a given division (swell) all on one windchest? 
The advent of electricity must have made definite improvements in the amount of flexibility in the placement of ranks to effectuate optimal
results in a given acoustic ambience.   I am trying to make my understanding and reasoning conform to the exigencies of historical reality while taking advantage of the possibilities afforded by virtual technology with MIDI and the specified constraints dictated by the protocol. 
 
In conclusion, I could set about reworking all the soundfonts to be comprised of divisional ranks/stops which would then comply with the Customizer Fluidsynth Gain as it is now configured.   Is this necessary?
 
John Beach
 
 
 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/


_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Customizer feature

jbeach2646
Thanks, Sven.  The volume slider is a quick doable.
John
 
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 4:26 PM
Subject: Re: [jOrgan-user] Customizer feature
 
Hi John,

>is the “gain”  ... a special jOrgan-proprietary feature which sets the loudness for a particular instance
>of Fluidsynth Sound with one soundfont

exactly, it is passed to the fluidsynth instance when it is created.

>Would this be better effectuated with a slider volume-control to which are referenced all the ranks/stops
>of the pedal division?

Yes, this is the recommended solution.

> Are pipe organs ever constructed with tonal groups standing on windchests, all reeds on one windchest
>under a given wind pressure, all flutes on another at a given wind pressure, all diapasons on another at a
>given wind pressure and all strings on another at a given wind pressure? 

I would think so, but this question is better answered by the real organ professionals.

Have fun
Sven


On 27.01.2015 20:15, [hidden email] wrote:
Sven,  is the “gain” of the Fluidsynth Sound in the Customizer equivalent to the channel-velocity setting in MIDI or is it a special jOrgan-proprietary feature which sets the loudness for a particular instance of Fluidsynth Sound with one soundfont ?
 
The reason I ask is that I am curious if it would be possible to have a feature added to the Customizer for  Loudness controls for each of
the Divisions (keyboards) of a disposition as an alternative to the Fluidsynth Sound “Gain.”
 
I constructed my soundfonts based on the organ “families of tone;” one soundfont of  flutes,  one of diapasons,  one of strings, one of reeds and one of mixtures, rather than on the Organ Division concept where all the ranks/stops of a given division are in an individual soundfont for that specific division. 
 
It is desirable to have the ranks/stops of the pedal division speak more loudly than the manuals, or, at least, to have the ability to regulate the volume of ranks/stops in the pedal division, separately from the manuals. 
 
Would this be better effectuated with a slider volume-control to which are referenced all the ranks/stops of the pedal division?  As you have probably inferred from what I have described, since my soundfonts consist of individual, organ-tonal groups without regard for division, the current capabilities with the Gain of Fluidsynth Sound regulates the volume of all of the ranks of a given tonality, regardless of the division in which the ranks/stops are located.   Appropriate, differing attenuations for specific ranks of stops are set in the instrument of the soundfont or in the preset of the soundfont. 
 
Are pipe organs ever constructed with tonal groups standing on windchests, all reeds on one windchest under a given wind pressure, all flutes on another at a given wind pressure, all diapasons on another at a given wind pressure and all strings on another at a given wind pressure? 
Or, are they generally always constructed with the pipes of a given division (swell) all on one windchest? 
The advent of electricity must have made definite improvements in the amount of flexibility in the placement of ranks to effectuate optimal
results in a given acoustic ambience.   I am trying to make my understanding and reasoning conform to the exigencies of historical reality while taking advantage of the possibilities afforded by virtual technology with MIDI and the specified constraints dictated by the protocol. 
 
In conclusion, I could set about reworking all the soundfonts to be comprised of divisional ranks/stops which would then comply with the Customizer Fluidsynth Gain as it is now configured.   Is this necessary?
 
John Beach
 
 
 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/


_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/


_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Customizer feature

John M
In reply to this post by jbeach2646
jbeach2646 wrote
....

