The Elderly Novice Virtual Organist

The Virtual Pipe Organ Explained

1 Introduction

There are three types of instrument that could serve as a pipe organ:

1. A Real Pipe Organ
2. An Electronic (Digital) Organ
3. A Virtual (Pipe) Organ

The digital organ is replacing the pipe organ in buildings such as churches, while the virtual organ is supplanting the digital organ in the home. Here's why...

1.1 Real Pipe Organs

These date from antiquity; selection of individual stops was introduced around 1450.

They are typically very large and very expensive; only a very simple instrument with just a few small ranks could be accommodated in a normal room. And then, apart having very limited capabilities, it might not sound very pleasant, as a pipe organ requires a favorable acoustic environment with plenty of space for its sound to blossom.

Although pipe organs normally have a very long lifespan, they require a significant amount of maintenance, including regular tuning. The high purchase price and maintenance costs of a pipe organ (many times that of a digital one) make it uneconomic for ordinary use. For this reason, apart from being uncommon in the home, pipe organs are frequently being replaced by digital organs in buildings such as churches.

However, while the sound quality from electronic organs is better now than it used to be, it is still not really good. Only a pipe organ is the real thing, and it remains the instrument of choice for quality applications.

1.2 Electronic (Digital) Organs

These have been around since the 1930s. Early electronic organs were analog and used vacuum tubes; they were often referred to as "toasters" because of the heat they produced. Transistors were introduced in the late 1950s, and digital organs date from the 1970s.

Most, such as the majority of Hammond organs, are suitable only for popular music. However, others are aimed at replacing a traditional pipe organ in buildings such as churches. Digital organs are becoming increasingly common in this role, due to their considerably lesser cost and size, while producing adequate sound for accompanying congregational singing. Digital organs are also often used to emulate a pipe organ in the home.

They are normally sold as complete self-contained systems, including console and audio components. This eases purchase and maintenance, thus making them attractive to institutions such as churches. When installed in buildings, they may be voiced in location just as would be the case with a pipe organ, and use custom-designed audio systems. In most cases, the sounds are synthesized from recorded pipe organ samples, but they may also be modeled by additive synthesis.

The quality of sound produced by an electronic organ is determined firstly by the generation (synthesis) of sounds, and secondly by their reproduction (via amplifiers, and especially, speakers). But although the sound from even the best high-fidelity loudspeakers does not match that from natural sound sources, the bigger problem appears to be in sound generation.

Unlike with the piano, the changes and irregularities that make pipe organs sound natural are subtle; nonetheless (and perhaps even because of this), they seem to be difficult to model. Although one might expect that with developments in digital signal processing, a highly realistic and natural sound could be achieved, this is clearly not the case; results are typically sterile and lacking in natural liveliness. If the organ is used in an acoustically-dead location (such as in the home), reverberation must also be synthesized, and this is also likely to lack realism.

It is my view (clearly shared by many others) that the sounds from an electronic organ vary from (at best) bland, to (at worst) ghastly. The good news, if the organ has MIDI output, is that it may be possible to ditch the built-in sounds and convert it to a virtual organ...

1.3 Virtual (Pipe) Organs

The virtual (pipe) organ (sometimes referred to as a VPO) is a much more recent development than the digital organ. Complete software based on individual pipe samples was first available only in 2002, and was then limited by the processing power of computers at that time. Before the turn of the millennium, virtual organs for general use were not feasible at all, due to insufficient computing power.

Unlike a digital organ, a virtual organ:

• is based on a general-purpose computer, instead of using dedicated hardware and firmware.
• uses recordings of individual pipes from a real organ, rather than synthesized sounds.

Recordings of individual pipes are combined in real time in response to messages from MIDI devices and controls on the computer user interface. This can provide extremely realistic modeling of a real instrument.

Moreover, while a digital organ is limited to one fixed set of sounds, a virtual organ offers a choice of numerous instruments of many different types. As well as classical organs, these include theatre organs, and other instruments such as harpsichords. A virtual organ may have many of these installed, and a different instrument can be loaded at any time.

For the best possible realism, several high-quality recordings are made of each note for each stop (so, except for multi-rank stops, each individual pipe). This is called sampling; this term reflects the fact that the sound from a pipe varies, so recordings of the same pipe will differ somewhat. Each recording is known as a sample, and the set of samples required to model an organ is known as a sample set.

Even a moderate-sized pipe organ requires thousands of samples, and to avoid data accessing delays resulting from streaming, all must be loaded into memory before the virtual organ is used. With a very large number of recorded samples, which must be of a high quality, the sample set may require a very large amount of RAM. Processing requirements are also likely to be high, due to the large number of samples that must be handled simultaneously (the polyphony).

A general-purpose computer offers much more processing power than that of the digital organ. Nonetheless, high-quality modeling of a large pipe organ without streaming data from disk became possible only with the advent of 64-bit computing. This removed the 4 GB limit on RAM size, which was furthered by falling memory prices. Multi-core processors allowed the greater polyphony required by larger organs.

MIDI devices include keyboards (manuals and pedalboard), pistons (thumb and toe), and expression pedals. Stop controls are typically operated from a touchscreen, which makes it easy to accommodate numerous different organs with different stop layouts. However, some virtual organs feature MIDI drawknobs and/or tabs that give a better look and feel.

Unlike the digital organ, the virtual organ can take many forms. It is possible to assemble a virtual organ from components (which are often used or self-built) at relatively low cost. These systems exhibit considerable diversity; some simulate a real pipe organ console, while others with multiple screens expose the computer function. As well as self-assembled and custom-built systems, a number of complete turnkey and computer-ready products are now available that can make purchase and assembly as easy as with a digital organ.

But the numerous options may make choosing a suitable virtual organ something of a challenge. The section Furniture and Assembly should help the prospective purchaser to make the right choices.

1.4 Virtual versus Digital

While a digital organ is limited to one fixed set of sounds of questionable quality, a virtual organ can accurately model a large number of real instruments. For this reason, a virtual organ is probably a better choice than a digital one for the home enthusiast.

However, a digital organ is easier to buy and use, as:

• it comes only as a single package
• it uses dedicated hardware and firmware

But this ease of purchase and use also comes with disadvantages.

A single package is easy to choose and buy, and having maintenance under one roof makes it attractive to institutions. However, there are far fewer options available to the purchaser, and little or no ability to upgrade the system to meet future needs. It is possible for an individual to put together a component-based virtual organ with a much more favorable quality/cost ratio than that of a package, and tailored exactly to user requirements.

Moreover, turnkey virtual organs have now been available for several years, and the well-heeled might have a system custom made. There are also virtual organs on the market that include the furniture and MIDI devices, requiring only the addition of a computer system. It is also possible to convert a digital organ to a virtual one this way.

Having dedicated hardware and firmware makes a digital organ easy to use. In contrast, virtual organ software is far from straightforward, and requires a significant learning curve. To a large degree this is because it is general-purpose, being designed to work with a wide variety of different systems and sample sets. There may be numerous problems getting the system to work, particularly in connection of MIDI devices. And using a Windows-based computer can be problematic, especially turning the system on and off.

But the other side of this is much greater function. Virtual organ software, while complex, provides a rich array of features. The computer can also be used for auxiliary applications; for example, displaying music, playing audio and video recordings of one's favorite interpretations, and a metronome. But the computer should otherwise be dedicated to Hauptwerk, and computer preparation is vital to maximize performance and reliability.

And computer hardware made with ubiquitous components is easier for the end user to maintain. With a digital organ, servicing would almost certainly have to be done in conjunction with the manufacturer, and require special parts.

But quite different criteria apply to the home enthusiast and an institution such as a church. In the latter case, the digital organ will probably continue to prevail, especially since the difficulties with using a virtual organ in a public building may be considered unacceptable. And such an institution would probably have a maintenance contract with the supplier.

2 System Software

This section describes the Hauptwerk virtual organ software from Milan Digital Audio. There is also a portal to other virtual pipe organ systems.

Software is discussed before hardware, as this primarily determines system capabilities. All Hauptwerk virtual organs have the same underlying function, even though their hardware ranges from the sublime to the gorblimey!

2.1 Summary of Hauptwerk

The most substantial and best-supported virtual organ software is Hauptwerk. Being introduced in 2002, Hauptwerk is now a mature product that will work with a wide range of hardware and software.

With several hundred sample sets available, Hauptwerk offers a far greater choice than any other system. These range from positives to large cathedral and concert organs; there are also theatre organs, harpsichords, and other instruments. Supported computer platforms are Windows and macOS (unfortunately, not Linux).

Hauptwerk also has the richest feature set; the following is a brief summary of some of its features:

• Multiple combination sets, each holding master pistons, combination stepper, and master crescendos.
• Master pistons comprise 100 generals, 60 scoped (generalized divisionals), and 60 reversibles.
• Combination stepper with 1000 frames, and various cueing/triggering and editing facilities.
• Master crescendo with 4 banks and 31 stages.
• Master couplers, including sub/super-octave, pedal bass, and melody.
• Floating divisions, including floating expression pedals, and use with divisional pistons.
• Modeling of swell boxes, wind supply, and tremulants with rate adjustment.
• Per-pipe voicing, including tuning, amplitude, and brightness.
• Comprehensive audio mixing functions, supporting routing of selected virtual pipework to multiple audio output channels.
• Multiple levels of real-time impulse response reverb.
• Adjustment of pitch and temperament, including transposer, and use with externally-defined temperaments.
• MIDI recorder, with adjustment of playback speed (and possibly registration and other settings).
• Support for 32-character LCD MIDI output panels, enabling emulation of a real pipe organ console.
• Auto-detect (previously known as MIDI Learn). This enables rapid assignment of function to a MIDI device or computer keyboard key, by clicking mouse button 2 on a screen control, then operating the MIDI control or key to assign to. Virtual devices that may be assigned include:
  • keyboards, expression pedals, stops, and any other controls on the organ console display
  • controls displayed on control panels and toolbars (including especially those for playing aids)
  • main window pulldown menu items, enabling Hauptwerk to be operated without a monitor, mouse, or keyboard

Hauptwerk comes in two editions: Lite and Advanced. Most users will probably need the Advanced edition, especially as the maximum polyphony allowed with the Lite edition remains at 1024 (in the Advanced edition it is 32768). This was not such a severe limitation when it was introduced with HW 2.10 in 2006 as it is now with greater hardware capabilities and larger instruments.

Both editions are available on monthly or yearly subscription, with a Perpetual license available for the Advanced edition (only) at $599. In my opinion, this price is reasonable for a high-quality feature-rich product with a limited market.

But as a yearly subscription currently costs about 40% of this price, long-term ongoing licensing on this basis would clearly be highly uneconomic. While it would include updates, these are now pretty thin. Licensing would be appropriate if Hauptwerk would be used only for an occasional month, but such use would be uncommon.

However, another reason for those comfortable with making regular payments would be to continue support of Hauptwerk, which is a niche product that deserves support, and whose sales are probably in decline after an initial surge.

2.2 Development of Hauptwerk

Hauptwerk was originated by Martin Dyde in 2001, with the initial release following eighteen months later (during which time he had a day job!). Apart from leading to the current Hauptwerk, his pioneering work is also the basis of GrandOrgue. This was originally a commercial product called myOrgan that was introduced in 2006. It used the same organ definition file format and screens as Hauptwerk 1, and thus exploited the rapidly-growing Hauptwerk sample set base. It was withdrawn after complaints of plagiarism, and in 2009 was released under the Creative Commons license as GrandOrgue.

From 2006, Martin Dyde traded Hauptwerk through a company named Crumhorn Labs. In September 2008, he sold his company to Milan Digital Audio. From now on, the business and administrative side would be handled by Brett Milan, with whom he appears to have had a close association since 2001, and who played some of the demo recordings for version 1. The St Annes church where the included sample set was recorded is in Moseley, Birmingham, UK, in the area where Martin Dyde was living when he originated Hauptwerk.

2.2.1 Versions

HW 1 was released in August 2002. It included the original version of the St Annes organ sample set (in mono, and only 600 MB). It was for Windows only, and shareware, protected by product key (a chime rang periodically if unregistered). Limitations included: only one loop and release sample supported; no phase alignment of release samples; no harmonic modeling of the swell simulation (only volume changes); no support for ASIO drivers. Polyphony was limited to 2048.

HW 2 was released in May 2006. It is a very different product to HW 1, which could be considered a prototype. From HW 2.10, it came in three editions: Evaluation, Studio, and Concert. It introduced piracy protection via a HASP USB dongle. The Organ Definition File format was redesigned; apart from supporting much greater function, this meant that new Hauptwerk sample sets would not work on GrandOrgue (then myOrgan). The above limitations in HW 1 were removed. There was also more flexible MIDI configuration. The Concert edition introduced per-pipe voicing, audio routing and multi-channel audio, wind supply modeling, and maximum polyphony of 4096 (the Studio edition introduced a limit of 1024). It was available as a VSTi plugin. In version 2.20, a port to the Mac was added, and polyphony in the Advanced edition increased to 8192.

HW 3 was released in November 2007. The three editions were now called Free, Basic, and Advanced. It now supported macOS as well as 64-bit Windows (although the initial macOS port was only 32-bit). Enhancements available only with the Advanced edition included multiple (up to 4) console windows (thus for example, enabling two touchscreens to display the left and right jambs), and enhanced per-pipe voicing. The Organ Definition File format was significantly extended. The polyphony limit was increased in the Advanced edition from 8192 to the current 32768.

HW 4 was released in April 2011. It also came in Free, Basic, and Advanced editions. This was a big release, which featured a newly-recorded St Annes sample set that took advantage of increasing memory capacity, as well as new Hauptwerk function. Among the other numerous improvements were: a redesigned interface optimized for touchscreens, redesigned settings windows, a MIDI recorder / player, MIDI learn (auto-detect), real-time performance and activity meters, user-defined combinations and crescendos, floating divisions, master couplers, and pitch adjustment independent of temperament. It also introduced the Custom Organ Design Module. Enhancements available only with the Advanced edition included a VST/AU link to allow streaming of audio and/or MIDI to an external application (this replaced the previous VSTi). The Basic edition limited sample set size to 3 GB.

HW 5 was released in December 2019. This also introduced many new features, although perhaps fewer than HW 4. HW 5 removed the Free edition, and introduced subscription pricing for both editions (Lite and Advanced) as an alternative to a perpetual license. Piracy protection was now by iLok License Manager. A 64-bit platform was now required. Enhancements in both editions included: operation of controls via MIDI and mouse, modeling of tracker action and velocity sensitivity, support for multi-layered samples. Enhancements available only with the Advanced edition included: real-time impulse response reverb, improved audio routing and multi-channel audio, more per-rank voicing adjustment, and enhanced air-flow turbulence modeling. The Lite edition removed the 3 GB sample size limit, but retained the 1024 limit on polyphony; it also removed the AU/VST link.

HW 6 was released in November 2020. Now the Lite edition was available only on subscription. As can be seen, this follows hard on the heels of HW 5, but offers few significant improvements. About the only functional (as opposed to user interface) enhancement is a higher-definition audio option. But like the other enhancements, this has very limited scope, and will not benefit most users.

HW 7 was released in January 2022 with even less, but including a revision of the higher-definition audio. It seems that this has convinced many people that the sound quality from Hauptwerk improves with each new release!

HW 8 was released in August 2023 with a similar level of new function. Version 6 was now considered obsolete and no longer supported.

2.2.2 Conclusion

Since the introduction of subscription pricing in HW 5, there has clearly been a policy of much more frequent major versions, even though they have little new to offer (which the release information struggles to candy floss). This is no doubt to both promote the purchase of subscription licenses, and to increase sales of updates to those who insist on having a perpetual license.

But as Hauptwerk is now a mature product, future versions are likely to continue to include only superficial changes. This is not only because important core function not yet included is little or none, but also because changes in this area would impact product stability. So new features are likely to be at best "nice to have" (and then probably only for a minority of users). My obsolete HW 6 leaves nothing that I desire that is likely to be remedied by an update.

Although many people always want to be up-to-date with the latest version, I am personally averse to making changes without some compelling reason. The maxim if it ain't broke, don't fix it applies; especially as the process of "fixing" it could break it, due to incompatibilities or other problems with the update. Many people still use HW 4.2, in consideration of what more recent releases offer.

Brett Milan must be concerned about maintaining his revenue stream. As Hauptwerk became increasingly viable, there would initially have been a surge in sales, due to a brand new market for virtual organs. This would include those replacing or modifying a digital organ, and those for whom a home organ was not previously an option. But as most of those in the market for a virtual organ will by now already have one, new sales will be in decline. And the maturity of the product would also limit revenue from upgrades.

But all this indicates that it may be a good idea to buy upgrades (or a subscription), so that Hauptwerk has continued support. Martin Dyde has done such a fantastic job of providing rich function in a stable product, that he has made it very hard to improve. Unfortunately, software developers tend to get more recognition for introducing problems then fixing them, than not putting them in in the first place!

So please buy upgrades or a subscription as you see fit. Just don't expect each upgrade to be packed full of new goodies or offer better sound quality! At least the thinness of the new releases should make problems from upgrading unlikely.

