Pipes versus digital

Well it does to the people who post here... dispassionate and reasoned debate, with a good deal of humour thrown in for good measure.

Moderators: Dom Perignon, Casimir

Post Reply
User avatar
musicus
Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 8:47 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Pipes versus digital

Post by musicus »

Southern Comfort wrote:We have had a long discussion about digital v. demo. It's about time we stopped debating this and admitted that pipes are always better, if you're talking about a decent instrument.
We need to start a new thread and discuss what the best electronics are (yes, they exist - Phoenix isn't one of them) if pipes are not an option.
Yours provocatively.....

Nice try, SC :D

Now, where were we...?
musicus - moderator, Liturgy Matters
blog
Psalm Project
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:35 pm

Re: Pipes versus digital

Post by Psalm Project »

I thought the Phoenix vs whatever had died a conversational death a few threads back!
As you have suggested that Phoenix may not be one of the better... which have you played? and, what, in your opinion, is better? I'm dead curious!
The primary one (Phoenix) I played was up at Broughton Church near Preston... 4 manuals - 26 channels... they have a men's and boys choir (Anglican church) - the music programme is pretty darn good... I played it and I was most impressed (and I have a wide and long experience as an organist and, NO, my ears are not yet retired from all those years of loud organs and choirs) - I've not encountered a lot of pipe organs which do not even come close. All of that was on the back of having played a large Makin the previous day... also nice but worryingly pricey in relative terms.

HOWEVER............. Let's not progress this into more provocativeness!!!! life's too short!
FOR THE RECORD... pipes are best only when they do what they are supposed to. If you have a good one, hold onto it and treasure it. I've had to literally fight with many bad examples down through the years.
JW
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:46 am
Location: Kent

Re: Pipes versus digital

Post by JW »

Walsingham seem to have the best of both worlds - a good digital with speakers well placed, and a pipe organ. But the digital was used when I attended a Mass there - anyone know why? Is there something wrong with the pipe organ - it looks like a small tracker so may not fill the church adequately?
JW
asb
Posts: 251
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Gone away :(

Re: Pipes versus digital

Post by asb »

For what it's worth, Copeman Hart, being at the top end of the digital market price-wise, might be thought to have the best "system" but I have it on good authority that they have approached Viscount with a view to using their (Viscount's) latest system - and it really is good, believe me!
RobH
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 2:25 pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Pipes versus digital

Post by RobH »

JW wrote:Walsingham seem to have the best of both worlds - a good digital with speakers well placed, and a pipe organ. But the digital was used when I attended a Mass there - anyone know why? Is there something wrong with the pipe organ - it looks like a small tracker so may not fill the church adequately?


The small tracker organ is a very nice little classical organ by Schumacher (Belgian) which was installed when the Chapel of Reconciliation was built about 1982. When the Shrine Church is packed with people this little organ is not quite powerful enough, so, about 15 years ago, they bought the "Norwich" 3 manual digital organ which is used most weeks. Sadly, the pipe organ is only used regularly in Advent and Lent or when just the choir is singing. I have tuned and maintained this organ for the past 25 years
and it has a really exquisite sound. There is nothing wrong with it except lack of use!! By the way, this does not reflect on John Jordan the Director of Music who has transformed the music at the Shrine and is a personal friend of mine. RobH.
Post Reply