Are pipe organs ever constructed with tonal groups standing on windchests, all reeds on one windchest under a given wind pressure, all flutes on another at a given wind pressure, all diapasons on another at a given wind pressure and all strings on another at a given wind pressure?  
Or, are they generally always constructed with the pipes of a given division (swell) all on one windchest?  
The advent of electricity must have made definite improvements in the amount of flexibility in the placement of ranks to effectuate optimal
results in a given acoustic ambience.   I am trying to make my understanding and reasoning conform to the exigencies of historical reality while taking advantage of the possibilities afforded by virtual technology with MIDI and the specified constraints dictated by the protocol.  
"Ever" is an awfully big word.  It is not so unusual to have reeds on a separate chest as they will often enjoy higher pressure or be unified or duplexed before other parts of the instrument.  Still, they are not usually in a separate box by themselves.  A few instruments have put a cornet (usually flutes 8, 4, 2 2/3, 2, 1 3/5) in a separate box.  Having other families on separate chests, even separate swell boxes may have been tried by Robert Hope-Jones, often known as the inventor of the unit orchestra/theater organ, though I wouldn't swear to it.  Sometimes the swell boxes would seal very tightly.  If memory serves correctly I read a description of one of his instruments that claimed an organist could use the tuba of one division (in a closed swell box) to accompany a quiet string solo of another division.  Doing those things in a typical organ designed for classic music or church music would be exceedingly unusual, though.  

If, for the music you play, you find it desirable to have maximum flexibility along those lines, you might take a look at the Hanseatic dispositions.  http://argonon.de/data2/doku.php?id=bca:opusdrei_20  Those allow adjustments to the levels of individual stops.  It might be a small matter of linking them to the combination action to make adjustments with the push of a piston.  I doubt if that is what the BCA creator had in mind, but we can learn a *lot* by looking at other dispositions and seeing how folk accomplished various tasks.  

Good luck.  I hope you enjoy all of this as much as I do.
John Maher
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Customizer feature

jbeach2646
John, thanks for taking the time to respond to my question.  I did solve the
problem with a volume control referencing all the stops in the
pedal division.  Having all divisions under expression is a possibility with
jOrgan even when it is not a reality in the organ being emulated.
I was aware that several of Bernd's dispositions had volume controls for all
the ranks in the disposition.  It is almost a necessity, given the
differing sources of ranks which are brought together in dispositions
without the advantage of all being from the same organ source.
Voicing is a real art about which I wish I knew a lot more.

John Beach

-----Original Message-----
From: John M
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 5:36 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [jOrgan-user] Customizer feature

jbeach2646 wrote

> ....
>
> Are pipe organs ever constructed with tonal groups standing on windchests,
> all reeds on one windchest under a given wind pressure, all flutes on
> another at a given wind pressure, all diapasons on another at a given wind
> pressure and all strings on another at a given wind pressure?
> Or, are they generally always constructed with the pipes of a given
> division (swell) all on one windchest?
> The advent of electricity must have made definite improvements in the
> amount of flexibility in the placement of ranks to effectuate optimal
> results in a given acoustic ambience.   I am trying to make my
> understanding and reasoning conform to the exigencies of historical
> reality while taking advantage of the possibilities afforded by virtual
> technology with MIDI and the specified constraints dictated by the
> protocol.

"Ever" is an awfully big word.  It is not so unusual to have reeds on a
separate chest as they will often enjoy higher pressure or be unified or
duplexed before other parts of the instrument.  Still, they are not usually
in a separate box by themselves.  A few instruments have put a cornet
(usually flutes 8, 4, 2 2/3, 2, 1 3/5) in a separate box.  Having other
families on separate chests, even separate swell boxes /may/ have been tried
by Robert Hope-Jones, often known as the inventor of the unit
orchestra/theater organ, though I wouldn't swear to it.  Sometimes the swell
boxes would seal very tightly.  If memory serves correctly I read a
description of one of his instruments that claimed an organist could use the
tuba of one division (in a closed swell box) to accompany a quiet string
solo of another division.  Doing those things in a typical organ designed
for classic music or church music would be exceedingly unusual, though.