2.3 Other Pipe Organ Software

Hauptwerk remains the most capable virtual organ system, and is the reference by which other virtual organ systems can be judged. However, it is not the only act in town; the following other software can also be used to recreate a pipe organ:

Being based on Hauptwerk 1, GrandOrgue is the product most similar to Hauptwerk, and appears to be a viable low-budget alternative to it. Linux is supported, as well as Windows and macOS. A number of the earlier Hauptwerk sample sets are available for GrandOrgue; of particular note are those from Piotr Grabowski. However, the vast majority of Hauptwerk sample sets are for later versions of Hauptwerk only. A useful page from one of the developers of GrandOrgue is Lars Virtual Pipe Organs, on which can be found a number of free sample sets of Swedish organs.

3 Sample Sets

With several hundred sample sets available for Hauptwerk, finding the right ones may be more daunting than choosing the virtual organ hardware. However, Hauptwerk comes with the St Annes, Moseley sample set.

3.1 General Criteria

The next section Sampling discusses the technical criteria to consider when choosing a sample set.

3.1.1 Price

Some sample sets cost well over US$1000, some are completely free, while others require a donation to be made or have other strings attached. In any case, donations are always welcome; producing a recorded sample set clearly involves a considerable amount of work.

The most significant factor determining price is the number of speaking stops, as this primarily determines the amount of work involved in production. However, some instruments are expensive for the number of stops, particularly historical baroque organs. These may require payment of a significant sampling fee, while in other cases there would be no charge.

Sample sets that are a bit long in the tooth may be cheap for the number of stops, although some ten or so years old may nonetheless be to the highest standards, and sell at commensurate prices. The main limitation with such sets is lack of multiple channels to give different perspectives (although they may have quadraphonic surround sound).

A number of organs come in different editions, with cut-down versions available at lower prices (and sometimes enhanced versions at higher prices). Some large organs come in multiple volumes, with all volumes being required to complete the stop list.

3.1.2 Compatibility

In choosing a sample set, one should check that it is compatible with the version of Hauptwerk to be used. Many will work with Hauptwerk 4.2 and upwards (but usually not 4.0); however, a number of sample sets require later versions. This information, together with RAM and other requirements, can be found on the supplier's website.

Although the sample set for a small positive may be only a few hundred MB in size, a full load of a large organ with multiple channels can easily require more than 64 GB (although 128 GB should be enough for most if not all requirements). A high-quality sample set of a given instrument will typically be larger than one of lower quality. However, other factors are involved; for example, dry sample sets are usually significantly smaller than wet ones.

Many sample sets are encrypted, and require the iLok dongle (or account) to be updated before they can be used. Sample sets may require the Advanced edition of Hauptwerk; this may simply be because limitations (especially polyphony) in the Lite edition would not support proper use of the organ.

One should also check the small print for any restrictions that limit the way in which the sample set can be used. Some disallow any modification of the sound the sample set produces, such as truncating release samples. The terms may also only permit use in the home, and require a special license for public performance.

3.1.3 User Interface

This concerns the user controls, and in particular what screens are available. All sample sets have a main console display with stop controls, keyboards, and any expression pedals. These may be assigned to the appropriate MIDI devices with Auto-detect. Other types of screen may include:

• Stops / Jambs
• Crescendo Setter
• Mixer
• Wind Supply
• Organ Information

Stop and jamb screens may include photo-realistic left and right jamb displays, which may be in both landscape and portait formats. Many of the more recent sample sets also have a simplified stop layout screen, which is more compact and is likely to be easier to use than photo-realistic jamb displays.

Stop controls should include speaking stops, tremulants, and couplers. The supplied couplers might usefully be augmented by the Hauptwerk master couplers (but these do not include Unison Off, which must be provided by the sample set). The sample set controls may also include divisional and/or general pistons; however, these are not typically provided, as the Hauptwerk registration function (master pistons) renders them unnecessary.

Sample sets often provide function that is not available in the real pipe organ. Hauptwerk, in turn, may provide function not present in either the pipe organ or the sample set.

3.1.4 Composite Sample Sets

While most sample sets feature only a single instrument, some are composite, meaning that they include samples taken from more than one instrument. Many of these are cheap or free, but require recorded samples from other suppliers (often free demos). This involves some compromise, partly as the samples will be from different acoustic environments. Nonetheless, this re-use of quality samples of known origin may be a good way to get a decent large instrument at low cost.

However, some suppliers offer composites that contain their own samples of unspecified origin, often at prices only somewhat lower than those of equivalent real single instruments. In the absence of clear information to the contrary, one should assume that such samples are synthesized rather than recorded, and therefore likely to deliver quality more like that of a digital organ than a virtual one.

3.2 Sampling

Although this section is based on Hauptwerk, the same quality criteria apply regardless of the virtual organ system used.

3.2.1 Note Phases

In good-quality sample sets, each note of each stop is normally recorded individually (so, except for mixtures and any other multiple-rank stops, each pipe).

And there should be several recordings (samples) of each stop / note. This is to accurately model the three phases of each note played:

The use of individual recordings of a real instrument eliminates issues with artificiality that affect electronic organs. However, each recording of the sustained section is only a sample of a few seconds; if the note is longer than this (as many notes on the organ are), the sample must be repeated for as long as necessary. As sustained notes are not perfectly uniform, this can result in repetition apparent to the listener. Another issue is that the effect of the reverberation depends on how long the note has been sustained.

To avoid the first artifact, good sample sets typically feature multiple recordings of the sustained sound of each pipe. These are known as loop samples, of which there may be several (often up to 12, sometimes even more). With longer notes, different loop samples of the pipe are used in a random sequence, thus removing any apparent repetition. This is particularly important for long sustained notes, which are most common in the pedals (but which may include stops coupled from manual divisions).

To provide more accurate reverberation, good sample sets include multiple release samples. There are typically three release samples for short, long, and medium-length notes (sometimes more). The Hauptwerk User Guide indicates that these have a greater effect on the sound than multiple loop samples, and having multiple releases is particularly important for clarity when playing short notes.

A few sample sets offer multiple attack/sustaim samples (these contain some sustained sound after the chiff). There will probably not be enough to accurately model a tracker response in conjunction with a velocity-sensitive keyboard. However, there may be other benefits to realism. In general though, multiple attack/sustain samples are less important than multiple releases and multiple loops.

In practice, the number of attack/loop/release samples needed to achieve a given quality level varies. Good producers will use as many as they consider necessary to effectively remove audible artifacts. So it is not necessarily the case that a sample set with more such samples is better than one with fewer.

3.2.2 Recorded Ambience

Samples are normally supplied in stereo pairs. Most include reverberation, but some are intended to record the organ only (without any effect of the building). A sample set may contain multiple sets of samples (channels) to give different perspectives.

Wet samples are recorded at some distance from the organ to include the contribution from the building. Dry samples are recorded very close to the pipes (often inside the organ case), to exclude as much as possible of the ambience. Samples recorded near the rear of the building at a greater distance from the pipes will be wetter than those recorded near the console. Sample sets may also be described as semi-dry or moist.

Wet sample sets are those most commonly used in the home, as the pipe organ can sound quite unpleasant without natural reverberation. However, it is important to choose sample sets with an appropriate level of wetness. Some have only a minimal amount of reverberation, while others have so much that it is difficult to tell where the note ends and the reverberation starts.

For optimum clarity (of paramount importance for practicing) it is better to use sample sets that are less wet. And one could always add reverberation to a sample set that is too dry (although the results may be less than ideal). However, there is no completely satisfactory way to remove excessive reverberation. Hauptwerk allows release samples to be truncated as a "dry" simulation, but the attack/sustain and loop samples also contain reverberation. And making the sound less wet by reducing the release sample length would probably not yield natural results.

Also, samples recorded not too far from the pipes are likely to correspond more to what the organist hears at the console. Organists may not like hearing themselves as they would on a CD.

Dry sample sets are available for use in a building where there is already a lively acoustic ambience, or with separate reverb. These have the advantage of requiring both less polyphony and less RAM, through having shorter release tails. They also in principle offer greater flexibiliy, in enabling the ambience to be generated independently as required.

However, the hardware and/or software to generate suitable artificial reverberation may be much more expensive than the CPU and RAM requirement for wet samples. And it may simply not be possible to generate a pleasing and natural ambience artificially. The Advanced edition of Hauptwerk offers real-time impulse response reverb, but this increases CPU usage, and would not be as natural as the original ambience.

Multi-channel sample sets allow flexible tailoring of natural ambience, by supplying wet samples recorded from several different positions. The earlier multi-channel sample sets gave quadraphonic surround sound, to be reproduced by two front speakers and two rear. The more recent ones often have three stereo pairs (six channels) that may be designated as (close, middle, far); some sample sets have more channels. These may be used individually to give different natural perspectives. However, they are often mixed down to stereo (or perhaps more than two output channels) to give a wide range of different presentations.

Loading all available channels may require a considerable amount of RAM. However, it may not be appropriate to mix all available channels, and those required may be selected when loading the sample set. In any case, it is easy nowadays to provide plenty of RAM.

3.2.3 Audio Quality

The quality of the supplied samples should be at least CD (44.1 kHz / 16 bits), but is usually higher; often 48 kHz / 24 bits. Typically, other quality levels (for example, 16 or 20 bits) sre available to reduce the RAM requirement. Sample set producers usually provide information giving the RAM requirement for different quality levels, as well as channels.

Encoding to fewer than 24 bits results in a higher noise level; however, even 16-bit samples may involve little or no perceptible compromise. But although CD-quality is fine for the end result (tests have shown that SACD offers no discernible improvement), the extra resolution of the supplied samples over CD guards against any losses due to processing by Hauptwerk. Recording of samples is often done at 96 kHz, to guard against degradation that may result from sample processing such as noise reduction.

But other factors such as the microphones used, their placement, and any processing done on the samples are likely to have a much greater effect on perceived sound quality than these technical parameters. In particular, the quality of the microphones is paramount - and high-grade ones cost hundreds of dollars.

3.2.4 Noise Reduction

Each recorded sample contains the environmental background noise; in particular, that of the blower. An adverse consequence of combining samples of individual pipes is that this background noise is cumulated for each sample involved in the registration. The greater the polyphony, the greater will be the summed noise level. It is therefore usual to apply noise reduction to the samples, with the aim of eliminating this background noise.

Being relatively constant, blower noise can be reduced fairly effectively by phase cancelation. However, noise reduction inevitably impairs sound quality, so the sound from the blower should first be muffled if possible, to minimize the amount of processing required. External noises, such as from traffic, are more difficult to eliminate, so sampling is often done in the middle of the night.

Sound effects such as wind and action noise may be added separately in separate samples. However, those interested only in making music may consider such noises to be extraneous. If there is no built-in option to disable these sounds, this can be done by simply excluding the relevant samples when the organ is loaded.

3.2.5 Tremulants

Many sample sets include recorded tremulants, which should be used in preference to artificially generated ones. But as providing a full set of recorded tremulants is likely to substantially increase the amount of work in producing the sample set, many offer only partial support. For example, sampled tremulants may not be available for all stops, or they may not be sampled chromatically.

Where there are no recorded tremulants, there may be tremulant samples generated artificially. They may also be modeled by Hauptwerk according to parameters in the Organ Definition File (in the same way as the swell box is modeled). However, tremulants generated by Hauptwerk involve additional CPU load, and possible audio quality issues.

3.2.6 Synthesized Ssmples

In many sample sets, not all samples are recorded; some are synthesized from the recorded ones.

This is done in quality sample sets in the following situations:

• To extend a limited real organ keyboard compass to that of a typical keyboard.
• To generate one or more useful stops extra to the original organ from recorded stops.
• To deal with bad notes in the real organ, by synthesizing them from their neighbors.
• To generate more realistic tremulants than those from the general Hauptwerk function.

But synthesis of the following is inconsistent with a quality sample set:

• Some notes of the scale from the others, instead of sampling chromatically.
• Complete original organ stops from similar ones, instead of recording each stop.

And where there is no information about the samples, one cannot be sure that any of them were recorded.

3.3 List of Suppliers

This is a portal to all known Hauptwerk sample set suppliers, each with a summary of the instruments offered. The term supplier includes both original producers, and those supplying sample sets produced by others.

I believe that the suppliers listed below encompass all original recorded sample sets ever produced. The list thus includes those that are defunct, but whose products may nonetheless still be available somewhere. However, in some caases, some of the older sample sets are no longer available, presumably on quality grounds. There may be some small producers of composites not listed.

The search page of Contrebombarde appears to offer the best way to find sample sets, but it is often not possible to specify appropriate search criteria, and information may be incomplete or inaccurate. For example, even though "Theatre organs" is a clear-cut category, a simple search on this returned only a single match; and that with a bad link to the supplier website. But by browsing the following list, one can easily find source information on 31 theatre organs from 4 suppliers.

It is important to check out carefully the sound quality offered by the sample set, as this varies considerably. Many supplier websites have sound clips made using their sample sets. It may also be possible to find demo videos on youTube, and user-contributed sound clips on the Contrebombarde website.

To ease finding the most relevant suppliers, the list is broken down as follows:

Major Suppliers

Offer a significant number of original sample sets featuring instruments of different types.

Specialized Suppliers

Offer essentially one type of instrument (indicated in the description).

Minor Original Suppliers

Offer one or two originally-recorded instruments (enumerated in the description).

Composites Only

Made from third-party recorded samples, or own samples of unspecified origin.

KEY:
No supplier website found.
No new sample sets for over five years.
Sample sets are with another supplier.
Sample sets cannot be found.

3.3.1 Major Suppliers

3.3.2 Specialized Suppliers

3.3.3 Minor Original Suppliers

3.3.4 Composites Only

4 MIDI Devices

These form the front end of the system, being used primarily to handle the player's input into Hauptwerk. MIDI should not be confused with audio, which is the output from Hauptwerk, and is thus at the other end of the chain. See Using MIDI.

MIDI devices used in virtual organs include the following:

• Manuals
• Pedalboard

The block of manuals usually contains Thumb Pistons, except where generic keyboards are used. Most systems also have Expression Pedals (also called swell shoes) and Toe Pistons (also called toe studs). Some systems have physical Stop Controls (drawknobs and/or tabs), instead of (or perhaps in addition to) using a touchscreen. There may be Other Devices, which are most useful to support input and display where there is no accessible touchscreen.

Devices must be MIDI-enabled to work with Hauptwerk or other virtual organ software. Those from electronic organs built since the mid 1980s will probably already have MIDI. However, it will be necessary to MIDIfy devices from a pipe organ or old electronic organ. But using parts from such an instrument could potentially enable a high-quality system to be obtained at moderate cost, as these parts often sell for considerably less than what they would cost new.

Components designed for pipe organs offer excellent quality, but at a substantial price. On a real pipe organ, these items would account for only a small fraction of the total cost, so there would be little reason to economize on them. And pipe organs are designed to last perhaps hundreds of years. However, products for the consumer market are likely to be much less well built.

Compared to the popular music mainstream, devices for virtual organs occupy a niche market. The lack of competition results in little choice of consumer products, with high prices often being accompanied by poor construction quality. In the consumer domain, it is possible to pay prices similar to those of pipe organ components, for a much lesser standard. And the most widely-advertised and best-known products are not always (or even usually) the best!

4.1 Manuals

Keyboard quality determines both playability and durability. And with specialized organ manuals, the keyboard block is likely to be the most expensive component in the system. Yet information from commercial vendors and others often makes no mention of where the manuals came from, preferring instead to focus on features that are evident in the photos.

Self-building manual keyboards would almost certainly not be feasible. And although used pipe organ manuals are available at attractive prices, re-purposing them would involve a substantial amount of work, and would probably be too difficult for most people. So they will usually either be bought new, or as part of a used ready-built system.

New organ manuals are expensive, costing upwards of US$500 or so for a single bare keyboard. On top of this, there will be substantial additional costs in mounting them into a block of manuals with pistons and MIDI output. For this reason, many systems use considerably cheaper and more widely-available generic keyboards. However, they may not be satisfying to play, and have consumer-grade construction with a limited lifespan.

With their high cost, specialized organ manuals could reasonably be expected to last a lifetime (as indeed would those used in pipe organs). But most of those used in virtual organs have the same type of consumer-grade construction found in generic keyboards. These may last very few years before problems develop requiring specialized servicing and parts. When choosing virtual organ components, it always pays to look under the covers and think long term; and this especially applies to the manuals.

4.1.1 General Features

4.1.1.1 Attributes

Specialized organ manuals differ from piano or generic keyboards in having a very slightly narrower scale. But as piano keys are less than 1% wider than organ keys, this is unlkely to cause difficulties.

They are also designed to be built into a keyboard block with mounting hardware, wood key cheeks, and rails into which pistons may be fitted. In addition, they will require electronics to enable them to be connected as MIDI devices. A generic keyboard will come complete in a case with a MIDI connector (usually with USB support).

4.1.1.2 Construction

The traditional method of organ manual construction is wood-core, with long keysticks of wood, guide pins of metal, and bushings of felt or leather. These hand-made keyboards are clearly expensive to produce, but should last decades. They are in complete contrast to consumer-grade products, which are designed for low-cost mass production, and use internal parts of plastic and rubber. These will last only a few years, rather than decades.

