jOrgan-User Link 2021 Jul-Dec

(Mailing List Recent Archive)

This web-page allows you to view most posts sent to the jOrgan-User Mailing List from mid-July 2021 onwards, and is read-only. To post a Reply or start a new Topic, you need to be registered with the Mailing List. For instructions on registering and using the Mailing List, click HERE. Your post will normally be sent immediately to all subscribers, but will not appear here until the web-page is updated. This is done manually, and perhaps once a week. Some topics may not appear, if considered not archive material. To contact the Compiler of this web-page, send a post with the Subject Line, “To the jOrgan Link Compiler”.

The main jOrgan-User archive can be accessed HERE, or the jOrgan-Sound archive HERE. If you click on a month, you need to scroll down to see the result. Don’t overlook the Search facility at the left.


jOrgan website for new users Sticky Post

Mac OS x xi xii    by Marc Allen   Most recent  post on 2021-12-31   3 replies

Merry Christmas and Win 11  by Les Knoll  Most recent post on 2021-12-27  5 replies

Season's Greetings  by John R   Most recent post on 2021-12-25   8 replies

Problem when creating FS reverb  by  John R  Most recent post on 2021-12-24   2 replies

Does spearing Burea samples improve them?  by  Jan Flikweert Most recent post  on 2021-12-24    20 replies

32 bit jOrgan and fluidsynth    by  Marc Allen  Most recent post on  2021-12-20   2 replies

Most realistic sounding samples.   by Kevin J King     Most recent post on  2021-12-19     2 replies

suggestions mixtures polyphone?    by Jan Flikweert    Most recent post  on 2021-12-18   17 replies

Mailing List Rules     by  JohnR    Most recent post on 2021-12-18    6 replies

how much correction in cents when tuning a stop?   by Jan Flikweert    Most recent post on 2021-12-17     7 replies

jOrgan pup live usb not showing midi devices.  by Kevin King    Most recent post on  2021-12-15    4 replies

Reverb w/fluidsynth 2.2.1 controlled by Qsynth w/jOrgan  by Marc A    Most recent post on 2021-12-13    1 reply 

New Features for jOrgan   by John R    Most recent post on 2021-12-08       8 replies

jOrgan 4.X    by Les K   Most recent post on on 2021-12-08      2 replies

Using Switch to monitor midi activity  by Pascal    Most recent post on 2021-12-08    2 replies

Thomaskirche Leipzig Sauer Organ VPO Disposition  by Chris P    Most recent post on 2021-11-27     7 replies

Fluidynth failure on mac osx big sur.    By  Julie P   Most recent post on 2021- 11-24    7 replies

velocity    by JanF     Most recent post on 2021-11-22    15 replies

new user     by RickW        Most recent post on 2021-11-20     6 replies
Editing Skins  by GrahamW       Most recent post on 2021-11-15    3 replies

XML and parsing internal structures   by Julie P      Most recent post on 2021-11-13     15 replies

Reverb     by JohnB  on   2021-11-13

jOrgan to use open jdk instead of Oracle Java?   by Jonathan A Most recent post on 2021- 11-11    9 replies

Call for mac users re jOrgan downloads  by JohnR     Most recent post on 2021-11-10      12 replies

Processing workflow for soundfonts   by  Julie P    Most recent post on 2021-11-10      7 replies

Malware False Positive for Website by JohnR Most recent post on 2021- 11-08 20 replies

Connect multiple instances of fluidsyth with jackrouter of Rearoute  by Jan F   Most recent post on 2021-11-10   9 replies

Dutch romantic organ reverb/chorus   by Jan F     Most recent post on 2021-10-30    16 replies

Fluidsynth 2 jOrgan 4  by Jan F    Most recent post on 2021-10-28 15 replies

Enjoy our Music   by JohnB    on 2021-10-27

A Lynn Walls' Video on jOrgan from 2009 by JohnB   Most recent post on 2021-10-18     28 replies

Creative sound font bank and Linuxsampler gig   by Jan F  on 2021-10-18 01:13

Creative Soundfont-Bankmanager Cache-memory limited to 1968 mb  by Jan F  Most recent post on 2021-10-12   1 reply