If, for the music you play, you find it desirable to have maximum
flexibility along those lines, you might take a look at the Hanseatic
dispositions.  http://argonon.de/data2/doku.php?id=bca:opusdrei_20  Those
allow adjustments to the levels of individual stops.  It might be a small
matter of linking them to the combination action to make adjustments with
the push of a piston.  I doubt if that is what the BCA creator had in mind,
but we can learn a *lot* by looking at other dispositions and seeing how
folk accomplished various tasks.

Good luck.  I hope you enjoy all of this as much as I do.



-----
John Maher

--
View this message in context:
http://jorgan.999862.n4.nabble.com/Re-Customizer-feature-tp4661987p4661990.html
Sent from the jOrgan - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
BCA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Customizer feature

BCA
Administrator
Hi Guys,
linking the voicing controls to the combo action is a work of seconds with jOrgan references, indeed. Even if we'll never see this at a pipe organ console, it's the spirit of the new age, to do so with jOrgan magick.

Let's go, guys, unfreeze the orthodoxy!

:-))
all the best,
BCA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Customizer feature

Chris P
In reply to this post by jbeach2646
John
The art of voicing partly explained https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgd6Q930Fzg.
All we need now is one of these little magic boxes.

regards
Chris
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Customizer feature

jbeach2646
Chris,  interesting video, although the hand-held tuning device must be
proprietary to the organ by its manufacturer.  The tuning organist
is so experienced that he does it "by ear."
I think the critical factor in voicing is having a proper balance in the
reduction of loudness in the footages of ranks.  Since all of my homemade
dispositions use soundfonts made using additive synthesis rather than
recorded pipes samples, I have used a formula based on Audsley's
specification concerning the percentages in loudness from the Prime 8'
footage to each higher footage.  He posits a ten percent decrease in the
loudness of each rank to the next higher rank.  I attenuate each footage in
Polyphone or Viena,
8'=0, 4'=18, 2-2/3'=22, 2'=24, 1-3/5'=26 1-1/3'=28, 1'=30.  Individual ranks
in mixtures use the same attenuation principle, as do all families of organ
tone.
I also use frequency cutoff on each note in each rank.  This cutoff is the
actual frequency of each pitch. So, for example, I set the cutoff for Middle
C (midi note 60) of an 8' rank at 256, the frequency of the 2' C, which, of
course, would be the frequency cutoff of the lowest note in the 2' rank.  I
extend the compass upward and downward one octave for the purpose of
accommodating Octave and Sub-Octave couplers.
Theoretically, with digital, we can have the perfectly tuned and voiced
organ.

John Beach

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris P
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2015 9:44 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [jOrgan-user] Customizer feature

John
The art of voicing partly explained
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgd6Q930Fzg.
All we need now is one of these little magic boxes.

regards
Chris



-----
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
--
View this message in context:
http://jorgan.999862.n4.nabble.com/Re-Customizer-feature-tp4661987p4661993.html
Sent from the jOrgan - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Customizer feature

John Reimer
Administrator
jbeach2646 wrote
 I attenuate each footage in
Polyphone or Viena,
8'=0, 4'=18, 2-2/3'=22, 2'=24, 1-3/5'=26 1-1/3'=28, 1'=30.  Individual ranks
in mixtures use the same attenuation principle, as do all families of organ
tone.
John,

Those figures strike me as being a bit too severe. With the commonly-used sound engines, an extra 5 in the Attenuation Setting results in a drop of 2 dB. Your figures would give a less than bright chorus, in my opinion - certainly one without any excitement. But even if we get the figures right, unfortunately human hearing does not have a flat response.

My approach is to regulate each rank to my liking (unfortunately the variables are my preferences, my ears, my loudspeakers and my room) and then to compare each rank to the unison rank. The 4' should be discernibly softer (but not a lot), the 2' softer still, and the others to suit. This might have to be checked for each octave, and changes to the rank regulation may have to be done, perhaps for individual octaves. It can be a long process.

I once measured the relative strengths in a modern neo-baroque organ and decided that the 4' was 4 dB down on the 8', and the 2' was 6' down on the 8'. However, these figures should not be taken too seriously, because the higher pitch ranks may actually be brighter in sound than the unison. I am afraid that one's ears have to be relied upon more than mathematical figures.

John Reimer
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Customizer feature

John M
John Reimer wrote
jbeach2646 wrote
 I attenuate each footage in
Polyphone or Viena,
8'=0, 4'=18, 2-2/3'=22, 2'=24, 1-3/5'=26 1-1/3'=28, 1'=30.  Individual ranks
in mixtures use the same attenuation principle, as do all families of organ
tone.
John,

Those figures strike me as being a bit too severe. With the commonly-used sound engines, an extra 5 in the Attenuation Setting results in a drop of 2 dB. Your figures would give a less than bright chorus, in my opinion - certainly one without any excitement. But even if we get the figures right, unfortunately human hearing does not have a flat response.

My approach is to regulate each rank to my liking (unfortunately the variables are my preferences, my ears, my loudspeakers and my room) and then to compare each rank to the unison rank. The 4' should be discernibly softer (but not a lot), the 2' softer still, and the others to suit. This might have to be checked for each octave, and changes to the rank regulation may have to be done, perhaps for individual octaves. It can be a long process.

John Reimer
I must agree.  You might keep in mind that Audsley (1838 - 1925) was working when the symphonic approach to organ building was more the norm, and there were fewer organs built on the idea of a principal chorus being the backbone of the instrument.    

His work is sometimes accepted and sometimes not.  It IS beautifully executed, but tonal ideas change and change again.

Best wishes,

John M
John Maher
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Customizer feature

Bruce Miles
In reply to this post by John Reimer
You mention the most significant and most unpredictable factor in
assessing the brightness of organ pipes, ranks and sounds generally, and
that is ones hearing. Usually as one gets older the top gradually fades
out without this loss being noticed. The sounds I synthesised (the corg
and eorg soundfonts) about 15 years ago sounded OK when I made them, in
more recent listening the loss of harmonics in the reeds was noticeable.
Then, at 88, I got a hearing aid. Now the harmonics are back, I can hear
the kettle boiling, and the birds singing including the ones in my
cinema organ.

I don't think these thoughts offer any instant solutions to anything. We
have the Fletcher-Munson sound curves but the important thing for
members of the jOrgan community concerned with how a virtual organ
sounds is to be aware of this very significant problem and to have a
hearing test long before my degree of antiquity is reached.

Bruce Miles


On 31/01/2015 05:04, John Reimer wrote John, Those figures strike me as
being a bit too severe. With the commonly-used sound engines, an extra 5
in the Attenuation Setting results in a drop of 2 dB. Your figures would
give a less than bright chorus, in my opinion - certainly one without
any excitement. But even if we get the figures right, unfortunately
human hearing does not have a flat response. My approach is to regulate
each rank to my liking (unfortunately the variables are my preferences,
my ears, my loudspeakers and my room) and then to compare each rank to
the unison rank. The 4' should be discernibly softer (but not a lot),
the 2' softer still, and the others to suit. This might have to be
checked for each octave, and changes to the rank regulation may have to
be done, perhaps for individual octaves. It can be a long process. I
once measured the relative strengths in a modern neo-baroque organ and
decided that the 4' was 4 dB down on the 8', and the 2' was 6' down on
the 8'. However, these figures should not be taken too seriously,
because the higher pitch ranks may actually be brighter in sound than
the unison. I am afraid that one's ears have to be relied upon more than
mathematical figures. John Reimer -- View this message in context:
http://jorgan.999862.n4.nabble.com/Re-Customizer-feature-tp4661987p4661997.html 
Sent from the jOrgan - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is
your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly
thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and
more. Take a look and join the conversation now.
http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ 
_______________________________________________ jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Customizer feature