Servicing of consumer-grade keyboards is likely to require inconvenient and expensive factory repairs that require special parts. Not only do wood-core manuals require much less frequent servicing, but being hand-assembled, are amenable to user servicing using readily-available materials and parts (usually felts and switches).

Wood-core keyboards are usually much more costly to purchase than consumer-grade ones. However, the latter may well work out more expensive in the long term, as they have a much shorter useful service life, and will require repairs with replacement parts every few years of use. The heavier the use, the greater the advantage in having wood cores.

While the action of the majority of consumer-grade keyboards would not please most organists, the action of a wood-core manual is unlikely to disappoint. It makes sense to pay ten times the price for a keyboard that lasts ten times as long as a consumer-grade one, especially when it is also better to play over that period! This argument applies to both wood-core organ manuals and mechanical computer keyboards.

4.1.1.3 Key Switches

Organ manuals may or may not come with key switches. In the pipe organ, the requirement depends on the type of key action; with mechanical action there will be only a connection to the tracker. The following are the main types that may be found:

4.1.1.4 Compass

The compass of organ manuals is normally at most five complete octaves (61 keys), starting from C. This is the same range as have many generic keyboards. As new pipe organ manuals often have only 56 keys, it may be possible to economize by buying keyboards with this compass; even 54 keys may be sufficient.

4.1.2 Available Makes

Making organ manuals is a specialized business, and there are now only three manufacturers. Other brand names associated with manuals (such as Hoffrichter and MidiWorks) refer to the assembler of the block, not the maker of the keyboards.

The three manufacturers of organ manuals are Fatar, Schwindler, and UHT. Another maker was Laukhuff, but this major organ part supplier sadly ceased trading in 2021. Moreover, only Schwindler and UHT make manuals with wood cores. This Hauptwerk Forum thread gives a good overview of these keyboards. For those on a low budget, there are numerous types of self-contained generic keyboard available at much lower cost.

Fatar manuals are by far the most common, and Fatar also makes keyboards used in digital pianos and synthesizers. Even though they sell to the end user for prices comparable to those of wood-core manuals, all Fatar manuals are consumer-grade, with moving parts of plastic and rubber.

Many people have reported that these parts wear out over a relatively short time period. Moreover, that these keyboards are not amenable to user servicing; and while replacement parts are available, they may take some time to obtain. The fourth post on this Organ Forum thread (from somebody who services organ manuals) explains very nicely why I would not buy Fatar manuals.

Yet they are used in most commercial ready-assembled systems, no doubt because they are the least expensive organ manuals available. And they are also widely sold separately under different names. The dichotomy of expensive wood-core manuals and generic consumer-grade keyboards has provided a lucrative niche, in which a mass-produced product that appears equivalent to a wood-core manual can sell for almost as much.

The action of a Fatar manual is generally considered to be decent, although of less than wood-core quality. However, it will deteriorate with wear, and will probably be unusable within a very few years of heavy use. There may be additional problems from a second strip of rubber domes used to simulate a tracker action (whether wanted or not). Those seeking a first-class action that will last a lifetime should read on...

Schwindler manuals are those used by PedaMidiKit, which I believe offers the most economical as well as the most convenient way to get a complete new MIDI keyboard block with wood cores. And although the key spacing of my Schwindlers from PMK reflects hand assembly in being somewhat uneven, I am delighted with the action and feel; I cannot see how even UHT could be better here. See my experience of buying a keyboard block from PMK.

Although Schwindler has long made the lowest cost wood-core manuals, other people have concurred that they are very good to play. In my view, they are the clear choice for those on a medium budget, especially as they may be bought for not much more than the Fatars, and as a lifetime investment will ultimately cost much less. Schwindler, like both PedaMidiKit and Fatar, is Italian, even though it has a German name.

UHT manuals are high-end. They provide a great deal of function and flexibility, by all accounts also have an excellent action, and are no doubt better visually than the Schwindlers. Although much more expensive than the other two makes, they are likely to be the choice for those on a high budget.

Laukhuff manuals were intermediate in price between the Schwindlers and UHT. Although these three wood-core makes differ significantly in purchase price, there seems to be little to choose between them in their action and durability; all are excellent.

4.1.3 Special Features

4.1.3.1 Tracker Action

Both UHT and Schwindler make keyboards that simulate tracker action by using magnets. PMK offers Schwindler manuals with two types of tracker action, in addition to the standard (electric) action. With UHT, the parameters of the tracker action may be specified.

All Fatar classical organ manuals have a light tracker action (they call it SNAP function) implemented by rubber domes that can split and cause loud pops (this is presumably the undocumented "POP function"😋). I have a sneaky suspicion that Fatar imposes this initial resistance to disguise sponginess in the rubber dome key switches!

4.1.3.2 Velocity Sensitivity

The ability to control the chiff would require both velocity-sensitive keyboards, and a sample set with multiple attack samples (which very few have, and those few do not have enough to properly model tracker action). A velocity-sensitive keyboard may also be needed to control second touch for theatre organs (although the sample sets I have seen provide other means of doing this). Otherwise, this feature is superfluous for a pipe organ.

4.1.3.3 Key Coverings

The standard type of key covering is plastic (acrylic) with black sharps on white naturals. Another common style is light wood sharps on black wood naturals. These are the two types of keytop offered by Fatar (note that the more expensive latter models have the same internal construction as the plastic ones). Makers of wood-core manuals (which are made to order, not mass-produced) offer numerous other options in various materials, and also offer various shapes of sharp and key front.

Keytops made of natural materials may have a classier look and a pleasanter feel; however, being porous they will absorb sweat and oil from the fingers. Plastic coverings are inherently cleaner, but their smooth surfaces may be slippery; a more suitable surface may be obtained by a light sanding with 600 grit sandpaper.

4.2 Pedalboard

Unlike manuals, pedalboards from pipe organs are often MIDIfied for use with a virtual organ; this can provide excellent quality at relatively low cost (see this video). Some people have instead used a small generic keyboard to operate the pedal division, connecting the keys to the pedals by wires! (see this video). Pedalboards can also be obtained from suitable electronic organs (with or without MIDI). It is even possible for a dedicated and well-equipped DIYer to build a pedalboard from scratch (the link is to one of several pages that describe how to do this). So there are more ways to get a pedalboard than a set of manuals.

As pedalboards are relatively easy to build, new commercial products may be made in-house. But many widely-sold pedalboards are of questionable construction quality, particularly those supplied with ready-built systems. Even expensive separate pedalboards may be unsatisfactory - see this Hauptwerk Forum Post. These products are usually bought on spec without any opportunity to play them; and even if they play well for the moment, they may not last.

For those with limited funds who put construction and playing quality before pretty veneer and fancy electronics, I believe that PedaMidiKit again offers the best deal; see my experience of buying a pedalboard, and my review of the result. Those with plenty of funds might look at suppliers to pipe organ builders; the cost may not be much more than that of widely-advertised consumer models.

A pedalboard for serious use should be to AGO or BDO standard, and thus concave. An AGO pedalboard has 32 pedals, while a BDO one may have either 30 or 32. An AGO pedalboard is radial (radiating); while most BDO ones are parallel (rectangular), there is also a BDO radial standard.

A concave pedalboard is generally preferable to a flat one, as the outer pedals are easier to reach, being more elevated than those in the middle. However, a concave design is significantly more costly and more difficult to build. Hence low-cost pedalboards are usually flat, and thus do not comply with AGO or BDO standards. But a 30-note flat pedalboard might be a reasonable choice for those on a low budget.

While 30 pedals are required even for baroque music, very little music requires 32. But with just two more pedals, the pedalboard will be future-proof. Another point in favor of a 32-note pedalboard is that with the standard alignment of manuals and pedals (middle D over middle D), it is centered on the manuals and console, while a 30-note one will be somewhat off-center. Apart from being more esthetically pleasing, this tends to ease console layout.

A pedalboard with fewer than 30 notes is not suitable for general use; many from electronic organs have only 25. And one can hardly add more pedals later!

The choice of parallel or radial pedals is likely to depend largely on one's geographical region; radial pedalboards are the norm in the USA and the UK, while parallel ones prevail in Europe. Personal preference may also be a factor; radial pedals correspond more to the natural angle of the feet, but with spacing that varies from heel to toe end. As a radial pedalboard is narrower at the heel end than a parallel one, the bench can have a smaller span. Radial designs also tend to be more expensive to buy and more difficult to build than parallel ones.

In any case, there should be standard spacing between the pedals. Many electronic organs have compact pedalboards with narrow spacing; this may also be unequal, with naturals closer together where there is no intermediate sharp. While their smaller size makes them more domestically acceptable, they are incompatible with standard pedalboards, and are unsuitable for playing elaborate pedal parts.

There are two methods of springing; wire toe springs, and sprung metal heel plates. For the best action, both should be used, with light springing at the heel. Where there is only one type, toe springs are superior to heel plates. Many consumer-grade pedalboards have springing only at the heel; these are unlikely to provide the required resistance and good stability. The AGO standard specifies 2.5 to 3.0 pounds of resistance and 0.5" depth of touch at the heel end of the sharps; many consumer pedalboards are deficient in either or both of these criteria. The action should be firm (not floppy), without significant lateral movement.

The same switch types as are found in manuals can be used, including mechanical (the reliable but clicky paddle microswitch) and optical. However, the magnetic reed is the most common, being inexpensive, long-lasting, and silent. It does not have the same reliability issues as in manuals, as pedals have both greater depth of touch and wider lateral spacing. Nonetheless, positioning of the magnets requires careful initial adjustment. Reed switches may be encapsulated in glass or plastic; the latter is less likely to fracture on impact.

4.3 Thumb Pistons

This is a stub. As I bought a ready-assembled block of manuals, I have done no serious investigation. But this did require consideration of the question How Many Pistons?, especially given their inordinate cost.

4.4 Toe Pistons

This is a stub. As I never had any intention of buying these with the first-time system, I have done no investigation.

4.5 Expression Pedals

This is a stub. As I never had any intention of buying these with the first-time system, I have done no investigation. However, the section How Many Expression Pedals? may be of some use.

4.6 Stop Controls

As I have no experience of buying or using these, I offer only general comments in this section.

While stop controls are typically operated via touchscreens, some virtual organs use physical MIDI drawknobs and/or tabs. These are likely to be expensive, especially motorized ones with a combination action in which they are moved by pistons. But they can make a virtual organ look and feel just like a real pipe organ console. Experienced organists will prefer handling them to poking a touchscreen, and they are also more attractive esthetically. So organists accustomed to having physical stop controls may consider them essential.

However, apart from being cheaper and easier to implement, a touchscreen offers much greater flexibility. In particular, a physical stop control layout is based on one specific organ, and will not fit well with other organs. This limitation can be addressed by providing spare stop controls and relabeling; however, this makes changing from one sample set to another much less convenient than with a touchscreen.

A touchscreen may also be used for many other functions, and for displaying information. If there is no easily-accessible touchscreen, consideration must be given as to how to supply the required function. This includes both user input via controls, and output via displays.

As use of physical stop controls requires more much investigation as well as being more expensive, a self-assembled first-time virtual organ would probably best incorporate a touchscreen. This could subsequently be replaced by MIDI controls, in consideration of the experience gained to date.

Many systems feature both touchscreens and physical stop controls. Touchscreens would typically be used for speaking stops; as these differ with each organ, implementation with physical controls is inconvenient. But accessory stops like couplers might be implemented with physical tabs; use of the Hauptwerk master couplers would enable these to operate in the same way for each organ.

4.7 Other Devices

These are particularly useful for input and output in place of a touchscreen.

The Novation Launchpad features a set of buttons that can be assigned functions as required. Different functions can be assigned for different organs, and multiple units may be used.

Hauptwerk can output various types of status information through 32-character (two-line) LCD panels. A console would normally incorporate several of these to support display of all important information.

4.8 Using MIDI

MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) is the standard used for connection of musical components, and to represent and convey the actions of musicians. It is independent of the instrumental realization, and has nothing to do with the recording or production of sound.

4.8.1 Connection

Connection of MIDI devices is usually via either a MIDI cable with 5-pin DIN plugs, or USB (MIDI over USB). Wireless connection is also possible (including over Bluetooth, but this is not recommended due to the excessive latency).

Windows PCs have native MIDI drivers provided by Microsoft, but do not normally have DIN sockets to support plain MIDI connection. However, most recent MIDI devices offer a direct USB connection, which should be used in preference to DIN. MIDI over USB eliminates the need for both a separate power supply, and connection through a MIDI interface, without significant drawbacks.

USB hubs can be used to increase the number of ports (with the usual proviso of using self-powered hubs where the devices involved draw more than a modicum of current).

Connection of devices with DIN plugs must be done via an interface, which will usually connect to a USB port. But as many audio interfaces offer MIDI connectors, a separate MIDI interface may nonetheless not be needed.

Before connecting MIDI devices, one should check the Hauptwerk MIDI issues that I have encountered. Awareness of these can avoid problems with MIDI devices (apparently) not being recognized. Also, the Windows MIDI driver sometimes stops working.

4.8.2 Organization

Each MIDI connection to the computer (including via a USB hub) is associated with a MIDI port. There will typically be a MIDI port for the pedalboard, another for the complete keyboard block (including thumb pistons), and perhaps others for expression pedals and toe pistons. However, in some cases, separate ports may be used (for example, with separate generic keyboards). In other cases, they may be merged into a single port via an interface.

A MIDI channel number (1 to 16) is used to differentiate devices within a MIDI port. Each keyboard (pedalboard, and each manual) must be assigned a unique channel number. Thumb pistons will normally be asigned another channel number. To avoid conflicts, it may be necessary to change the default channel numbers before connection (for example, one should check that the channel number of the pedalboard is not the same as that of a manual or the pistons).

Each operation carried out on a MIDI instrument is represented by a MIDI message. Pressing a key sends a Note On message, and releasing a key sends a Note Off message. Both these message types include a number giving the key, and the velocity (the latter normally set to 127). Continuous controls such as expression pedals instead send Control Change messages giving the current position. MIDI pistons usually send Program Change messages.

The first byte in each message contains status information, which includes the message type and channel number (from 1 to 16).

The second byte of a Note On/Off message contains the Note Number with an interval of a semitone. 0 represents C_-1 with a frequency of about 8 Hz; 127 represents G₉ with a frequency of about 12543 Hz. However, in practice it denotes the key number; normally from 36 to 96 on a 61-key manual, and from 36 to 67 on a 32-note pedalboard.

4.8.3 Stuck Notes

This organist's bogeyman is often referred to as a cipher; but this is the term used for the problem in a pipe organ, for which there are a number of possible causes. In a MIDI instrument, a stuck note occurs when a Note On message is received without a corresponding Note Off message. This is likely to originate from the MIDI device itself; for example, a speech point set too low, or from not fully depressing the key. The problem may also be caused by a poor-quality MIDI interface with inadequate buffering.

A stuck note can usually be cleared by pressing the affected key again (so that another Note Off message is sent). Failing this, the Engine menu in Haupwerk has a function Turn off all organ keys.

Stuck notes may also appear in keyboards (especially manuals) that use magnetic reed switches, when it has nothing to do with MIDI, but a phenomenon called hysteresis. This is a delay that causes the switch off to occur at a higher point than the switch on. This discrepancy of two or three millimeters is similar to the depth of touch in a manual, and the switch point is thus ill-defined. This may also result in the converse problem of the switch not being activated when a key is depressed. Problems from hysteresis are much less likely with the pedals, as the distance affected normally falls well within the depth of touch.

4.8.4 Performance

MIDI dates from 1983, and its net bit rate of 25 kb/s is risible by today's standards. With the usual 3-byte message format, this results in a message rate of only about 1000 per second per port.

Nonetheless, this is satisfactory if each user action such as depressing a key generates only a single MIDI message. This is the case with a good implementation like Hauptwerk, where multiple operations (such as may arise from the use of couplers) are handled internally. In some organs, many additional messages may be sent.

When playing chords, each note involved is sent in sequence, with a minimum interval of just under 1 ms. Although this may seem like a serious issue, few players will be able to synchronize touch to anything like millisecond accuracy. So it is not a big problem with a good implementation (but it is with a bad one!).

5 Computer System

For best performance and reliability, the computer should be dedicated to Hauptwerk plus any auxiliary applications (such as a metronome), and be purged of anything not required for this purpose.

It should never be connected to the internet, nor should there be any other external connectivity, except to direct RF-connected devices such as a mouse, keyboard, and (possibly) headphones.

5.1 Overview

5.1.1 Components

Apart from a box with CPU, RAM, and secondary storage (SSD / HDD), the computer system should have the following:

• Mouse and keyboard (probably wireless), to operate the computer (but some Hauptwerk functions may be assigned to MIDI controls)
• One or more displays (including at least one touchscreen, unless using physical stop controls)
• A MIDI interface, if there are any MIDI connectors (but this may be povided by the audio interface)
• A self-powered USB hub
• A UPS (no-break), to protect the system from power problems

5.1.2 PC or Mac?

The Mac is often preferred for Hauptwerk, as it has good-quality native audio support (unlike Windows DirectSound), and no doubt a more stable MIDI driver.

