hedOrgan (virtual) PipeOrgan soundfont is Released

• Oct 9, 2019 - 23:08

35 Stops: 14+11+10,
1500+ mixture patches,
plus "Hall-Effect",
XML file for use with Musescore: "hedOrgan-instruments.xml",
a few Demo pieces,
a Template,
patch list,
readme.txt,
and recommended reverbation settings png files
are included.

https://www.hedsound.com/2019/10/hedorgan-pipe-organ-soundfont.html


Comments

I listened to your demo. It sounds like a 1960's electronic oscillator organ (indistinct, inarticulate mush) in a small wedding or funeral chapel. When I was 12 (back in dino days), I thought that was pretty neat. I know, not everyone can afford Hauptwerk (but there is GO), and there is the YouTube vs sound font issue. I admire the work you've done, but .... what can I say. Sounds like a "PipeOrgan", not a pipe organ. If this solves anyone's problems, then it's a blessing. Doesn't solve mine (unwillingness to acquire Google/YouTube account). What can I say?

Is there a demo with reverberation and all the realistic effects you can muster? Again, if it makes anyone happy, it's a blessing.

In reply to by BSG

The issue here is really clear: The rest of MuseScore soundfonts are real, sampled instruments. The oboe sounds like a real oboe because it is a real oboe. The pianos sounds like real pianos because they are real pianos. Organs just can't be sampled that way, they are a competing, much older (centuries) synthesizer technology, and substituting 50-year-old "organ synth" technology (my dying 1987 Allen digital sounds far superior, but not VPO) does not really fit in the MuseScore model in my opinion, unless the instrument is named "1960's Electronic Chapel Organ" (which unlike "Hammond B-3", is not a legit instrument in its own right). Sorry. I know how much work you have put into this.

In reply to by BSG

I also wrote on the site that this is not an audio font with real examples.
* "This sound font is an imitation of a real pipe organ. In other words, the samples have been simulated and idealized." *
Historical pipe-organ producers were trying to imitate the sound of cine-wave in the main pipes and thought it was ideal (their assumptions are wrong). I, in a sense, did what they were trying to achieve. So, if they could get real "sine-waves" in the pipes, the sound would look like this.

I imitated their efforts.
I also added features such as lining the pipes and intonation differences.
I also simulated the "chiff" and "steam" sounds in the pipes.

This sound-font was made 75 times from the beginning. Design bugs fixed, sound quality adjusted, mixtures and other settings a complete headache.

I think this is unique because of the way it is built and because it uses the ideal sound waves.
And without any shame and without any sign of humility, I can say: I am proud of my work. :D

In reply to by Ziya Mete Demircan

You should be proud of your work. It's a credible 1960's-oscillator-organ font. Your claim that "Historical pipe organ producers (builders) were trying to imitate the sounds of sine-wave in the main pipes ... and thought it was ideal" is .... well, at variance with my lifetime familiarity with organs and organ building and repertoire and history. What is your source for this exceptional assertion? Historical organ builders tried to build ensembles with their own colors, characteristics, solo members and choruses, with contrasts between divisions and choral ensemble of the whole and stops and combinations of distinct character and beauty --- and the top level goal was Psalm 150, "Let all that hath breath praise the Lord", and they studied and absorbed and propagated and evolved voicing techniques of previous masters in different lands and eras --- organ building, and voicing in particular is a whole section of a library, not " y = sin (2πft) ". Whether your font has value, and it might, there are more outré things in general MIDI, is separable from the issue of its relevance to the historical sounds and traditions of organ building (which is little). It does not solve the "organ problem"; VPO's pretty much do, but, as you note, do not fit into a freeware GPL score editor.

In reply to by BSG

Thanks for the review.
Unfortunately, I don't think like you.

I have GO software and I made many comparisons with it. (I've tried many real organ sample sets. The size of them reaches up to 7.5 to 12 GB)

I even listened to real organs from Youtube and other sites dedicated to pipe organ. And I think this sound-font is better than sixty percent of what I'm listening to.

The quality of the reverb unit of the Musescore software is unfortunately "better than nothing". Users have no choice but to use it.

Yes, there are better options, like Hal-reverb, which is much more realistic. There are even better ones. But if this doesn't integrate into Musescore, it's ridiculous to make a demo using it.

In reply to by Ziya Mete Demircan

I want to hear the best you can do with what you're offering. I had thought you said that there are optimal Zerberus synth reverb settings, but I guess you just said that that's not much. I want to hear a demo of what you think sounds better than VPO or a real pipe organ; what I heard on your site doesn't meet that description. This combination of MuseScore choral fonts and Hauptwerk (mixing 2 outputs) is my gold standard of what can be done in this mode: I should be happy with 1/3 that grandeur in an in-app solution https://musescore.com/bsg/scores/3627131 .

In reply to by BSG

Well, I take that back -- if you go to that URL and select "MuseScore Audio", you get the old "Only comes in one flavor MuseScore Plenum Pipe Organ", and in spite of its warts, it really is a sampling of a real organ with a registration appropriate for this work, and it sounds at least half as grand as the Hauptwerk track, and you can't get that with your sine wave "drawbars" -- if you can equal the "Old MuseScore Plenum Pipe Organ" with your synthesis, I'll eat every word I said and sing your product's praises.

In reply to by BSG

People's tastes cannot be discussed.
Nobody asks, "Why do you like this?"
I respect your criticism.

And I don't want you to take back any words you say, even if I create the exact equivalent of the instrument you're talking about. Because these days there are very few people who speak the truth without hesitation.

But I'm happy to offer people something I like, use and create.
And I am undoubtedly proud of its quality.

Notice: In my sound-font there is no sine wave drawbars. There are very well adjusted blends and mixtures.

In reply to by Ziya Mete Demircan

That's not bad at all! I am very pleasantly surprised! There are some artifacts that don't sound completely right (i.e., "pipes" at the wrong note, or something), and (not related) I can barely hear the descant in the last verse. Can you tell me what registrations you used in your font (I assume this is on the currently posted version)?

Bravo. I'm very pleasantly surprised!

In reply to by BSG

Yes, it's in the current version.

Upper Staff: G 2568
(Mix of: Mixture5 + Piccolo2' + Octave4' + Harmonic Flute8')

Lower Staff: S 59B
(Mix of: Gemshorn8', Fugara4', Progressio 2'+4')

Pedal: P 378
(Mix. of: Bass Violin 16', OctaveBass 8', Violoncello 8')
Note: I also set the bass up one octave. (8vb Bass Clef)

About Descant:
I didn't know what that first staff was, so I put a vocal-patch (Vocal Ooh) on there. But for some reason it doesn't sound as strong as the others (Maybe it's because of the vocal sound-font I use // it's my own production also:).

I've heard some false notes, but I don't know where they come from.
It's not in the instrument setting, because they all use the same series.
Maybe somewhere else in the sound-font; I don't know.

In reply to by Ziya Mete Demircan

I will look into it. By the way, in this style, both of the hands are supposed to be the same registration. In general, organs have several (not two) manuals, and which hand is where varies considerably with different styles and parts of compositions, and, needless to say, what voices are present on each. Specific "kinds" of manual and stops on them, and literature requiring them, feed on each other.

The descant is supposed to be a vocal (choral part), louder than the regular choral parts. I would recommend a diapason/principal, not a harmonic flute, as the basis of the registration. I suppose I have to play with your system and suggest credible combinations.

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.