jbeach2646
In reply to this post by John M
I don't think I have a problem with my hearing, yet.  But, I do admit to
being as subjective in my tastes regarding what I hear as John R. and
I don't think that that is "unfortunate."  We all like what we like even
though we may want to ascribe as closely as possible to the convention of
optimal realities which the professionals have determined through experience
and electronic-aids analysis are what are accurate and proper.  I confess
ignorance in this regard and I don't think there is much information on the
web that would really guide me wisely in achieving the best settings in a
soundfont of all the included tonalities and footages.  So my "common sense"
may be very uncommon!
Congratulations, Bruce, on the ripe age to which you are attaining!  You
must have lived a good life.

John Beach

-----Original Message-----
From: John M
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 5:54 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [jOrgan-user] Customizer feature

John Reimer wrote

>
> jbeach2646 wrote
>>  I attenuate each footage in
>> Polyphone or Viena,
>> 8'=0, 4'=18, 2-2/3'=22, 2'=24, 1-3/5'=26 1-1/3'=28, 1'=30.  Individual
>> ranks
>> in mixtures use the same attenuation principle, as do all families of
>> organ
>> tone.
> John,
>
> Those figures strike me as being a bit too severe. With the commonly-used
> sound engines, an extra 5 in the Attenuation Setting results in a drop of
> 2 dB. Your figures would give a less than bright chorus, in my opinion -
> certainly one without any excitement. But even if we get the figures
> right, unfortunately human hearing does not have a flat response.
>
> My approach is to regulate each rank to my liking (unfortunately the
> variables are my preferences, my ears, my loudspeakers and my room) and
> then to compare each rank to the unison rank. The 4' should be discernibly
> softer (but not a lot), the 2' softer still, and the others to suit. This
> might have to be checked for each octave, and changes to the rank
> regulation may have to be done, perhaps for individual octaves. It can be
> a long process.
>
> John Reimer

I must agree.  You might keep in mind that Audsley (1838 - 1925) was working
when the symphonic approach to organ building was more the norm, and there
were fewer organs built on the idea of a principal chorus being the backbone
of the instrument.

His work is sometimes accepted and sometimes not.  It IS beautifully
executed, but tonal ideas change and change again.

Best wishes,

John M



-----
John Maher

--
View this message in context:
http://jorgan.999862.n4.nabble.com/Re-Customizer-feature-tp4661987p4661999.html
Sent from the jOrgan - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user 



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming. The Go Parallel Website,
sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your
hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought
leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a
look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
jOrgan-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jorgan-user
BCA
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[EXPERIMENTAL] BCA Trautonium Workbench - was: Customizer feature

BCA
Administrator
Gents,

a possible answer to the intonation questions is the opportunity for the user, to change sound spectre dynamically. Such necessity can be caused by room acoustics, hearing loss, synth sound effects or whatsoever.

After finishing HBO 2.0, for a couple of months I'm working in a more abstract sphere for a special instrument now. The goal of it shall be a mimickification of Trautweins original Trautonium, extended by the possibilities of the modern computer approach - in a far future.

For today, I share an experimental snapshot of it, to demonstrate how those things can be soluted in future with soundfonts. The instrument has sine and sawtooth ranks (extended by a special "Valve" effect), a complete dynamical ADSR scheme and several other sliders for realtime influencing of sound parametres. All in all, it's a complete intonation engine already. All this is based on dedicated modulators set up in the soundfonts, and on fabulous jOrgan MPL.

Caution: The instrument is velocity sensitive. Users of non-velocity sensitive keyboards don't get the full bandwith of the possible effects.

For me, this is a real experimental enjoyment already. It is in no case finished, just a food for thoughts in exchange and addition to Bruce's jOrgan input.

Hope this is fun!

jOrgan 3.20 and higher.

http://argonon.de/data2/dl/BCA_Trautonium.zip



all the best,
BCA