However, a big advantage of getting a PC rather than a Mac is the much greater (but still hardly impressive) choice of hardware, at more moderate prices. I originally intended to buy a Mac for my Hauptwerk system, but the only model that met my requirements was the Mac Pro, at over US$6,000 entry level!

The downside of using Hauptwerk on a PC is Microsoft Windows ^TM. However, one can minimize its insidious nastiness by taking heed of the hints given in this section. In particular, Computer Preparation will enable significant improvements in performance and reliability to be obtained.

5.1.3 System Type

Many people use computers with built-in screens for running Hauptwerk. However, for the most flexible and ergonomic console layout, I believe one should buy a box with separate input (mouse, keyboard) and output (touchscreens, etc.) devices. And a computer that is also used for non-Hauptwerk functions can only be a stopgap measure; it is important to dedicate the PC to Hauptwerk, as well as choose the appropriate type.

While a laptop may well provide plenty of processing power, it will have a significantly less favorable performance/price ratio than separate components. An all-in-one is more cost-efficient and has a separate keyboard, but as with a laptop, the built-in screen compromises console layout.

I believe that in most cases, a mini PC that one can leave running 24/7 will be the best option.

5.1.4 Obsolescence

The concerns about this are much less valid now than they were in the past. It is now easy to obtain performance that gets the best out of any current Hauptwerk sample set, and there is no sign that this will change. Also, the computer is developing much more slowly than was the case one or two decades ago, especially the CPU.

During the roaring '80s and '90s, processor speed, RAM size, and hard disk capacity were all increasing about tenfold every five years! And when Hauptwerk 1 was released in 2002, the maximum sample set size of about 2 GB precluded high-quality modeling of all but small instruments. Polyphony was limited by the single-core processors of that time, and with the Windows DirectSound driver, latency was a serious issue.

However, for a number of years now, the available RAM size and processor speed has allowed full use of Hauptwerk, even with large instruments. 64-bit architecture supports essentially unlimited RAM, and its falling cost has made 128 GB quite affordable. This is sufficient for a complete load of just about all currently-available sample sets, even with all channels. Another significant development is the SSD, on which Windows will now probably be installed, and on which it is now economical to install a large number of sample sets for fast loading. And even an economical processor will serve well for most purposes, if the computer is optimized, and appropriate Hauptwerk settings are used.

Although computer performance is now improving only slowly, future requirements for running Hauptwerk are also unlikely to increase much. These mainly depend on the size of the sample set, and producing a large sample set takes months and requires a considerable amount of work. With a rather saturated market, it seems unlikely that anyone will record the likes of the Boardwalk Hall Auditorium organ any time soon. An existing computer should continue to give good service for as long as it lasts, at least with the current sample sets, and probably with any new ones.

So while I do not consider a computer to be a lifetime investment as with say wood-core manuals, I do not subscribe to the idea put about that the computer will be obsolete and require replacement within 5 years. But this is obviously what the manufacturers want you to believe. And it is as well not to waste money on leading edge processing power that will probably not be needed, and will cease to be leading edge pretty soon (even though the new thing will be only marginally better). And the RAM and SSD capacity can easily be expanded.

5.2 The CPU

Especially with the issues in powering the computer on and off, 24/7 operation is highly desirable. However, it may not be reasonable with a power-hungry processor, especially since the operation of Hauptwerk is hardly energy-efficient.

5.2.1 Polyphony

The maximum polyphony that can be achieved is determined primarily by the processing power of the CPU. For faultless sample processing, the required polyphony must not exceed this maximum. However, with Hauptwerk polyphony management, minor insufficiencies should have little or no audible effect with wet sample sets. And dry sample sets have a much lower polyphony requirement.

The maximum (static) polyphony can be found experimentally and set in Hauptwerk. It depends not only on the computer performance (CPU, cacheing, and RAM), but also settings such as the audio buffer size and sample rate, and any additional Hauptwerk processing such as real-time reverb and changing organ pitch. For example, changing the audio sample rate from the usual 48 kHz to 96 kHz may halve the available polyphony. Therefore the test should be applied with these settings. Performance may also be seriously degraded by other applications that that are running (or that may be started unexpectedly).

Unfortunately, the required (dynamic) polyphony cannot be determined in advance. There are obviously considerable dynamic variations that depend on the stops drawn and keys depressed. But polyphony is not simply a function of the number of pipes that speak simultaneously, as this does not take into account release samples (the reverberation once the pipe has stopped speaking). With wet samples, these are likely to occupy a large proportion of the polyphony.

Playing many notes in quick succession substantially increases the polyphony, as while the loop parts of the samples are short, each has a release tail that typically lasts several seconds. Playing several notes simultaneously obviously also increases the polyphony; however, one would not normally play several fat chords per second as with individual notes. The short release samples of dry sample sets not only occupy much less RAM, but also significantly reduce the dynamic polyphony; however, they require added reverb to produce acceptable sound in a normal room.

If the dynamic polyphony exceeds the preset static polyphony, normally the only consequence is that release samples are dropped early, resulting in a drier sound. Hauptwerk does this in such a way as to minimize the audible effect. The required polyphony can also be reduced in advance by specifying truncation of release samples when loading the sample set; this is likely to make the biggest difference with fast-moving music.

With Hauptwerk polyphony management, it would take a substantial insufficiency to cause complete loss of stops. CPU-related glitches are likely to be caused by unwanted activity, such as Windows Defender deciding to do a virus scan during a particularly involved tutti. This results in the preset static polyphony being too high, thus inhibiting management by Hauptwerk. Hence the importance of computer preparation to avoid unnecessary processing.

Note that latency is a function of the audio interface, not the CPU; it has nothing to do with sample processing. However, pursuing an unduly low latency may substantially reduce the available polyphony, and ultimately cause audio glitches through excessive CPU load.

5.2.2 Practical Considerations

The usual advice is to buy the fastest processor possible. This is only reasonable if the single advantage:

• maximum processing headroom allows the greatest possible polyphony

outweighs all the following disadvantages (plus any I haven't thought of):

• high purchase price
• high-capacity power supply requirement (perhaps 800W)
• high base power consumption
• high environmental impact
• high heat output
• high space requirement
• high-output fan requirement, with possible noise problems
• high frequency of powering up/down to avoid high electricity bills and heat
• high battery depletion rate, and thus little UPS backup time

But unfortunately, the Hauptwerk documentation implies that anything other than a top-end Intel processor is substandard. And the Hauptwerk website currently recommends only an Intel i9 Core for a PC. This will have misled many people into buying a system with a power consumption comparable to that of an old toaster, when a far more economical and efficient one would have worked just as well.

The criterion in a real-time system such as Hauptwerk is sufficiency; a faster processor is only better in situations where a slower one cannot achieve the required polyphony. And even then, there are normally only minor consequences. Using a processor whose capacity is not utilized is simply wasteful. This is especially the case with the diminishing returns that apply at the leading edge; just a few percent extra performance adds substantial cost and power consumption. And with the wide range of possible processing requirements, this would rarely make a material difference.

So rather than just accept that only a high-end Intel will do, the purchaser should consider carefully what processor will meet their requirements. Detailed information that should give a good idea of what level of performance is appropriate can be downloaded here. Due to overheads in polling MIDI devices, I would not in any case recommend a two-bit processor for Hauptwerk (a 64-bit one is definitely a good idea!). But a blanket recommendation to get an Intel i9 Core is clearly NOT appropriate.

The good news is the development of mini PCs with processors of surprisingly-high performance that consume surprisingly-little power, and which require no fan in a very small box. I believe a unit of this type with 8 cores and a high clock rate (around 3.6 GHz) will function flawlessly for the vast majority of users. Such a PC can deliver a high percentage of the performance of an i9 Core, with a minute percentage of its power consumption. And it could easily deliver more polyphony than an i9 Core that has been compromised by settings that result in needless processing.

Moreover, with this type of computer it is reasonable to leave the system running 24/7. This is a huge usability benefit that makes the organ immediately available at any time, and obviates the issues with turning the system on and off. However, this is unlikely to be attractive with the likes of an Intel i9 Core, especially since Hauptwerk actively executes continuously without user input, and does not support any power saving modes.

I personally would happily trade ultimate processor performance for 24/7 operation alone, even if this resulted in occasional insufficiencies. But I am confident that these will never occur with my system. Sometimes, less is more!

5.3 Primary Storage (RAM)

Hauptwerk is a RAM-based system; the entire sample set data (or a selected subset) is loaded into memory before the organ can be used. This results in a high RAM requirement, but streaming the data would result in access delays that are unacceptable in a real-time system. If there is insufficient RAM, the sample set will simply fail to load.

So, unlike the required polyphony, the RAM requirement is static and predetermined. Most sample set suppliers provide it in their specifications, and there are usually various options for reducing the full requirement. These include reducing the audio quality of the samples, and loading only a selection of the samples.

Many recent sample sets feature 6 or more channels, which may all be loaded into memory and mixed down to stereo. This will considerably increase memory requirements. With 6 channels, only a fairly small organ can be loaded into memory if the RAM capacity is 32 GB; at least 64 GB will be required, or even 128 GB. On the other hand, with only 2 channels for stereo from a single perspective, a large organ can be loaded into 32 GB with high-quality samples.

5.4 Secondary Storage (SSD / HDD)

For several decades, the hard disk drive (HDD) has reigned. However, it is now being largely superceded by the solid state drive (SDD), which is continuing to fall in price and increase in capacity. In a new computer, the storage unit on which Windows is installed is likely to be an SSD.

An SSD offers considerably better performance (in practice, limited by the interface - SATA is relatively slow). It is also in general more robust and reliable, and not seriously affected by fragmentation. However, there is a limit to the amount of data that can be written to the SSD before corruption occurs. And before there are any manifest errors, performance is likely to deteriorate substantially.

The following section shows some ways in which Microsoft ensures that the SSD on which Windows is installed has a considerable amount of data written to it, and so ages quickly.

There are different types of SSD with significantly different durability characteristics, but in any case the write durability increases with the amount of free space on the SSD. One should therefore have plenty of spare capacity on the unit, especially one to which a lot of data is written. But if the SSD is used essentially read-only, it can be filled fuller and still have a longer lifespan than an HDD.

I find external storage connected via USB to be a better way to store data such as sample sets than placing it on the unit that comes with the computer (on which Windows is installed). With the latest USB standards (3.1+), performance is excellent (better than SATA), and being able to dismount the storage means that it can easily be used elsewhere, or replaced if it becomes insufficient. And this maximizes the free space on the internal SSD (and thus its lifespan).

Hauptwerk requires all installed sample sets to be in the same base directory (in other words, on the same storage unit), and it is difficult to know in advance how much space might be required. However, if it is located on external storage, it is easy to replace the unit with a higher-capacity one if it becomes necessary. Naturally, as loading sample sets is data-bound and time-consuming, it is much better to use an SSD for this purpose. But as adding sample sets is write-once, the SSD can be filled to a high proportion of its capacity.

5.5 Turning the System On and Off

Having to start up the computer before the organ can be played is a major disincentive to its use. It may well be considered an unacceptable aspect of a virtual organ, especially by those accustomed to the piano; or indeed the pipe or digital organ.

Moreover, Hauptwerk runs at full throttle (at least when an organ is loaded), and power-saving modes are not recommended or possible. This makes it all the more important to power off the computer when it is not in use (at least when using the recommended processor).

5.5.1 Hibernation

This is the most convenient way to turn the system off and on. It restores the desktop, and takes only a few seconds with an SSD. However, it will probably not be viable with Hauptwerk, for the following reasons:

• It writes the entire RAM contents to the storage unit on which Windows resides (the file C:\hiberfil.sys). Routine hibernation with an SSD using Hauptwerk is likely to considerably reduce its lifespan.
• The Hauptwerk User Guide does not recommend hibernation, along with power-saving modes.

Serious organists may want to practice several times a day. With the large amount of memory occupied by a sample set, hibernating this frequently could result in errors on the SSD well within a year. And Microsoft does not permit relocating the hibernate file. As a result, the complete system may soon become unusable, resulting in the purchase of another system and another copy of Windows (just what Microsoft wants!). And if the SSD is becoming unreliable with recoverable errors, there will be serious degradation in performance.

Although hibernation has mainly worked OK for me the very few times I have used it, on two occasions there were MIDI problems, one of which required restarting Hauptwerk. So it does appear to be unreliable. I have also been unable to get the computer to sleep, or enter a processor-specific power-saving mode while Hauptwerk is running. Thankfully, my CPU does not use much power even when executing.

5.5.2 Shut Down

The Microsoft-recommended and default "fast startup" is another product of the Microsoft Dirty Tricks Department. Most users are not aware that this also writes the RAM to the hibernate file. Moreover, it does not clear out any system gremlins, as the user would expect (Restart is required); nor does it restore the desktop.

So it is pretty much useless from a user perspective (but great for Microsoft!), and should be disabled by unchecking the following:

Control Panel -> Hardware and Sound -> Power Options -> System Settings -> Turn on fast startup (recommended)

If this is grayed out (as is probable), it is necessary to click "Change settings that are currently unavailable" - another Microsoft gotcha - I admit that I was stumped for a while!

But either type of shut down means that everything will have to be started up again (including Hauptwerk, and loading the sample set). This will take much longer than the Windows startup time on an SSD (so "fast startup" offers little practical benefit anyway).

5.5.3 Conclusion

If hibernation works OK, one could deal with the SSD degradation problem by cloning the SSD on which Windows is installed to a spare SSD. This can be used to replace the original when it becomes defective. The additional SSD should be kept connected to the power, as data retention of SSD is highly suspect without a power supply.

But probably the only satisfactory way to turn the computer off and on will be a full (slow) shutdown and startup. Although one could put the Hauptwerk application in the Startup folder, routine shutdown and startup will obviously be highly inconvenient.

All this underlines the importance of buying a system that can be left running 24/7. This allows practice at odd moments, and the lack of power on/off cycles maximizes system longevity. But I for one would not want 24/7 operation with the only recommended type of processor.

5.6 Computer Preparation

One unfortunately cannot completely escape the lamentable fact that a virtual organ is a PC running Windows, whose abysmal standards reflect that it has perhaps the ultimate captive market. However, the adverse consequences of this can be minimized by appropriate preparation. This primarily involves removing, disabling, or disconnecting anything that is not necessary for the execution of Hauptwerk, thus maximizing the likelihood that the system will function efficiently and reliably. This is a more practical way to prevent glitches than purchasing an over-the-top CPU.

As will be seen, Microsoft does not make this easy, partly due to the monstrous dog's dinner that is the Windows user interface. However, I believe that the time spent on the following steps is a good investment.

Microsoft Windows ^TM 10

5.6.1 Do NOT Connect to the Internet !

As from Windows 10, this is the only way to escape Windows Updates, which apart from being a gross inconvenience, can (and do) change the behavior of your computer and deposit crapware without your knowledge or consent. Without an internet connection, you can confidently remove or disable a boatload of humongous impedimenta that Microsoft installs and executes on your computer, again without your knowledge or consent. The PC you paid for will no longer be effectively owned and operated by Microsoft.

Microsoft clearly does not like you using Windows without an internet connection, as then they cannot conduct cell searches (spy on you), or carry out lockdowns (known as "updates"). You are forced to setup Windows 11 with a Microsoft Account, which requires an internet connection. You are also required to provide an email address (give them one that you do not normally use).

However, the current Microsoft Service Agreement allows Windows 10 or 11 to be used indefinitely without an internet connection. This might nonetheless change with a future update; remember there was never going to be a Windows 11. Even offline, there will still be tiresome internet-related nag messages for a while. Thankfully, they appear to go away altogether after a few weeks offline; then you will not just be on parole, but completely free 😊.

Microsoft Windows ^TM 11

5.6.1.1 iLok Licensing

Hauptwerk licensing without an internet connection requires purchase of an iLok USB dongle. While it may be unpalatable to pay for a product that benefits MDA not yourself, the dongle permanently frees you from licensing issues, and will continue to work in the event of internet connection problems. It may also be used to license the same product(s) on more than one computer (Windows or Mac).

Initialization of the dongle for Hauptwerk should be done on another computer with an internet connection. This computer should also be used to update the dongle, as required for Hauptwerk updates and to use commercial sample sets. In order to install a Hauptwerk update, the old version must first be removed from the list of iLok-installed products (this does not apply if one pays for a complete new product).

5.6.2 Use the Administrator Account

You can start Windows offline with the Microsoft Account (if you value your privacy, never use it to login online!). However, unless you really want to have to key in a PIN, and be denied full use of your computer, I recommend restoring the Administrator account (this was once the default account, but has long since been hidden from you). Key in the following at a command prompt (run as Administrator):

net user administrator /active:yes

On restarting the computer, the default account is Administrator, with no password required.

If the above does not work, do a Google search to find other ways.

5.6.3 Disable Virtual Memory

Virtual memory (put simply) is the use of secondary storage to extend physical RAM into a virtualized address space. This involves swapping pages of memory between secondary and primary storage. At one time, this was a useful way to get around problems with insufficient RAM, but is nowadays of questionable value.

