[rodgersorgan] Re: Good organs, badly installed.



Analog vs digital organs

Here's my take: they are different. Different in technology, and different =
in sound. Much like silver-based (analog) photography vs. digital =
photography.

To me the "good vs. bad" organ is an issue more of "musical vs. non-musical=
". I like musical sounds, and "bad" organs (analog, digital, or pipe) =
don't sound very musical to my ears.

I think it's much easier to get a very musical, if not totally pipelike, =
sound from an analog organ using individual oscillators (like Rodgers) =
than it is to get musical results from digital organs. It took a very long =
time from its inception for digital organs to get a really good sound (my =
auditory opinion). Analog oscillator organs sounded very good even in =
their early years, though they improved--became more pipelike--over time.

To my ears, some digital organs have a rather flat, two-dimensional sound =
to them that I don't care for. There are some, however, that seem to be =
much better, and (at least from my Roland/Rodgers C-180, the only digital =
Rodgers I have extensive experience with), Rodgers seems to have gotten it =
"right" as far as digital organs.

Best regards,
Charlie

=============================================================================
New low pricing on books and music for the Rodgers Organ at www.frogmusic.com

=============================================================================
To unsubscribe or change mail delivery (digest, vacation)
go to www.frogmusic.com/rodgersmem.html

Other related posts: