[Paul[_13_]]

These are both Craigslist freebies. (I also have
a chance at a Wurly 4300, but I want more foot pedals
and keys like on the 4500).

The 4500 apparently functions properly, they just
don't use it anymore at this church.

The E200 works, but has some lost functionality (not
sure the details).

Which one would be "better" for playing Bach, a la
E Power Biggs style?

Thanks for any feedback....

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Paul wrote:

These are both Craigslist freebies. (I also have
a chance at a Wurly 4300, but I want more foot pedals
and keys like on the 4500).

The 4500 apparently functions properly, they just
don't use it anymore at this church.

The E200 works, but has some lost functionality (not
sure the details).

Okay, these are basically home organs, and home organs are pretty much a
glut on the market because they were so severely oversold for so many years.
For a long time, it seems like every family had one and now Aunt Margaret
has died and nobody knows what to do with her organ.

The E200 has drawbars which makes it look like a real Hammond. It's full
of discrete stuff... I can't remember if the dividers are cmos or discrete.
This is the "church version" of the E100 which means it's in a slightly
nicer case.

On all of these organs, more money went into the case than into the electronics
really.

The Wurlitzer 4300 is a little more primitive inside, all discrete and there
was some germanium stuff in there too. It probably sounds more like a real
Hammond, though, than any of the others.

Because all of these organs were owned by little old ladies and kept in
storage for years, expect vast amounts of deferred maintenance. Every
switch and contact will need cleaning, every electrolytic (and there are
LOTS of them) will need replacing. Guys buy them for ten bucks at yard
sales and then find out that a tech will charge them a thousand dollars
to clean it up and get it into reliable studio condition and they get angry.

People will tell you they "work fine." They are lying, unless it has been
recently rebuilt.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul[_13_]]

On 4/18/2014 8:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:


Okay, these are basically home organs, and home organs are pretty much a
glut on the market because they were so severely oversold for so many years.
For a long time, it seems like every family had one and now Aunt Margaret
has died and nobody knows what to do with her organ.

The E200 has drawbars which makes it look like a real Hammond. It's full
of discrete stuff... I can't remember if the dividers are cmos or discrete.
This is the "church version" of the E100 which means it's in a slightly
nicer case.

On all of these organs, more money went into the case than into the electronics
really.

The Wurlitzer 4300 is a little more primitive inside, all discrete and there
was some germanium stuff in there too. It probably sounds more like a real
Hammond, though, than any of the others.

Because all of these organs were owned by little old ladies and kept in
storage for years, expect vast amounts of deferred maintenance. Every
switch and contact will need cleaning, every electrolytic (and there are
LOTS of them) will need replacing. Guys buy them for ten bucks at yard
sales and then find out that a tech will charge them a thousand dollars
to clean it up and get it into reliable studio condition and they get angry.

People will tell you they "work fine." They are lying, unless it has been
recently rebuilt.
--scott


Yes, that's true about the contacts needing to be cleaned, and all
the electrolytics replaced. A guy on organforum.com mentions:

"The E200 will need about 40 high voltage electrolytic caps to sound
like new, (up to $3 each in some cases), the 4500 will need over 100 low
voltage transistor caps with two at $4 and the rest about $.09 each."

The only reason I'm considering picking one of these up is because
I would be doing all the restoration electronics work myself, and I've
had a life long love of the organ, and have never owned one before, and
would love to have actual foot pedals to practice Bach organ pieces on,
with the ultimate goal of being allowed to play a REAL pipe organ
someday (or even being a PAID church organist? My sightreading needs
work, but we can still dream, can't we? Haha! )

They pretty much agree on the organ forum that the 4500 will be
a better approximation of German pipes for Bach.

I suspect you may be right about the 4500 not being fully
functional, but it didn't sound like the owner ever really played
it. I'm supposed to try it out today....will keep you posted
on what I find...

[Hank]

In article , Paul wrote:

These are both Craigslist freebies. (I also have
a chance at a Wurly 4300, but I want more foot pedals
and keys like on the 4500).

The 4500 apparently functions properly, they just
don't use it anymore at this church.

The E200 works, but has some lost functionality (not
sure the details).

Which one would be "better" for playing Bach, a la
E Power Biggs style?

Thanks for any feedback....

Huh? A Hammond for Bach? A "Mighty Wurtilizer" (sic) for Bach?
No, no, no, a thousand times now. Would you try to play Purcell's
(Jeremiah Clarke's) Trumpet Voluntary on a Vuvuzela or a Kazoo?

First of all, if you're going to play Bach, E. Power Biggs style, you
might consider the actual instrument that Biggs chose to have built
for the purpose. That is the Flentrop organ in the Busch-Reisinger
museum at Harvard.

Take a listen to Biggs playing Bach on the instrument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4pb_W_dSK8

These are sounds that you are not going to get out of a Hammond or a
Wurlitzer, for the very simple reason that they weren't designed to
do it.
Here is a link to a description of the instrument, how it came to be,
and a stoplist.
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/organ/organs.php
I'll point out that it's a relatively small (27 ranks) instrument,
with enough tonal resources to play other than Bach-era music. What
it won't play are some of the 19th century French whoppers (Vidor,
Franck) and later that required the (very different) tonal resources
of Cavaille-Coll's instruments. Those require a solid reed pipes
chorus (jeu des anches).

There are electronic instruments far more suitable for learning your
way around Bach, Pachelbel, Buxtehude, and the like. One that
immediately comes to mind is Rodgers. Another is Allen.

Now, by way of background: I was one of the "pick-up team" that Dirk
Flentrop hired to erect the Busch-Reisinger organ in 1958. Listening
to Flentrop, Biggs, Charlie Fisk (C.B. Fisk in Gloucester) Walter
Holtkamp, and a bunch of others involved in the "Organ Renaissance" of
the mid-20th century talk about organs was, shall we say, "educational."

Later on, I did move to Oregon and worked for Tektronix, so had an
opportunity to discuss what Rodgers Jenkins was trying to do with his
instruments. When it comes to quality, Jenkins was ex-Tektronix, and
probably a lot better prepared than others to build something really
solid. I'm not so sure about Allen.

I think if you want a good practise organ for the really classical
organ literature you need a suitable instrument. Here's a used
Rodgers that looks a lot more suitable:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/REDUCED-Rodg...-/181379788474
Take a look at the stop list.

Hank

[Paul[_13_]]

On 4/18/2014 8:48 AM, Paul wrote:
On 4/18/2014 8:14 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:


Okay, these are basically home organs, and home organs are pretty much a
glut on the market because they were so severely oversold for so many
years.
For a long time, it seems like every family had one and now Aunt Margaret
has died and nobody knows what to do with her organ.

The E200 has drawbars which makes it look like a real Hammond. It's full
of discrete stuff... I can't remember if the dividers are cmos or
discrete.
This is the "church version" of the E100 which means it's in a slightly
nicer case.

On all of these organs, more money went into the case than into the
electronics
really.

The Wurlitzer 4300 is a little more primitive inside, all discrete and
there
was some germanium stuff in there too. It probably sounds more like a
real
Hammond, though, than any of the others.

Because all of these organs were owned by little old ladies and kept in
storage for years, expect vast amounts of deferred maintenance. Every
switch and contact will need cleaning, every electrolytic (and there are
LOTS of them) will need replacing. Guys buy them for ten bucks at yard
sales and then find out that a tech will charge them a thousand dollars
to clean it up and get it into reliable studio condition and they get
angry.

People will tell you they "work fine." They are lying, unless it has
been
recently rebuilt.
--scott


Yes, that's true about the contacts needing to be cleaned, and all
the electrolytics replaced. A guy on organforum.com mentions:

"The E200 will need about 40 high voltage electrolytic caps to sound
like new, (up to $3 each in some cases), the 4500 will need over 100 low
voltage transistor caps with two at $4 and the rest about $.09 each."

The only reason I'm considering picking one of these up is because
I would be doing all the restoration electronics work myself, and I've
had a life long love of the organ, and have never owned one before, and
would love to have actual foot pedals to practice Bach organ pieces on,
with the ultimate goal of being allowed to play a REAL pipe organ
someday (or even being a PAID church organist? My sightreading needs
work, but we can still dream, can't we? Haha! )

They pretty much agree on the organ forum that the 4500 will be
a better approximation of German pipes for Bach.

I suspect you may be right about the 4500 not being fully
functional, but it didn't sound like the owner ever really played
it. I'm supposed to try it out today....will keep you posted
on what I find...




Ok, I just checked the 4500 out. The E200 was already taken away.

Unfortunately, I cannot honesty say that I liked the sound of the 4500
at all. I'm not sure
this was because the electrolytic caps were dried out. All the keys
worked except for one,
but it just had that really chessy sounding casio-tone like sound, no
matter which tabs I depressed.

I shouldn't really try to compare it to my Korg X50, since that uses
actual samples from real pipe organs,
if I'm not mistaken.

I know people convert these to MIDI, and then are able to trigger
whatever sample they wish, but
I'm sure that's a extremely large project I'm not sure I want to tackle
at this point.

It's tough, because the pastor said he'd be tossing it in the trash come
next Saturday. It would be a
shame, really. Maybe I'll pick it up for the $50-60 it will cost to
move it, and just use it to practice
foot pedal technique?

Or do these organs always sound like **** when you first try them? Like
maybe I need to spend more
time with it, to figure out what I like?