For Hauptwerk, there should always be sufficient physical RAM installed; as previously noted, the RAM requirement of Hauptwerk is (essentially) static. Virtual memory is then redundant, and likely to be detrimental. Swapping onto an HDD will result in performance issues unacceptable in a real-time system. Swapping onto an SSD will reduce its lifespan.

Open the Virtual Memory window as follows:

1. Open Settings by clicking on the cog in the taskbar
2. Click on System
3. Click on About; in the left-hand pane
4. Click on Advanced system settings (near the bottom of the window)
5. In the System Properties window, click the Advanced tab
6. Click on Settings... in the Performance groupbox
7. In the Performance Options window, click the Advanced tab
8. Click Change... in the Virtual memory groupbox

The above is the shortest route I can find; and the search facility cannot find Virtual Memory.

In the Virtual Memory window, uncheck Automatically manage paging file size for all drives. Then select each drive in the list in turn, and click on the No paging file radiobutton. When all done, click on OK.

5.6.4 Disable Unwanted Functions

The following optimizations give only a suggestion of some areas to check, based on my own preparation. It may be a good idea to review other settings. Another place to look is the Registry Editor, but this should only be used by those who know what they are doing!

Group Policy Editor

Open using Windows Key + R and type gpedit.msc. Navigate to the following:

Computer Configuration -> Administrative Templates -> Windows Components

• Microsoft Defender Antivirus -> Real-time Protection - double click on Turn off real-time protection, select Enabled, and click on Apply and OK
• OneDrive - go through all options with a view to disabling it
• Cloud Content - select all to turn off
• Search - disallow at least Cloud and Cortana
• Sync your settings - in all cases, do not sync
• Windows Customer Experience Improvement Program - disable
• Windows Messenger - do not automatically start or allow to run

There may be other settings here that are worth checking out.

Control Panel

Open Control Panel (enter Control Panel in the task bar search box). In the Control Panel search box, key Turn windows features on or off.

Disable any that appear to be unnecessary, including:

• Internet Explorer 11
• Media -> Windows Media Player

Settings

Open by clicking on the cog in the taskbar:

• Privacy -> General - disable all
• Privacy -> Activity History - disable all
• Privacy -> Background apps - prevent all apps from running in the background
• Apps -> Apps & features - uninstall/disable anything not needed
• Apps -> Startup - disable as appropriate
• System -> Notifications & actions - disable Get notifications from apps... and Get tips, tricks, and suggestions...
• Network and Internet - check that there is no connection
• Update & Security -> Windows Security - disable anything possible in Virus & threat protection, Account protection, Firewall & network protection, App & browser control, Device performance & health (disable Windows Time Service)
• Devices - disable Bluetooth
• Gaming - disable

Services

Open the Services applet (enter Services in the task bar search box). Go through all services, and set to Disabled or Manual startup where appropriate (and possible).

6 Audio Devices

This section is aimed at typical home use with wet sample sets, primarily for stereo output. It therefore does not discuss multi-channel audio, nor audio processing with graphic equalizers and reverberation units.

Audio has nothing to do with MIDI, even though these two areas are often discussed together. However, many audio interfaces offer 5-pin DIN connectors for MIDI devices. But although the MIDI and audio signals travel by the same cable, they are handled quite separately.

Although PCs normally come with audio support, Hauptwerk calls for better quality than would be used for sonic wallpaper while playing with the computer. So high-quallity audio devices should be purchased as part of the virtual organ.

6.1 Audio Interface

The Hauptwerk User Guide describes the audio interface as perhaps the most crucial component in the system. Apart from being important for sound quality, it determines the usable audio latency, and can also have a significant effect on polyphony. And it is much more economical in both purchase price and power consumption than a computer system with a high-end CPU.

For Windows, a high-grade audio interface with ASIO driver is essential for low latency and high sound quality. Lower-cost audio products use the Windows DirectSound driver, which is to be avoided (especially as it introduces hidden latency). There is a freeware ASIO driver ASIO4All that may enable acceptable performance to be obtained from the PC's audio output or other consumer-grade audio hardware in the absence of any specific ASIO driver.

The usual means of connection is via USB. Two other connection types are AVB and Thunderbolt, but these are not typically supported natively by the PC, and for most people will offer no real advantages over USB. Many audio interfaces have MIDI input and output connectors that may obviate the need for a separate MIDI interface.

A high-quality 2-channel interface (for normal stereo output) can be bought for around US$200. This is appropriate if only headphones or stereo with 2 speakers will be used. To drive more speakers for surround sound, the number of output channels must be increased accordingly. For a given quality level, this will considerably increase the cost of the unit. Except for AVB interfaces, it is not normally possible to combine units to provide additional channels.

I consider the ability to monitor levels via a color LCD display to be essential; yet very few units seem to have good (or even any) level indication. A number of people have reported clicks and crackles that are clearly audio clipping; this can be avoided by simply monitoring the output level, and adjusting it as necessary (one should go into the yellow zone on peaks, but never into the red). The "Audio, MIDI and Performance" control panel allows the audio output level to be adjusted, but it is better assessed on the audio interface unit.

6.1.1 Latency

It is often stated that latency must be as low as possible; but this advice is about as practical as a blanket recommendation to buy the fastest CPU possible.

Latency in a virtual organ is the delay between ^§pressing a key and ^§§sound being produced. For listening to music, latency is hardly likely to be an issue; however, it may lead to an unacceptably poor response when playing a musical instrument.

Normally, most of the latency in a virtual organ is due to the audio interface and its driver. Nonetheless, a good-quality ASIO device should not introduce noticeable latency. There is also latency in polling MIDI devices, but this is very low (of the order of 1 ms). Bluetooth headphones can introduce considerable latency, so are not recommended. Although latency is widely believed to be due to insufficient CPU performance, this is not the case (at least not directly).

Audio interface latency is directly dependent on the audio buffer size. The buffer guards against delays in processing the sample data into audio output. However, buffering introduces a delay between data being sent to the buffer and it being output; and the larger the buffer, the greater this delay. But a smaller buffer must be populated more frequently, involving additional CPU load (thus reducing the available polyphony). And if it is not populated in time, buffer under-runs occur, resulting in very noticeable audio glitches.

So it is important to balance latency with performance and audio issues. A more reasonable goal than zero latency is zero perceptible latency. This should be easy to achieve with a decent audio interface and CPU, and further reduction in buffer size will then have only negative consequences. On the other hand, those using DirectSound devices with unsatisfactory latency might reasonably put the emphasis on minimizing this latency, even at the expense of audio problems.

The buffer size is measured in sample frames, and is normally a power of two. Halving it also halves the latency, but with the issues described above. With a good-quality ASIO interface, an appropriate default buffer size is 1024, giving a latency of around 24 ms (or about 1/40 s). With this setting (and using headphones), I cannot discern any delay between the key hitting its bed and the sound (as explained above, this contact occurs after the MIDI On message is sent). So it makes no sense for me to reduce the default buffer size. And I suspect that this will be the case for most other people.

Those who do find latency an issue with this setting could reduce the buffer size to 512 (12 ms), which should involve little compromise with a good audio interface and CPU. However, reducing it further is likely to significantly reduce available polyphony, and may ultimately lead to audio glitches. It may be set to as low as 128, giving a latency of around 3 ms. But while this figure will look impressive on the display, it may well result in audio output that is decidedly unimpressive (and at the worst possible time!). Moreover, with speakers just 1m away, this latency will be doubled!

Real pipe organists have to tolerate much greater latency. Although there is normally little latency from the action, sound from the pipes may take a significant length of time to reach the organist. For example, pipes just 15m (50') from the console result in latency of about 45 ms.

6.2 Headphones and Speakers

6.2.1 Headphones

In my opinion, a comfortable pair of headphones is preferable to speakers for individual use, especially for practicing. Those at around US$250 can give better sound quality than all but the very best speaker systems costing many thousands of dollars. And this is not compromised by room interactions; the only acoustic is that recorded. The result is a better ability to discern defects in one's playing. Although headphones are not capable of tactile bass, they can give a better impression of deep pedal notes than most speaker systems.

Open-backed headphones give rather more transparent sound. However, closed-back ones may be preferable where there are high ambient noise levels, or the noise produced by the headphones may disturb people around. High-impedance headphones tend to give the best sound quality, but the audio interface may not give sufficient output to drive them, thus requiring the use of a headphone amplifier.

The best type of surround sound is available through headphones via binaural recording; this gives a more accurate sense of space than any number of speakers. And a large proportion of Hauptwerk users listen through headphones. So how about some more binaural sample sets? The signal fed to the headphones could cross over to a subwoofer at say 50 to 100 Hz, to give tactile bass as well as superb imaging.

Wireless headphones are unlikely to offer the same sound quality as a good wired headphone. But if used, they should have direct RF communication; Bluetooth headphones are known to introduce substantial latency, due to the additional encoding and decoding.

6.2.2 Speakers

Speakers used at a console will probably be small nearfield monitors that need a subwoofer to get anything like the bass response needed for deep pedal notes. Such speakers are usually placed against walls, which increases bass output, but seriously compromises sound quality in general. A corner location would be even worse. In addition to speaker placement issues, matching problems and interference between different speakers will make it difficult or impossible to achieve a coherent result.

Notwithstanding, many Hauptwerk organ consoles have several sets of speakers clustered around them. This might emulate being at a real pipe organ console, using the Hauptwerk mixer to route pipe ranks to speakers. This should not be done with wet samples, as they include the overall ambience of the building from all pipes. Instead, dry sample sets would be used with individual real-time impulse response reverbs. Speakers behind the organist might provide a welcome sense of space, especially in the confined acoustic of a small and heavily-furnished room.

But perhaps since I have never been near an organ console, I aim for a clearer version of what I have heard on CDs. Only headphones will be used at the organ, with a separate hi-fi system used to play stereo recordings from wet sample sets. Thus both speakers and listener are optimally placed; the former on stands, and the latter on more comfortable seating than the organ bench.

7 Furniture and Assembly

The aim of this section is to give the prospective purchaser of a virtual organ an overview of the many different paths one can take in putting together a system, and some of the pitfalls. It also discusses the different types of furniture that can be used.

Buying a virtual organ is hardly like buying a TV. You will not be able to walk into your local virtual organ showroom to try out the range of pedalboards they have on offer, or even see such information as reviews. It is also likely to require a significant financial outlay, comparable to the cost of a car. Hence the importance of proper investigation and research.

A virtual organ requires the following components:

• MIDI Devices
• Computer System
• Audio Devices
• System Software
• Sample Sets
• Console / Desk / Table
• Bench

These components can be purchased as a complete and ornate turnkey console, obtained separately and assembled with a plain table, or anything in between. So the following criteria should be considered:

Assembly Type

Complete Turnkey, Computer-ready, or User-assembled from separate components

Furniture Type

Console (usually with jambs), Desk (surface without jambs), or Table (with four legs)

The key components (pun intended) are the manuals and pedalboard. The information in these links is important not only for those buying them as separate components, but also those contemplating buying a ready-assembled system.

Another basic decision is whether to use touchscreen(s) or physical stop controls (or possibly both). Most systems use touchscreens, as this is both cheaper and easier to implement. But some systems effectively emulate a real pipe organ console.

Most consoles still use a music rest to display music; however, a center computer monitor may now be more appropriate. The section Display of Music discusses these two options, and also the important matter of page turning in each case.

The section Budget Systems discusses just what MIDI components are really needed. And a considerable amount can be saved by buying used components and re-purposing them.

Two performance criteria often bandied about are polyphony (determined principally by the processing power of the CPU) and latency (determined mainly by the audio interface). However, both are also affected by the Hauptwerk settings used. The RAM requirement can be found in specifications of the sample sets that are to be used.

7.1 Assembly Types

A virtual organ may be obtained in the following three forms:

Complete Turnkey

Complete system, ready to run.

Computer-ready

As a turnkey system, but requiring a computer system with touchscreens and audio devices.

User-assembled

Built by the user from MIDI devices, furniture, and a computer system.

Products that include a console or desk tend to be significantly more expensive than the value of the components involved. It may not be possible to choose the main components, nor determine their origin. And one cannot expect the same quality in a consumer product built down to a price as one would find in a pipe organ.

Such products will typically be purchased only on the basis of information on the internet. Instead of high component quality and robustness, the emphasis will be on putting checks in boxes and an attractive appearance. A ready-built product is therefore something of a pig in a poke.

Nonetheless, such systems will appeal to many who have the money, as they are easy to purchase, and a presentable console with attractive furniture might otherwise be difficult to obtain.

7.1.1 Complete Turnkey

This comes with a computer with installed software, usually with touchscreens and speakers fitted in a full console. Some of these are tall cabinet designs that incorporate all functions in as little floor space as possible. A turnkey system offers the greatest ease of purchase and installation, but at the same time the fewest options and least flexibility.

While the built-in touchscreens may be convenient, they tend to be small and limit the way in which the software can be used. Some systems instead have physical stop controls, but this limits one to a fixed stop layout. And even these systems cannot completely hide the fact that underneath is a general-purpose computer.

Being installed in a console will normally mean that touchscreens and speakers are in fixed positions. And although many consoles offer surround sound, the speakers themselves may not be of particularly good quality, as well as being compromised by placement in a console. Some systems come with free-standing speakers (although these are also likely to be mediocre).

However, rather than buy a standard production model, it may be possible to get a complete system custom-built to one's requirements. The Pictures pages of PCorgan.com include many such consoles, with links to many of the builders. But clearly, this is not a cheap option.

As virtual organs have now been around for many years, it may be possible to get a used ready-to-run system at a moderate cost. This might have been obtained in any of the ways given here; for example, there must be many digital organs that have been converted to Hauptwerk.

7.1.2 Computer-ready

This includes the MIDI devices and furniture only, normally with a desk. New systems will probably include a compartment and fittings for installation of a computer. They will typically be from the same companies that produce turnkey products or digital organs. They are mainly targeted at the home consumer, and sold off the internet. As such, like turnkey products, they will be made to look attractive, but one should check out component and general construction quality.

An alternative to buying a ready-built unit may be to get an organ console and MIDI devices custom built by a company that builds virtual organs to order, or by a supplier of consoles to organ builders. Apart from the ability to specify the design (perhaps based on a real organ), it should offer excellent construction quality (but will not be cheap). It will also require a lot of interaction, and ideally one should visit the workshop several times to check the work.

Another possibility in this category would be to buy a used digital organ, if it has MIDI outputs. However, the quality and suitability of the components should be carefully checked; for example, that the pedalboard has at least 30 notes.

7.1.3 User-assembled

This gives you much more freedom of choice, and perhaps a bewildering range of options. However, there is the potential to get a much better system for the money available. In part, this is since the system will be tailored to your requirements, and money will not be wasted on features not needed. And such a system can easily be changed and upgraded to meet future requirements.

As self-assembly is potentially the most economical way to obtain a virtual organ, probably the majority of systems are in this category. Components may be obtained in one or more of the following ways:

• Buy Used
• Self Build
• Buy New
• Accept Gift

Used

For those willing to do some fixing-up, high-quality components such as a pedalboard, bench, and even a console can be bought used and re-purposed. Many pipe organs are being decommissioned in favor of cheaper and more easily maintained digital organs, and their components can often be bought quite cheaply. Alternatively, it may be possible to find a non-functional electronic organ at a low price that can be used for parts.

Many used virtual organ pedalboards are from one of these sources; it is not too difficult to retrofit them with MIDI. However, while there are also used manuals from pipe organs available at very attractive prices, MIDIfying these may not be feasible.

But in this very impressive Home-Built Console, all MIDI components are bought used from ebay. These include four wood-core Compton manuals that were refurbished and MIDIfied. However, this project ran for ten years before it finally produced music!

Self-built

Those with access to carpentry and design skills could make furniture to exact requirements, and to a better standard and/or at a lower cost than ready-made products. For those with a well-equipped workshop and good DIY skills, it may be possible to make a pedalboard from scratch. However, it would probably not be feasible to build manual keyboards.

New

Manuals are the component most likely to be bought new, as used items and self-building are unlikely to be viable options. New organ manual keyboards are often supplied as bare units that must be fitted into a mounting frame, with MIDI pistons and key cheeks added to make a complete keyboard block. While allowing user customization, this also requires user assembly. But it is also possible to buy a customized complete keyboard block that requires only a single USB connection to the computer.

Gifted

Yes, some people manage to get perfectly good organ parts for nothing.

7.2 Furniture Types

There are three basic categories to consider:

Console

A full console with kneeboard and wooden superstructure, usually including jambs.

Desk

A desk with kneeboard and side panels.

Table

A normal open table with four legs.

New consoles and desks will normally have to be specially made, whereas a suitable table may be readily available. In any case, it is vital that it be as sturdy and stable as possible, so that there is no movement when the manuals are played.

When designing furniture, measurements need to be carefully calculated, to avoid ergonomic problems such as backache. Greater attention needs to be paid to measurements if there are to be more than three manuals. Standard clearances are in relation to the keys of the pedalboard and manuals. The AGO Standard Console specifications (or an equivalent) should be used.

7.2.1 Console

This has a kneeboard, side panels, and a wooden superstructure. There are usually jamb enclosures for touchscreens or physical stop controls.

Consumer turnkey systems are of this type, usually with embedded touchscreens, and often also with built-in speakers. Other consoles may be used (re-purposed organ consoles), or user-built (perhaps custom-built by an organ builder). They often use physical stop controls rather than touchscreens.

Physical stop controls will appeal to those who want the closest thing to a real pipe organ console. However, the lack of an easily-accessible touchscreen makes use of Hauptwerk and general computer functions more difficult. But with this type of console, computer devices may be considered extraneous, and so hidden away.

There are some practical disadvantages to mounting touchscreens into jamb enclosures, rather than on stands. Their positions and sizes will be fixed, in perhaps less than ideal positions. They are often small, resulting in limited content and/or controls that are difficult to operate reliably. It will also be more difficult to replace them. And they occupy the useful workspace that would be available under stands. But an attractive appearance may be considered more important than these matters.

7.2.2 Desk

This has a kneeboard with a surface supported by solid side panels, but no jambs or other significant woodwork above the surface. Consumer systems without computer hardware are usually of this type; they normally contain a compartment to house the computer, and possibly fittings for components such as speakers.

Without jamb enclosures, touchscreens can be mounted on adjustable stands, leaving accessible space underneath. Thus computer functions can be made easily available.

7.2.3 Table

This is easier to obtain than a console or desk, and is used in a large proportion of component-based systems. But the lack of a kneeboard and side panels leaves cables and components open to view.

Commercial tables may not be sufficiently sturdy and stable, or be of the correct height. However, it may be possible to make a suitable table.

7.2.4 Bench

This, together with the pedalboard, is the item most likely to be recycled from an old pipe or electronic organ. It may well be possible to find a suitable used bench at a low price, as an alternative to self-building or buying new.

It must normally span the width of the pedalboard; for a radial pedalboard, the required span is less than for a parallel one. Most have a wide seat with straight vertical side panels. However, a seat that is significantly narrower than the desk surface may be easier to mount. In particular, this gives greater clearance under the manuals when rotating, as the feet can go over the side.

This may be achieved by having legs that are further apart at the floor than the seat; either angled in, or curved ("doglegs"). Some systems have a narrow bench mounted on a plank that sits over the heel end of the pedalboard (this may have a suppoort to improve structural strength). In other cases, the legs of the bench are inset directly into the pedalboard (but this would fix the position of the bench relative to the pedalboard). Examples are shown in the Pictures pages of PCorgan.com. Some budget systems have a shallow pedalboard and a stool that stands behind it - see the photo below.

The bench should be designed in conjunction with the pedalboard, to conform to the standard specifications. For example, the required height is relative to the top of the middle pedal (the AGO nominal height is 20.5" above).

Many benches have a mechanism to adjust the height (the AGO standard specifies ±2"). But although important in a public building, I would be wary about incorporating height adjustment in a bench for home use. If not built to a high standard (as is likely in a consumer product), it will compromise robustness and stability. If only one person will ever use the bench, it can be made to a fixed height. Otherwise, the height may be adjusted by means of blocks.

7.3 Display of Music

Most systems have a music rest. However, much music is in the form of computer documents, and another option is a center monitor. This could be in addition to a music rest, if mounted on a flexible stand or bracket. The monitor could also be used for general computer operation.

This section also covers the thorny matter of page turning, with both music rest and monitor.

7.3.1 Music Rest

This sits on top of the keyboard block. It is usually made of wood, but is sometimes of another material such as Plexiglass. With four or more manuals, the rest is likely to be rather higher than ideal. In some cases, the music rest can be lowered over the top manual, thus giving a more ergonomic reading position when the top manual is not required.

The music rest is primarily for the display of music in paper form. However, many organists instead use the iPad. While this has many advantages, its small screen allows only a single page to be displayed at a time. Some organists address this limitation by using two such units.

7.3.2 Center Monitor

A lot of organ music is available primarily as PDF documents. Printing it out for use on a music rest is nowadays of questionable value. Conversely, if there is a legacy of paper music, it might be worthwhile to scan it to make its use more general.

For many people, music displayed on a computer monitor is easier to read than that on paper. A monitor also offers a larger and clearer display than the iPad, and two full pages can be displayed clearly side-by-side. For this purpose, music in portrait format is more desirable than landscape, but this is the case with much PDF organ music.

For good ergonomics, both the height of the monitor and its proximity to the organist should be adjustable. It should therefore be mounted on a suitable stand or bracket. Further hints on use of a center monitor (including their use with touchscreens) may be found from my experiences with using three-screens.

7.3.3 Page Turning

Page turning is an important aspect of console usability. And while pianists are expected to perform from memory, organists usually play even standard repertory from music. With the complexities of Bach I can understand this, having practiced too much from memory (not being bothered to turn the page), only for inaccuracies to creep in.

7.3.3.1 Music Rest

There are two main options, depending on whether the music is paper, or displayed by an iPad:

7.3.3.2 Center Monitor

This would normally be used to display a PDF (or other format) document, and probably for other computer functions. There are several page-turning options, with a number of issues. However, there are two basic ways to change the page, using either keyboard codes or the mouse:

While using the mouse wheel would be feasible (although less than ideal), operating a keyboard while playing would be impractical. Instead, a USB page turner (usually in the form of "foot pedals") could be used to simulate pressing of page navigation keys. But apart from not coexisting well with expression pedals, they would not solve the issue of loss of document window focus on operating Hauptwerk screen controls.

However, loss of focus does not occur when MIDI controls such as pistons are operated. So if registration changes while playing are confined to use of these controls, a standard USB page turner could be used. This can be enabled by assigning combinations to pistons as required (for example, from the master generals); with Auto-detect, this is quick and easy.

But a better solution than page turner pedals may be a USB pushbutton that can send a programmed sequence of characters. This could be either simple navigation keys, or address the focus issue by executing a PowerShell script via a Ctrl+Alt shortcut. This script would give focus to the document window before sending the required keys. Different sequences of keys may be programmed for short and long presses; hence a single button can make both forward and backward page turns. And a pushbutton can be positioned in a much more flexible manner than pedals.

One or two systems use the Bome MIDI Translator to field MIDI messages sent by (for example) pistons, and execute a PowerShell script as above. The snag is that Hauptwerk commandeers all MIDI ports it uses on startup, thus making them inaccessible to other applications. So any such controls must be on a separate MIDI port not used by Hauptwerk (requiring a separate MIDI connection to the computer). Implementing this in an existing system is likely to be (at best) inconvenient; it really needs to be a feature designed into the console. See this Hauptwerk forum thread for more info. But in my view, a USB pushbutton is a more appropriate type of control than an organ piston, and does not need MIDI.

7.4 Budget Systems

While some people spend a small fortune to emulate the console of a large real pipe organ, others spend a tiny fraction of this, yet with a similar end result and function.

The main sacrifices in a budget system are in appearance, handling, and construction. End function and the quality of the results are determined largely by the software and sample sets (and, of course, the organist!), which are the same regardless of system cost. I assume the use of Hauptwerk, but even low-budget systems often use this rather than the free GrandOrgue.

Apart from buying components used or building them, one can economize by considering carefully just what is necessary. This particularly applies to the keyboard block, which tends to be the most expensive component, especially as used organ manuals will probably not be an option. Although generic keyboards can be used, one should consider investing in wood-core manuals even in a low-cost system, due to their longevity.

7.4.1 Generic Keyboards

I have no experience whatever of using these; and even if I had, any comments on their quality would only be my opinion. But more information from an organist's perspective may be found here.

These consumer-grade keyboards include products described as "MIDI controllers". Being far cheaper than organ manuals, they are normally used in low-budget systems. Apart from their considerably lower cost, they have the advantage of being widely available. They will also plug straight in as MIDI devices. Although they are not exactly organ scale (they have slightly wider keys), the difference is pretty much negligible.

Being mass-produced, they will have a limited lifespan, but this also applies to the most commonly-used organ manuals (the far more expensive Fatars). And with their much lower prices and widespread availability, they can easily be replaced when no longer serviceable.

However, it is vital to try out a number of keyboards before buying. One cannot expect wood-core action from a low-cost consumer product; in most if not all cases, the action will not please an organist. So one must find the keyboard whose shortcomings are the most acceptable. Behringer, M-Audio, and Nektar keyboards seem to be those most commonly used in virtual organs, but there are clearly many other options.

An obvious aspect of using these separate keyboards is that they will have a less elegant appearance than an organ keyboard block. As each keyboard comes in its own case, shelves will normally be required to accommodate them, and it may not be possible to achieve the ideal vertical spacing. They will also lack provision for fitting thumb pistons, but may come with controls that could serve this purpose.

To create a look and feel more like that of real organ manuals, it may be possible to extract the bare keyboards and remount them. This page from Lars Virtual Pipe Organs should give some ideas on how to accomplish this.

7.4.2 How Many Manuals?

A typical Hauptwerk system has 2, 3, or 4 manuals (simple, standard, super). A fifth manual would probably never be utilized (I believe only two sample sets feature real organs with 5 manuals, both from Inspired Acoustics). Having only one manual would result in fundamental limitations that could not be overcome by Hauptwerk function; notwithstanding, there is plenty of music that does not require multiple manuals.

Ideally, there should be as many manuals as has the real organ, which may well mean four manuals. However, the Hauptwerk software enables one to use a sample set with more manuals than has the virtual organ, in the following ways:

As a result, having fewer manuals than the sample set is unlikely to be a fundamental limitation. The compromise would be in different handling and some loss of convenience, compared to having a full set of manuals.

But apart from being more economical, having fewer manuals may otherwise be better ergonomically. The more manuals there are, the higher and deeper is the keyboard block. Not only are the higher manuals more difficult to reach, but the music rest is likely to be higher up than is ideal. Moreover, positioning of the touchscreen may be compromised; for ergonomic operation, it should be as close as possible to the manuals, and fairly low down.

So, for example, unless a fourth manual would offer really significant benefits, it may be better to stick with three. And if a fourth manual did become desirable, one could always place a generic keyboard on top of the block; as this would be the least-used keyboard, the issues of limited lifespan and second-rate action would be less significant. But if another manual is to be added to the block, it would have to be placed underneath, and greater depth would be required to accommodate it.

7.4.3 How Many Expression Pedals?

A typical Hauptwerk system has 1, 2, or 3 expression pedals (simple, standard, super). But 0 (zero) expression pedals are required for much music, including all that written during the baroque period. And it should not be too difficult to add these later.

As in the number of manuals, the principal consideration is based on the sample sets one is likely to use. Relatively few feature more than one swell division, and these are mainly large romantic / symphonic / American classic instruments, or theatre organs. Moreover, swell pedals can be floated with keyboards (divisions). So having only one swell pedal would not usually be a fundamental limitation.

However, another use for expression pedals is for crescendo. Even if the real organ has no crescendo pedal, it may be desired to use the master crescendo function of Hauptwerk. Thus, it may be a good idea to provide at least two expression pedals.

7.4.4 How Many Pistons?

This section mainly applies to both thumb pistons and toe pistons.

Traditional use of pistons involves large numbers of divisional and general combinations, as well as other functions; according to conventional wisdom, there should be about 20 on each manual. But pistons available for virtual organs are very expensive for what they are (pushbuttons); the most basic cost from US$15 to US$25 each (and by many accounts, commonly-available US$15 square pistons are unsatisfactory). On this basis, the pistons alone would account for a large proportion of the total cost of the manuals.

The good news is that very few pistons are really needed. The registration functions of Hauptwerk provide considerably more function than the pistons on a real pipe organ. Thus all the required function (and much more) is available on the touchscreen. Pistons are only needed for function that must be operated while actually playing; this essentially means that required for quick changes of registration.

And instead of using numerous divisional and general pistons for this purpose, one can use the combination stepper. This requires only two pistons; one for the next combination, and one for the previous one. For maximum speed of access, these can be duplicated on each manual without undue expense. With the Hauptwerk software, using the combination stepper is probably simpler as well as much more economical in pistons. Cueing and triggering, as well as setting, can be done on the touchscreen.

However, having a few extra pistons allows easy triggering of frequently-used or current combinations, which could be assigned as required from the master pistons. And it may be good strategy to use only pistons for registration changes while playing, as operating the small toolbar registration controls may be error-prone. Also, using the touchscreen changes the window focus, which causes problems when page turning using a monitor. Pistons may also be needed to couple floating divisions on the fly.

Instead of buying special organ pistons (which apart from being inordinately expensive, may not be of very good quality), it may be possible to utilize general-purpose pushbuttons. This section on thumb pistons may give some idea of what options are available.

Yet another way to save on pistons is to use keys for this purpose. As the top 5 keys on a 61-key manual are unlikely to be played, they could instead be used as thumb pistons. This is done by simply using the Hauptwerk Auto-detect function, pressing the required key as the MIDI device to set. Similarly, with a 32-note pedalboard, the top 2 pedals could be used as toe pistons (perhaps for the combination stepper).

And as noted above, generic keyboards may have buttons that generate MIDI messages; again, Auto-detect would be used to assign them function as pistons.

7.4.5 A Basic Baroque Virtual Organ

If the user has only limited requirements, it is often possible to meet them fully with a simple and economical design. For example, a perfectly functional organ for baroque music can be built with only the following MIDI devices:

• Two simple manual keyboards (without thumb pistons)
• A 30-note flat pedalboard

Even in baroque music, two manuals are required for quick changes of registration, and playing with each hand on a separate division. But sample sets with more than two manuals can be handled as described above.

While thumb and toe pistons may be convenient, they can hardly be considered necessary for baroque music. Prodding a touchscreen is much quicker and easier than yanking and shoving the drawbars on a real baroque organ (although perhaps less satisfying😜).

Also bear in mind that if only sample sets of fairly small organs are to be used, processor and RAM requirements will be relatively modest.

8 What I Got

After having first looked into virtual organs several years ago, I finally took the plunge (at the age of 66!) with the first purchase on 8 November 2021. After many difficulties, I finally got the system working on 15 July 2022.

There are many ways to go when assembling such a system, and I am pleased to have found what for me is the right way. This means putting practical function, durability, and ergonomics before cosmetics, and the philosophy that less can be more (and cheaper!). Although putting it together was no picnic, the satisfying outcome has made it well worth the trouble and expense.

8.1 Considerations

I have never even been near a pipe organ console, nor is anyone ever likely to allow me near one. So emulating its look and feel is less important to me than easy access to all Hauptwerk and auxiliary computer functions. Moreover, the system is for my use only, and then primarily for Bach (although with a view to handling other music in the future). So my criteria are very different from those of an experienced real pipe organist who wants a system that feels familiar, and is suitable for use by other people.

I did not have a specific budget, but did not want to spend any more than necessary to get a good-quality system. This was especially as I was a complete newcomer to the organ, and had not played any keyboard instrument for nearly 50 years. If I did not take to it, the system would be a serious waste of money. At the same time, I was keen to avoid the following:

• components with a limited lifespan that were likely to become a problem to repair or replace
• features that I did not really need, especially those that could easily be added later
• conversely, fundamental deficiencies that could not easily be remedied later

I was never attracted to pretty ready-built packages; apart from having components of questionable quality, these would deny me free choice, and result in a poor quality/cost ratio. I saw little prospect of getting good used organ components here in Mexico (those I have seen advertised do not ship here). And I am no DIYer. However, I have experience with AutoCAD (being the architect of my own house), and can get furniture custom made by local carpenters at moderate cost.

So my system is based on new separate components, with carpenter-built furniture. I divided purchasing into the following four phases:

8.2 System Overview

The pedalboard and manuals were supplied in bare wood by PedaMidiKit, and finished by local carpenters. PMK (Alessandro Alfieri) puts construction and playing quality at a low price before cosmetics and unnecessary features. Nonetheless, after finishing I think they look quite handsome, and fit well with the rustic room decor. I expect they will last longer than I will, and I am delighted with the way they play.

The desk and bench were built by the carpenters to my plans. This was not only considerably more economical and problem-free than importing ready-made products of comparable quality, it also gave me exactly what I wanted.

The system is perhaps unusual in being dominated by three large screens; two touchscreens to the sides for Hauptwerk use, and a center monitor instead of a music rest for displaying music and general computer functions. These are driven by a mini PC with low power consumption but impressive performance.

The console layout incorporates audio output devices and computer input devices. The computer system is fixed to the wall behind the desk, out of view, but with an accessible power button (rarely used) and USB ports.

8.2.1 What It Has

Main Components

Other Stuff

8.2.2 What It Hasn't

8.2.3 What It Cost

Payments were made in three currencies (euro, US dollar, and Mexican peso), from November 2021 to June 2022. All values are given in US dollars, and are approximate, as they depend on the exchange rate.

The total cost (excluding the HDD, vintage speakers and amplification) was just under $10,000. This may seem high for a basic system, but includes all shipping, taxes, import duties, customs handling fees, and other charges.

A rough breakdown of gross costs (not sticker prices) is as follows:

I could easily have spent much more on a system with much less good construction quality. I especially saved on the pedalboard, manuals, and their shipping. And with the low labor costs here in Mexico, I also got a substantial custom-made bench and desk for much less than the sticker prices of comparable commercial products. But the touchscreens were more expensive than I had bargained for, and I paid about 50% on top of the shipping charges to have the pedalboard and manuals brought through customs.