[Paul[_13_]]

On 4/18/2014 3:39 PM, Hank wrote:

Huh? A Hammond for Bach? A "Mighty Wurtilizer" (sic) for Bach?
No, no, no, a thousand times now. Would you try to play Purcell's
(Jeremiah Clarke's) Trumpet Voluntary on a Vuvuzela or a Kazoo?

First of all, if you're going to play Bach, E. Power Biggs style, you
might consider the actual instrument that Biggs chose to have built
for the purpose. That is the Flentrop organ in the Busch-Reisinger
museum at Harvard.

Take a listen to Biggs playing Bach on the instrument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4pb_W_dSK8

These are sounds that you are not going to get out of a Hammond or a
Wurlitzer, for the very simple reason that they weren't designed to
do it.
Here is a link to a description of the instrument, how it came to be,
and a stoplist.
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/organ/organs.php
I'll point out that it's a relatively small (27 ranks) instrument,
with enough tonal resources to play other than Bach-era music. What
it won't play are some of the 19th century French whoppers (Vidor,
Franck) and later that required the (very different) tonal resources
of Cavaille-Coll's instruments. Those require a solid reed pipes
chorus (jeu des anches).

There are electronic instruments far more suitable for learning your
way around Bach, Pachelbel, Buxtehude, and the like. One that
immediately comes to mind is Rodgers. Another is Allen.

Now, by way of background: I was one of the "pick-up team" that Dirk
Flentrop hired to erect the Busch-Reisinger organ in 1958. Listening
to Flentrop, Biggs, Charlie Fisk (C.B. Fisk in Gloucester) Walter
Holtkamp, and a bunch of others involved in the "Organ Renaissance" of
the mid-20th century talk about organs was, shall we say, "educational."

Later on, I did move to Oregon and worked for Tektronix, so had an
opportunity to discuss what Rodgers Jenkins was trying to do with his
instruments. When it comes to quality, Jenkins was ex-Tektronix, and
probably a lot better prepared than others to build something really
solid. I'm not so sure about Allen.

I think if you want a good practise organ for the really classical
organ literature you need a suitable instrument. Here's a used
Rodgers that looks a lot more suitable:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/REDUCED-Rodg...-/181379788474
Take a look at the stop list.

Hank


First off, that's a magnificent E Power Biggs link you posted,
a recording I'm very familiar with, as I have the original vinyl
record.

I had no illusions a non-MIDI home organ was going to come
anywhere close to the sound of these recordings...I just wanted
something to practice on, so I could work towards the real thing.
But as I stated in my other post, the 4500 sounded like absolute
****. I don't think this was because of dried out electrolytics.
Some people convert these to MIDI, but then I might as well get
the Rodgers you posted.

I assume the sounds are sampled from real pipe organs on the
Rogers? Are you able to load and trigger your own samples?

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Paul wrote:

Unfortunately, I cannot honesty say that I liked the sound of the 4500
at all. I'm not sure
this was because the electrolytic caps were dried out. All the keys
worked except for one,
but it just had that really chessy sounding casio-tone like sound, no
matter which tabs I depressed.

Umm.... it's not a pipe organ. It's supposed to sound more like a
Hammond than a pipe organ.

"Cheesy Casio sound" to me indicates a tuning issue, since the most
distinct thing I hear in the cheap Casio keyboards of the eighties is
that the temperament is very odd.

I shouldn't really try to compare it to my Korg X50, since that uses
actual samples from real pipe organs,
if I'm not mistaken.

I know people convert these to MIDI, and then are able to trigger
whatever sample they wish, but
I'm sure that's a extremely large project I'm not sure I want to tackle
at this point.

That seems like a very silly thing to do, also.

It's tough, because the pastor said he'd be tossing it in the trash come
next Saturday. It would be a
shame, really. Maybe I'll pick it up for the $50-60 it will cost to
move it, and just use it to practice
foot pedal technique?

There are millions of these things out there. You can rescue one and learn
to do board rework on it if you want.

Or do these organs always sound like **** when you first try them? Like
maybe I need to spend more
time with it, to figure out what I like?

They won't sound like a pipe organ, they aren't for that.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul[_13_]]

On 4/18/2014 5:38 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Paul wrote:

Unfortunately, I cannot honesty say that I liked the sound of the 4500
at all. I'm not sure
this was because the electrolytic caps were dried out. All the keys
worked except for one,
but it just had that really chessy sounding casio-tone like sound, no
matter which tabs I depressed.

Umm.... it's not a pipe organ. It's supposed to sound more like a
Hammond than a pipe organ.

"Cheesy Casio sound" to me indicates a tuning issue, since the most
distinct thing I hear in the cheap Casio keyboards of the eighties is
that the temperament is very odd.

I shouldn't really try to compare it to my Korg X50, since that uses
actual samples from real pipe organs,
if I'm not mistaken.