For my current purposes (mainly learning the works of J S Bach), I do not believe that additional expenditure would have been productive. To me, the only significant drawbacks relate to the behavior of software, and so would apply to any Windows-based Hauptwerk system, regardless of the amount spent.

8.3 Pedalboard and Bench

This was the first component I wanted to buy, especially as I had never even seen a pedalboard, and was eager to try playing one.

I was looking for a pedalboard that was concave, and probably also radial. I also wanted 32 pedals; although I would not need them for Bach, it would make the pedalboard future-proof at little extra cost. And the top two pedals could serve as toe pistons.

On investigation it became clear that a suitable pedalboard would be far too difficult for me to build, even with the help of carpenters. I also saw little prospect of finding a suitable used one to ship here to Mexico. So I was left with buying a new one.

8.3.1 Buying the Pedalboard

As Classic MidiWorks (based in Canada, with an outlet in the USA) seemed to be THE place to buy organ components, on 14 November 2021 I commenced online purchase of their AGO pedalboard at US$1895. However, I was stopped in my tracks by a blanket shipping charge of US$1000 (which they said they would adjust once I had submitted my card details and made payment on this basis). As I was not prepared to do this (I am frankly surprised that anyone would be), I sent an email asking their shipping charge to Mexico. They answered many questions that I did not ask, but would not answer this one, simply restating what was said on the website. So I looked more carefully at other options.

I looked at AGO pedalboards by Arnold Organs (US$2300, looked good, but did not ship here), and Viscount (around €2400, yet of more questionable quality). There were others much cheaper, but flat, and which I felt would not give satisfaction. I finally went with a one-man business in Italy named PedaMidiKit (Alessandro Alfieri). He offered a range of different pedalboards, and you can also have a design customized to your requirements, as each piece is built to order.

On 27 November 2021, I ordered an AGO 32 pedalboard (32 notes, concave, radial) at €970, plus the option of a fast reed switch replacement system. Although this is the most expensive pedalboard sold by PMK, it is considerably cheaper than that from Classic MidiWorks. The unit was supplied unassembled and unfinished; I consider this to be an advantage, as it would be more robust to handling problems, and I could have it finished the way I wanted. I bought largely on the basis of photos of another AGO pedalboard he had made, but in any case there were no other good options. However, as will be seen, I was not disappointed.

On 29 November 2021, I received an invoice for €1052, but unfortunately due to government anti-money laundering measures, I was unable to make payment until 5 January 2022. Alessandro wanted a bank transfer via Wise (formerly TransferWise), but it eventually transpired that the Mexican government does not allow such payments, as the true recipient cannot be known. On 20 January 2022, I received an email (including photos and a video showing that all the pedals worked) stating that the pedalboard was ready.

I sent the shipping agent a payment of €240, and finally received the pedalboard (in three packages) on 2 March 2022. This was a result of shipping delays and a number of communication issues involving customs handling and misleading tracking information. There was also some concern that Mexican customs would not accept the items without special treatment, as they were bare wood. On top of the shipping charge, there was a substantial fee for customs handling (otherwise, I would have had to travel a considerable distance to the port of entry to take the items through customs myself).

When the pedalboard arrived, I assembled the frame, but left the pedals separate for finishing. I gave the bench plans and the pedalboard parts to the carpenters, who delivered the finished items on 4 April 2022. After completing assembly of the pedalboard, I was last able to try playing it. However, without any sound, this proved to be of limited benefit, and possibly even counterproductive in inducing bad habits.

Using a powered USB hub, I subsequently did some tests with the pedalboard by checking its indicator LED, as a result of which I adjusted all the speech points to the midpoint of the range of travel. On 22 June 2022, I was finally able to get some sound from the pedalboard; the consequences of practicing without sound then became clear.

8.3.2 Designing the Bench

While waiting for the pedalboard, I found a home-built bench based on a Laukhuff model (catalog 9 page 24/25). This features doglegs that would be easy enough for the carpenters to make, while imparting both esthetic and ergonomic benefits.

The curves add a touch of elegance to an otherwise plain and square console. The narrower seat makes it easier to mount than a regular bench, as one's feet go over the side while rotating, giving much greater clearance under the desk.

I had not seen the Laukhuff catalog at that time, and worked only from the web page photos. No measurements were given, but they were clearly taken from the catalog. However, neither copy is (or was intended to be) an exact replica of its model.

I put some effort into developing a more esthetically-pleasing form for the doglegs. In the Laukhuff they are basically three straight sections, modified somewhat in the copy. Mine are curvier and slightly less splayed than either. They are also 5 cm thick, to give good strength and stability.

Both copies have a hinged seat with a storage compartment underneath. To enable this to hold paper music, I increased the seat depth by 2.5 cm, and the compartment height by 2 cm. In the Laukhuff, this space is occupied by a crank mechanism to adjust the height; this would be difficult and expensive to implement without seriously compromising robustness and stability.

Although essential for public use, height adjustment is not needed for my bench, as only I will ever use it. The AGO nominal seat height of 20.5" above the middle pedal is fine for me; I will not even bother with the blocks used in the copy. I also omitted the feet; having four separate points of contact is not an issue on a tiled floor, and the legs are thick and cross-braced.

My bench was designed for a 32-note radial pedalboard. However, the Laukhuff design is for a 30-note parallel one, which is wider at the bench even though it has fewer notes. The overall width is 96 (100) cm at the seat, and 128 (136.5) cm at the floor. It can be seen that my doglegs are just 4.5 cm less splayed than in the Laukhuff. The compartment is enlarged with a minimum seat depth of 33 (30.5) cm, and outside height of 12 (10) cm.

As AutoCAD did not seem to be an efficient tool to design this bench, I created only informal plans for the carpenters. These comprised a cardboard template for the doglegs, some of the website photos, and some measurements.

8.3.3 The Result

Despite being by far the lowest-cost AGO pedalboard I could find, there is nothing cheap about its construction. It far exceeds what I imagined from the website, which does not do the products justice.

The frame is of oak, and screws together in a way that, while less elegant than dovetailing, is very sturdy and requires no bracing. Solid metal guide pins (not wooden rods) separate the pedals at the toe end of the frame. The upper parts of the pedals are of ash, with pine underneath. Both wood and workmanship are to a high standard.

There are both sprung heel plates and wire toe springs. The latter provide most of the resistance, which can be changed by an alternative way of fitting them. Resistance of the heel plates can also be changed by loosening or tightening them (although there seems to be no reason to do this).

I have never played any other pedalboards, so I am perhaps not best qualified to comment on its playing qualities. However, I cannot fault the action, finding it to be firm, smooth, and responsive. Others, who presumably have more experience of playing pedalboards than I, concur that it plays beautifully. It makes very little noise when played.

Each reed switch is mounted on its own circuit board (this appears to be the fast reed switch replacement option). I received 7 spares, which I am pleased to have, as they would be the only parts that might be difficult to get hold of.

The electronics are based on an Arduino Leonardo controller with built-in USB. This is housed in a small wooden box that is screwed to the back of the pedalboard. Connection to the computer is USB-A via a very short wired-in cable, so you will probably need an extension. There is also a 5-pin DIN connector to support connection by MIDI cable. LEDs indicate power and reed switch activation.

In all respects, the pedalboard appears to conform to the AGO specification. Other pedalboards might look prettier, but I do not believe that they would be more robustly constructed, or enable me to play any better.

The bench has a very pleasing appearance. Notwithstanding the lack of feet, it is reassuringly stable, being surprisingly heavy. It is also very solid, and will take considerably more weight than mine. Its height is just right.

8.4 Manuals and Desk

The most basic consideration was how many manuals I should get. A two-manual block would serve for Bach, but could not be elegantly upgraded to more manuals to meet future requirements. A three-manual block seemed appropriate, as sample sets with four manuals (for example, Laurenskerk by Sonus Paradisi) could be handled with little compromise. I was also looking for wood-core keyboards, with generic ones as a fallback (no Fatars!).

I initially had no idea of how many pistons I should provide, and was concerned that this would involve considerable expenditure for little useful function. I only cottoned on to using the combination stepper instead of divisionals and generals shortly before purchase. These could handle a large number of combinations (1000 per set), requiring only cueing and triggering on the touchscreen. An extra 10 on the lowest manual will hold current general combinations that can be triggered without using the touchscreen.

8.4.1 Buying the Manuals

Given my experience with PedaMidiKit in offering no-frills but well-built products at a low price with honest shipping costs, on 21 April 2022 I transferred €2325 for a 3-manual keyboard block with 16 pistons in a very substantial shipping crate (as recommended for shipping to Mexico). This unit came assembled, but in bare wood.

I was attracted by the fact that the keyboards are made by Schwindler with wood-core construction and mechanical key switches. The only other affordable organ manuals were by Fatar and used rubber domes; the issues with servicing such keyboards would be especially unacceptable for me here in Mexico.

Another advantage of PedaMidiKit is customization. My unit came ready-made with 16 pistons (well, small black buttons) with a specified layout. All I had to do was plug the USB connector into the computer. I would otherwise have had to buy a mounting frame, key cheeks, rails, thumb pistons, and electronic components separately, and assemble the unit myself (including all the MIDI connections).

Each manual has a pair of buttons for the combination stepper, and the lowest manual additionally has two groups of 5 for ad-hoc purposes. I have no intention of getting involved with divisional/general pistons, nor with the different ways of using numerous pistons to cue combination stepper frames described in the Hauptwerk User Guide.

On 16 May 2022, I received notification that the manuals were completed. Again, there were attached photos and two videos showing that all keys and pistons were functional. I sent a payment of €294 for shipping. This time the process went more smoothly; there were no delays, and I was aware of what to expect.

The shipping crate was very solid and offered excellent protection from major impacts; I consider the price I paid to be very reasonable. However, I was rather surprised to see that there was no padding to cushion the unit. This might have led to some speech points going out of adjustment.

Having extracted the keyboard block from its crate, I disassembled it so the carpenters could finish it. This involved removal of the base, and was a daunting task, as the two lower manuals were connected by ribbon cable and could not be separated. These parts (the two connected manuals taped together as best as I could), together with the plans for the desk, were given to the carpenters. On 5 July 2022, the carpenters delivered the desk and finished keyboard block parts.

8.4.2 Designing the Desk

While waiting for the keyboard block, I created plans for the desk (in Spanish) using AutoCAD. This required a considerable amount of care and attention, to ensure that all measurements met the standards, and that there was sufficient clearance for playing. For example, the AGO standard requires a distance of 29.5" from the top of the pedal middle D to the top of the middle D on the lowest manual. This required the pedalboard (which I already had) plus knowledge of the height of the lowest manual keys above the desk. Apart from this, the pedalboard must be recessed an appropriate distance behind the manuals.

It was also important that it be very stable and sturdy so it does not wobble when the manuals are played. Another important criterion was that it must be simple for the carpenters to make, with no complex shapes. I went for a desk design with a kneeboard, supported by thick side panels on feet, and with a good amount of surface workspace. It is braced by elements with a 5cm square cross-section that hold the kneeboard panel, and an arched element under the manuals. Should I ever progress beyond Bach, holes can easily be cut in the panel to accommodate expression pedals and toe pistons (probably two of each).

I perused several products on the internet before arriving at this design. Many seemed to have features that take up valuable space, but add no value (except perhaps make it look more for advertising purposes). It is significantly different from any that I saw, but to help the carpenters understand the overall shape (few people seem to be able to work from plans), I also gave them a photo of that most similar.

In all these aspects (especially the ergonomic ones, which should be based on the AGO Standard Console specifications) it is important to get the design right before giving it to the carpenters - one can hardly blame them for a bad result built according to the plans!

8.4.3 The Result

Like the pedalboard, the keyboard block is not super-de-luxe, but it is well built. The key cheeks are of oak, with some detailing to take off the squareness. It was well worth getting the unit finished, as this vastly improved its appearance, and made it much more appropriate for my listening room. Staining and polishing alone gave a very pleasing result; no preparation of the woodwork was required. Although Schwindler offers various types of keytop, only the standard black sharps on white naturals was offered by PMK; however, this is what I would have chosen anyway; fancy keytops would look out of place in my system.

The keys are of acrylic plastic, and perhaps a bit slippery with my dry skin (my previous experience was in pounding the ivories). But as this issue can be addressed by a light sanding, this glossy surface is hardly a problem. And they have a solid, quality feel to them (not plasticky). Spacing between the keys is somewhat uneven, and they are not perfectly level. However, there are no serious discrepancies; these issues are purely cosmetic, and perhaps to be expected at the relatively low price.

What is most important (together with construction) is the playing quality, and on this I have absolutely no reservations. I am delighted with the responsiveness of the keys, having been worried that I would be dissatisfied with the action. From 1961 to 1973, I played both a Steinway piano at home, and some old Joannas on which it was impossible to deliver a proper performance. The action noise appears to be moderate and normal. The only shortcoming is that some of the speech points were not very well adjusted (there are instructions on how to change them, and I will get round to doing this sometime). With the exception of one problem shallow speech point combined with my short fingers, I have no reason to blame the keyboards for any shortcomings in my playing.

Like the pedalboard, the electronics are based on the Arduino Leonardo, and there is a fixed short cable with USB-A connector (again, you will probably need an extension cable).

The desk is satisfyingly stable, being very difficult to move. Although an error occurred during construction, after correction all the measurements are very accurate. The measurements of the console as a whole conform to the standards, and the organ has proved very comfortable to play.

8.5 Electronics

These were mainly purchased from Amazon USA, with some from Amazon Mexico. In contrast to the expense and difficulties in buying and importing the pedalboard and manuals, buying from Amazon USA was a breeze. The amount of customs duty payable was estimated by Amazon, and included in the amount to pay; any excess duty paid was refunded. Lower-cost items were free of duty. Shipping was fast (a very small number of days), and inexpensive.

The basic components were purchased by 18 June 2022, and set up in another location from the pedalboard and manuals (with an internet connection as required to setup Windows 11). The computer system was then moved to the location of the organ console to connect the MIDI devices. After a period of misery, it was finally up and running on 15 July 2022. Now all I had to do was learn the organ oeuvre of J S Bach.

8.5.1 Computer Box

As I wanted three screens, I needed a computer that would drive them, which limited my options. Probably most will drive two screens, but not three or more. The Minisforum HX90 will drive four; two DisplayPort, and two HDMI. I put the center monitor on a DisplayPort, and used HDMI for the two touchscreens.

I already owned a Minisforum PC; this has half the number of cores (4) and runs at half the clock rate (1.8 GHz). Nonetheless, everything I do happens very quickly (it is very noticeably faster than my all-in-one). The additional cores are important for Hauptwerk; this with the faster clock should give around four times the performance.

It comes with mounting hardware that enabled me to fix it directly to the wall, along with the UPS and other items.

8.5.1.1 CPU

This is (dare I say it) an AMD processor - the Ryzen 9. Although it is in a small box without a fan, it has 8 cores / 16 threads, and runs at a base 3.6 GHz (clockable up to 4.7 GHz).

Yet it produces a barely discernable amount of heat and thus clearly uses little electricity. This enables me to leave the system actively running 24/7, so I can use it at odd moments (I often practice while making a coffee). This makes it much more like the piano I used to play over 50 years ago!

And the least of my worries with Hauptwerk is running out of processor power; the CPU load so far has been very light indeed (and I have tried drawing lots of stops, playing rapidly, and with fat chords without getting near to approaching its limits).

8.5.1.2 RAM

While 32 GB is insufficient for other than a small organ if 6 channels are to be loaded, quite a large instrument can be loaded with only two channels. For example, the 85-stop Laurenskerk Rotterdam organ by Sonus Paradisi occupies 25 GB with only the two front channels loaded (20-bit, all stops).

My current sample sets either only have 2 channels, or else give a satisfying sound from the two channels recorded in a central position. In these cases, I see no need for more than 2 channels. I personally see mixing channels as a remedy; as it does not represent a single listening position, it could be considered artificial.

Nonetheless, I do see myself upgrading to 128 GB in the mid to long term, to be able to load large instruments to handle a wider range of styles. But as I intend to concentrate on Bach for a few years, there is no hurry. And the memory should be cheaper by then.😁

8.5.1.3 Secondary Storage

The 512 GB internal SSD is dedicated to Windows and installed apps, which occupy only around 40 GB. I will rarely use hibernate, so its capacity is more than sufficient for a long lifespan.

External USB-connected storage comprises a 1 TB SSD and a 3 TB HDD. The SSD is used primarily for installed sample sets; in the unlikely event that more space became necessary, it could easily be replaced with a higher-capacity one. The HDD is used for downloaded sample sets, and general purposes where performance is not critical (for example, audio and video files, and sheet music).

8.5.2 The Three Screens

As all my organ music is in PDF format (I have no legacy of paper, as I have for the piano), I got a 27" UHD IPS monitor instead of a music rest. Apart from displaying two pages of music very clearly, it is also used for computer administration and auxiliary applications.

Cautionary Tale: The third-party code used for Hauptwerk control panels and toolbars has serious problems with multiple monitors where different scaling is used. Had I known about this, I would have bought a QHD monitor scaled to 100% (like the touchscreens), instead of a UHD monitor that requires 150% scaling.

I took some care to position the screens in the most ergonomic way possible, considering both position and angle. The touchscreens are particularly close to hand, and very convenient for both viewing and operating. And all three screens are easily adjustable by purpose-bought stands and a wall-mounting bracket. The stands give plenty of accessible workspace underneath the touchscreens for audio output devices, computer input devices, and also a mug of coffee.

8.5.2.1 Touchscreens

I decided to have two touchscreens, expecting these to be easily available at low cost. But, unlike with the center monitor, there was a disappointingly-limited selection of touchscreens at fairly high prices; many small, and low-resolution. I saw no point in having less than the maximum resolution I could find (FHD, or 1920x1080), especially as they would display content other than the jambs. I also chose about the largest size I saw (22"), as smaller touch controls would be more difficult to operate reliably.

I initially considered using the two touchscreens to display the two jambs of a pipe organ console. However, many sample sets have simplified stop layouts that occupy only a single window (even for a large organ), and which are easier to use than the photo-realistic ones. Smaller sample sets have only a single stop layout window. Thus the stops can usually be accommodated on one screen, and the other can be used for other purposes. So while my initial view was to emulate an organ console, my criteria changed to practical ones.

So the touchscreens are used as follows (left, right):

I now make all registration changes while playing via MIDI pistons. The touchscreen registration controls are used only to:

• set up combinations on the master general pistons and (in the future) combination stepper and master crescendo
• assign master general combinations to MIDI pistons as required

With Auto-detect, assigning a MIDI piston from a master general takes only a couple of seconds. As currently-used combinations are assigned to pistons, it is not typically necessary to power up the touchscreen. For my current purposes (Bach), the 10 general-purpose pistons are fine. For music requiring more combination changes, the combination stepper will be used; this has the advantage of leaving the other 10 pistons free for functions such as changing floating divisions.

Avoiding use of the touchscreens to change registration while playing has the following benefits:

• Pistons are easier to use than touchscreens. In particular, I find operating the small master general buttons to be awkward and error-prone.
• Since focus stays with the music document window, page turning can be done with a standard USB page turner.
• As the touchscreen is not needed, it can be left powered off. This avoids problems with insects landing on it, which can cause a disconcerting General Cancel, or (worse) the possibility of stored combinations being overwritten.

8.5.2.2 Suspending and Resuming

When I finish with the organ, I put all three screens to sleep with Ctrl+Alt+Z (a shortcut created using some Windows PowerShell black magic). I then power off any active touchscreens, using touch-sensitive controls on the front panel. This not only saves power, but also avoids insects waking up all three screens.

The computer is left running, so that if no screen is required the organ can be used immediately. Clicking and moving the mouse turns the screens back on, with initially only the center monitor powered up. If I need to update registrations, I turn on the left-hand touchscreen with the touch-sensitive control. If other functions are required, I turn on the right-hand touchscreen.

In the event of a power outage (by no means unheard of here in Mexico), the APC no-break is good for about 90 minutes running time with the center monitor on standby (a good reason to get an energy-efficient CPU!). If this time is approached, the computer is hibernated.

8.5.3 Audio Devices

For me, the MOTU M2 is an excellent audio interface. Unlike most, it has good volume level meters, which I would not want to be without (I have the unit angled inwards, so I can easily monitor them to avoid clipping).

There is a convenient power switch at the back; however, turning off the unit upsets Hauptwerk, so I use it only when hibernating the computer. But the indication of the wind noise (clearly fluctuating) at least gives me some reassurance that things are still OK!

There are MIDI input and output ports, which may come in useful if and when I get expression pedals and toe pistons (although I believe I can connect these to the pedalboard). It also offers phono output for my legacy hi-fi system. Performance and sound quality are top drawer.

I am also very happy with the Beyerdynamic DT 990 headphones, which offer both excellent sound and comfort. They are open-backed (very open), but this is appropriate for my quiet location with nobody around to annoy. The Hauptwerk system allows me to hear much more than in commercial recordings (the processing of which clearly masks a lot of important detail). Although they are high impedance, I am able to achieve more than adequate volume levels from the MOTU without a headphone amplifier.

8.5.3.1 Use of Speakers

I will use only high-quality wet sample sets with a high-grade hi-fi system that gives natural stereo sound out-of-the-box in a favorable acoustic environment. I thus do not require a vast array of speakers with banks of graphic equalizers, stacks of reverb and effects processors, or any other such paraphernalia.

I will use only headphones, not speakers at the organ. Apart from cluttering the console, speakers would deliver particularly bad sound in this corner location. Instead, I will route output to my stereo hi-fi system (I was never sold on the original quadraphonics, never mind 5:1, 7:1, and even more speakers).

This has elderly but venerable B&W 801 series 2 speakers on Sound Anchor stands, driven by Rotel amplifiers (pre-amp and four mono power amplifiers). The room was specially designed for high-quality acoustics, with a 4m-high bóveda ceiling and curved front wall. The speakers are positioned some distance apart to give a wide sound stage, but well away from walls. I do not believe that the coherent and spacious result could possibly be achieved with a cumbersome array of speakers clustered around the organ console, regardless of how much signal processing was done.

Even so, headphones are better for practicing. (And although the latency with 24 ms from the audio interface is not perceptible through headphones, it is through speakers, due to the time taken for sound to reach the console about 10m away. The speakers are for listening to Hauptwerk recordings (in an armchair, not on the bench) and for demonstrating the organ to others.

8.5.4 Keyboard and Mouse

These are wireless, and sit on top of the desk to the left of the manuals (I am left-handed).

The keyboard is used to switch off the screens as indicated above. It is also used to operate the computer when required.

The mouse is used to switch on the screens, and operate the computer. The mouse wheel is also currently used to turn pages, although I am considering a USB push button for this purpose.

8.6 Software

8.6.1 Purchasing

My first purchase was actually Hauptwerk 6, which I bought on 8 November 2021, well before I had decided on a pedalboard. I was seriously worried that (following the gigantic bloatware merchants Adobe, Microsoft, et al), the next release of Hauptwerk would be available only on subscription. This already applied to the Lite edition of Hauptwerk 6, and I was afraid that this was just a stepping stone to a subscription-only product.

The total cost of use on a subscription basis would be many times the price of a one-off purchase. Hauptwerk would then be a non-option, and I would instead use GrandOrgue. But although more economical (free!), it would nonetheless be disappointing in comparison with Hauptwerk.

Hauptwerk 7 was released in January 2022 with a perpetual license at the same price. Nonetheless, I do not regret purchasing Hauptwerk 6, given what I knew at that time. There is nothing in Hauptwerk 7 that I would ever use, never mind have any need for. And there is always the option of paying for an update, should it prove necessary.

8.6.2 Issues

In this section, I point out some basic shortcomings that pervade the product, and will affect many other people. It is important that Hauptwerk users be aware of these issues, to avoid problems such as lost registrations, difficulties initializing MIDI devices, or excessive power consumption. Forewarned is forearmed! I have also checked the Hauptwerk Forum, but these issues are either not mentioned, or glossed over without clear explanation. But I have provided links to any relevant material on this forum.

Notwithstanding, Hauptwerk is a great piece of software. It has a very rich feature set, and I will probably never use many of its functions. It is able to work with a wide variety of hardware, including old instruments that have MIDI outputs, or have been converted to MIDI. It also has to deal with many different sample sets. I have found Hauptwerk to be a very stable product, and the reliability issues appear to be confined to Windows. We should all be very grateful to Martin Dyde for his considerable hard work and great talent. He is clearly a one-man band, and his achievements are all the more remarkable when one considers that HW 1 and the beginning of HW 2 were developed in his spare time!

8.6.2.1 Microsoft Windows

On my system, crashes occur every two to three months of continuous running, on which neither the Windows Event Viewer nor the Hauptwerk Activity Log sheds any light. And from time to time, one or both of the MIDI ports ceases to work. Most, if not all of these problems appear to be due to flaky Windows MIDI support, and require a Windows Restart (do not shut down using the Microsoft-recommended "fast startup").

So when your manuals and/or pedals suddenly stop working, don't despair over how to fix them, or even fiddle with the connections; instead, reboot (with Doc Martens) and curse Micros**t!

8.6.2.2 MIDI Ports Dialog

a) Inappropriate Assignment of Logical Ports

From Hauptwerk 6, the ports listed in this dialog are not those that can easily be determined by the physical connections, but logical ports. The basis on which these are determined is not documented.

My system has two physical connections of MIDI over USB; one for the pedalboard, the other for the complete keyboard block. However, these appear as only a single logical port. When commissioning the system, it appeared that only one port had been detected, and that one of the components was therefore non-functional.

This, combined with other problems that conspired to cause maximum confusion, led to several days of misery. I was particularly worried about the keyboard block, as I dismantled this and gave it to the carpenters for finishing with dodgy wired-in connections. Only after a complete reset of Hauptwerk that appeared to be unnecessary (see below) did it transpire that both manuals and pedalboard worked fine.

In my system, both controllers have the name Arduino Leonardo (and it seems that it would not be possible for PMK to change them). I do not know whether this is the reason for the two ports appearing as a single item. However, a numeric suffix should be added to differentiate multiple physical ports with the same name. In any event, it is obviously inappropriate that Hauptwerk has registered two physical ports, but listed only one.

b) Misleading Information

MIDI devices are only initialized by Hauptwerk when it is started; any connected while it is running will not be recognized. This applies to MIDI devices that run over USB, which the user would expect to be hot-connectable. And even if audio and MIDI devices are restarted (which they are at various points), new devices will still not be recognized.

There may be a good reason for this, but what is clearly a problem is the misleading information at the top of this window. It not only fails to make this matter clear, but even implies that this is the point at which MIDI devices should be connected. Instead, it should have stated that if MIDI devices are not already connected, it is necessary to close Hauptwerk, connect the devices, then restart Hauptwerk.

This, together with the appearance of only one MIDI port described above, was responsible for a lot of the misery I had in getting the system working.

8.6.2.3 Control Panels and Toolbars

These use Creative Commons code named Qt (Quick Toolbar). This will have saved a great deal of development effort, especially as it is multi-platform (so the same user interface code would serve for both Windows and macOS). There would be a strong motivation for using this code in the early stages of development, as it would otherwise have taken much longer to develop core Hauptwerk function. However, using third-party code has its problems when it comes to maintenance, design changes, and fixing bugs.

Frankly, this code does not belong in a commercial product. Its use is responsible for the some of the most serious usability issues in Hauptwerk; in addition to the following bugs is its generally non-standard and quirky behavior. Now the product is mature, I do wish Milan Digital Audio (Martin Dyde) would write code in-house to handle dialog windows with standard Windows/macOS conventions, and throw this stuff in the bin.

The types of dialog window in Hauptwerk that use the Qt code are called control panel (large and mini) and toolbar. These will henceforth be collectively referred to as Qt.

a) Improper Scaling

The Qt documentation states that it supports scaling, claiming that Qt uses the Windows display scale settings automatically; no spesific(sic) settings are required. For example, if a display is configured for 175% scale then Qt apps will see a device pixel ratio of 1.75 on that screen. In reality, Qt scaling is bananas.

My center 27" 4K monitor requires 150% scaling to render at a size comfortable for viewing. However, the touchscreens are scaled at 100%, as they have much coarser dot pitch. But Qt leaves the center monitor at 100%, while scaling the touchscreens to the inverse of that required for the center monitor (67%)!

I want to confine the Hauptwerk windows to the touchscreens, as the center monitor will be occupied with display of music. So if Qt did no scaling at all on the touchscreens, that would be fine for me. But the 67% scaling done when the Hauptwerk main window is on a touchscreen causes the content to be illegible, as there are insufficient screen pixels to render it properly.

On the other hand, if a Qt is opened when the Hauptwerk main window is on the center monitor, the lack of scaling makes the rendered information difficult to read. But on dragging the Qt from the center monitor to a touchscreen, the scale remains at 100%. This lack of scale change on dragging to another screen is a further defect (c), but here is fortuitous; dragging a Qt from the center monitor to a touchscreen is the only way to render it satisfactorily.

But not only do I have the chore of dragging each Qt I want to open from the center monitor, I am forced to have the Hauptwerk main window open on it at all times. As the center monitor is primarily to display music, I do not want to see this window. But I am forced to have a small Hauptwerk main window showing at all times (d). Worse, the main Hauptwerk window is given focus whenever a Qt is operated (e).

b) Mysterious Disappearances

The burden of having to drag each Qt from the center monitor is aggravated by the fact that it does not work reliably. On numerous occasions, the window being dragged has vanished suddenly without trace. This is not reflected in the corresponding pulldown menu item, which remains checked. One must then deselect it, and select it again in another attempt to open and drag the Qt.

c) No Change of Scale on Dragging to Another Screen

If a Qt is dragged from one screen to another of a different scale, the scaling is not changed to reflect that of the target screen (if it does not disappear in the process). But it is only this bug that enables me to get proper scaling on the touchscreens.

d) All Qts Cleared on Minimizing Hauptwerk Main Window

As described above, I am forced to have the Hauptwerk main window open on the center monitor. Moreover, I cannot hide it by minimization, as then all Qts disappear. The best I can do is to reduce the window size to the minimum possible; and this is not very small. But this behavior is no doubt deliberate, as there is no other provision for minimizing the Qts.

e) Qt Operations Give the Hauptwerk Main Window Focus

As indicated above, I am forced to have a small active Hauptwerk window on the center monitor. As this is used primarily for display of music, I want this document window to normally have the focus. However, whenever a Qt is operated, the main Hauptwerk window is given the focus, resulting in the music being partially covered.

This is a particular problem when changing registration via a piston or other control displayed on a Qt. Using the touchscreen for this purpose surfaces the main Hauptwerk window. Thankfully, this does not happen if the control is operated from a piston; therefore I set up the 10 ad-hoc pistons with the combinations that I am currently using.

8.6.2.4 Miscellaneous

a) Autosave Does Not Save

Despite the text on the Save menu bar item stating that Hauptwerk autosaves anyway, I have never known this to happen. On more than one occasion, days after changing registrations, the system has crashed, and when restarted lost the changes that I had made.

So, notwithstanding this advice, I strongly recommend saving manually whenever significant changes are made to registrations. I personally never rely on autosave for my work on other applications, as saving can be done by simply keying Ctrl/S. Unfortunately it is not so easy in Hauptwerk; saving causes the audio and MIDI devices to be reset with a general cancel, which is a deterrent to its use. Nonetheless, I am compelled to save manually. The Hauptwerk Registration menu item "Export/view current combinations as text listing" can be used to back up the entire combination set (it is saved as an XML document, and opened in the browser from which it can be saved as HTML).

It is surprising that there is such a basic issue, so if Hauptwerk does autosave, the question arises as to when this is done. Perhaps only when the user does something significant, such as closing or loading another organ? This is no good for me; I like to leave things running as they are as much as possible. I would have expected use of a timer, started when volatile changes are made, and running at a low priority to avoid pre-empting sample processing.

b) Continuous Execution with no User Input

Applications do not normally execute continuously; they carry out limited processing (typically in response to user input), and then re-enter a wait state. But Hauptwerk executes endlessly. This prevents the system from sleeping or entering any other power-saving mode, as I found when when investigating why my Hauptwerk computer would not sleep.

While this may not be a bug per se, I see no good reason for this behavior, which will clearly be responsible for guzzling a lot of electricity (especially since MDA appears to believe that only an Intel i9 Core is satisfactory). Although my processor consumes low power actively running, it would be even more economical when sleeping.

Assuming that continuous execution is necessary in order to process keys and other MIDI input, there should be a user-adjustable timeout period; if there is no user input within this period, execution would cease. It would then restart on response to MIDI input (any Hauptwerk control, piston, or whatever). Windows has the ability to go to sleep or turn off the monitors after a selectable period of inactivity - why not Hauptwerk? Setting the time-out period to Never would maintain the current behavior.

c) Inappropriate Default Setter Behavior

By default, Setter mode remains active even after the piston to be set has been pressed. Thus pressing another piston will overwrite the combination assigned to that piston. And so on for each further piston pressed, until one eventually realizes that Setter mode is still active and becomes extremely pistoff.

Thankfully this can be changed, so that Setter mode is reset when a piston is pressed. I strongly recommend doing this at the earliest opportunity.

Although I have never played a real pipe organ, my understanding is that the Setter piston must be held down while the piston to be set is pressed. This is a safe procedure, which has no correspondence with the default behavior in Hauptwerk.

d) Audio File can be created from MIDI File

This is a positive feature; the issue is with the documentation for not mentioning it.

A MIDI file can be used to create an audio file. This is done by playing the MIDI file, then pressing Record at the appropriate moment with Audio armed. Thus the initial whitespace (for example setting the registration) can be skipped over. One can also pause the playback to make changes to such things are registration, pitch, and tempo. The recording can be stopped in the usual way. Thus it is not normally be necessary to arm Audio with MIDI.

I am generally very happy with the Hauptwerk recording facilities, which should be used as soon as one is able to play a piece to a reasonable standard. I find particularly useful the Record button with a line through it; this stops the recording and tosses it. I also find it useful to experiment with different tempi and registrations on playback, to find which I prefer (it is necessary only to pause after the registration is set, change it as required, then continue the playback). Excellent!