I know people convert these to MIDI, and then are able to trigger
whatever sample they wish, but
I'm sure that's a extremely large project I'm not sure I want to tackle
at this point.

That seems like a very silly thing to do, also.

It's tough, because the pastor said he'd be tossing it in the trash come
next Saturday. It would be a
shame, really. Maybe I'll pick it up for the $50-60 it will cost to
move it, and just use it to practice
foot pedal technique?

There are millions of these things out there. You can rescue one and learn
to do board rework on it if you want.


Board rework I already know. It's foot pedal technique that
I want to learn.


Or do these organs always sound like **** when you first try them? Like
maybe I need to spend more
time with it, to figure out what I like?

They won't sound like a pipe organ, they aren't for that.
--scott


Umm....that's obvious! I had no illusions it would sound like
a real pipe organ. I just wanted something to practice foot technique
on, that was reasonably decent sounding.

But I couldn't even get it to sound like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Zjed9Mywgk

I believe the spectra tone speaker rotator was not
working:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neQncrijvwQ

Maybe I'll pick this up....if it doesn't work out,
I'll pass it on to someone else, or chuck it.

[John Haskey]

In article , Paul wrote:

These are both Craigslist freebies. (I also have
a chance at a Wurly 4300, but I want more foot pedals
and keys like on the 4500).

The 4500 apparently functions properly, they just
don't use it anymore at this church.

The E200 works, but has some lost functionality (not
sure the details).

Which one would be "better" for playing Bach, a la
E Power Biggs style?

Thanks for any feedback....

Either, add MIDI out to the key/pedals and run Hauptwerk on your PC or Mac.
Sounds will be orders of magnitude better than either organs built in
sound. You can even play 'Bach organs' by downloading the appropriate
sample set. You can start free and spend more if you like the sound.

---john.

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

John Haskey wrote:

... add MIDI out to the key/pedals and run Hauptwerk ....

Thank you!

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Paul[_13_]]

On 4/17/2014 9:20 AM, Paul wrote:

These are both Craigslist freebies. (I also have
a chance at a Wurly 4300, but I want more foot pedals
and keys like on the 4500).

The 4500 apparently functions properly, they just
don't use it anymore at this church.

The E200 works, but has some lost functionality (not
sure the details).

Which one would be "better" for playing Bach, a la
E Power Biggs style?

Thanks for any feedback....


Well, I picked up the 4500.

$60 plus $5 tip to move it.

It actually appears to work for the most part! I'm not even
sure all the electrolytics need to be replaced.

It sounds MUCH better now that I had some time to fiddle with the
settings. Is there a way to save the user settings? (I will take photos
of favorite settings for now)

The Spectratone actually works. The rubber band is a bit loose, but it
still rotates the speakers.

I wish I had removed the front legs first, as the movers cracked the
wood slightly, but they are still functional. Also, I wish I noticed
what appear to be retractable handles on the back!

The volume swell pedal was scratchy, but some Deoxit fixed that very
well. One key on lower manual doesn't play, so will have to fix that.

The reverb isn't the greatest, but it will do for now. Probably some
type of spring reverb....apparently can be helped with new e-caps.

Surprisingly, the slow cathedral rotation makes for a pretty useful voice.

Yes, you can practice and play Bach on a Wurlitzer, but then again,
you can play Bach on anything, even a Moog a la Wendy/Walter Carlos.

Definitely worth picking up for $65 if you have never had an organ
before, and want to practice foot pedal technique...

[Paul[_13_]]

On 4/27/2014 10:30 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
John Haskey wrote:

... add MIDI out to the key/pedals and run Hauptwerk ....

Thank you!


Actually, I've tried Hauptwerk, and didn't like the sound of it.

I've even heard REAL pipe organs on official releases that
sounded bad to me. Sometimes too flatulent of a bass sound,
or really cheesy and cheap sounding voices.

[Paul[_13_]]

On 4/27/2014 12:51 PM, Paul wrote:
On 4/27/2014 10:30 AM, Peter Larsen wrote:
John Haskey wrote:

... add MIDI out to the key/pedals and run Hauptwerk ....

Thank you!


Actually, I've tried Hauptwerk, and didn't like the sound of it.

I've even heard REAL pipe organs on official releases that
sounded bad to me. Sometimes too flatulent of a bass sound,
or really cheesy and cheap sounding voices.


Although this guy's setup sounds good:

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

He could have gotten better sound with a direct lineout
from the computer, but even with the cam mics, it's pretty good.

Maybe I'll MIDI the pedalboard in the future....

[John Haskey]

In article , Paul wrote:

Actually, I've tried Hauptwerk, and didn't like the sound of it.

With the dozens of sample sets that are available surely you could
have found something you liked! Or maybe you just don't like pipe
organs... :-)

The 'advanced' edition offers additional voicing control as well.

---john.