Convolver for Legacy Organ  by Pete T    Most recent post on 2021-10-16 5 replies

convert sf2 to Linuxsampler sfz/gig by Jan F  on 2021-10-13

Comparing GIG and SFZ with Linuxsampler  by Jan F  Most recent post on 2021-10-13 16 replies

jOrgan w/Fluidsynth vs. Hauptwerk by Les K on 2021-10-09

An interim replacement for the Nabble Forum by JohnR Most recent post on 2021-08-08 4 replies

jOrgan Linuxsampler  by JohnB  Most recent post on 2021-10-07  12 replies

Fluid synth distortion by Nick P  Most recent post on 2021-10-02  2 replies

jOrgan Generic Sound and CoolSoft Virtual Midi Synth by JohnB Most recent post on 2021-10-02   10 replies

"Great Organ" virtual pipe organ software   by JohnB Most recent post on 2021-09-30  3 replies

Problems with Fluidsynth Backends on Windows 10 by JohnR Most recent post on 2021-09-29  25 replies 

jOrgan and options by RickW  Most recent post on 2021-09-30 3 replies

jOrgan on YouTube by ChrisP Most recent post on 2021-09-28 19 replies

Question re Mailing List by JohnR Most recent post on 2021-09-04 5 replies

Win 7 issues by DennisW Most recent post on 2021-09-03 4 replies

jOrgan as a box of ranks by GrahamW Most recent post on 2021-08-31 22 replies

Max Reger Documentary at Fugue State Films in UK by Marc-Paul on 2021-07-28


jOrgan website for new users

From JohnR

This website has been created to make it easier for internet users to discover jOrgan and to start using it. Its main pages are HOME, STARTING, ADDING, GALLERY, F.A.Q., THIS SITE and CONTACT.

The web address is



jOrgan as a box of ranks

From GrahamW on 2021-07-19 18:21

Hi all,
Tried looking but no luck…
Is it possible to take a MIDI input from a virtual cable and somehow send it to a sound font (rank) directly without stops? If so, could someone give me some pointers please? 
The reason: I want to use jOrgan as a box of ranks with a number of fluidsynth soundfonts, each soundfont an individual rank.  eg.  Diapason comes in on channel 1 to a diapason rank.  Flute comes in on Ch2 to flute rank in a second instance of fluidsynth etc
Obviously I can do this with Qsynth without jOrgan but it but the advantage of jOrgan is global control of reverb level etc.



From JohnB on 2021-07-20 12:27


yes, what you describe is possible.  What you need is, probably, found at the following website
Check it out, first, and if that is not what you are looking for, perhaps, we need more explanation about what you are trying to do.   

If you have a Creative Labs soundcard that loads soundfonts by means of the Soundfont Bank Manager, it is possible to play the soundfonts directly from that application, or it can be used with a MIDI sequencer program, (there are free ones on the net), selecting the program change numbers for individual presets in the soundfont.



From GrahamG on 2021-07-20 16:02

Hi GrahamW,
Conceptually this could be accomplished with jOrgan.
You would need a Keyboard element for each MIDI channel, linked up to a Stop-Rank-FluidsynthSound elements group. With the Stop set to Activated.
Does that make sense to you?



From GrahamW on 2021-07-20 16:32

Thanks GrahamG.

That makes sense. I'll try that.


From GrahamW on 2021-07-21 11:44

Hi all

Tried that and it works except for one thing. I have a keyboard set to Ch1, a stop that is always on, the rank and the soundfont. It responds to notes fine.

However, the Tremulant on my console sends a program change (192) with the appropriate patch change on the same channel. Can I get that patch change to happen because it does not at the moment? Do I perhaps need to add a Tremulant element to do the patch change? Can that trem element engage and disengage itself by responding to the PC message?




From GrahamW on 2021-08-01 14:41

Hi All

I've managed to get this working (Yay!)

Just for information....

Each rank has the following elements:   keyboard -> stop -> soundfont rank -> soundfont,  plus switch filter for patch change (trem) if needed.

The stop is on and set to infinite to enable this setup.  The switch filter is set to respond to the patch change command coming from the driving console and implements that patch change.  These are grouped into Main, Solo and Tuba/Diapason with Tibia 1, Tibia 2 and Vox as individuals.

Altogether, there are 27 tuned ranks plus traps.

Why not just use Qsynth?

Because I want the sound that 1 fluidsynth instance per rank produces.  jOrgan is MUCH better and faster than Qsynth at doing this.  It also allows me to control reverb on an overall basis using a setup that Graham Goode uses with chamber reverbs plus overall reverb.  Swell control is very easy.  Balancing ranks using the jOrgan "Customise" is far superior.

But why do this at all?

Also, though it may be a little heretical to some on a jOrgan list ;),I prefer the interface and functionality of Miditzer.  Also, the 260SP specification suits me perfectly. I have everything working now including Pizzicato couplers because Miditzer handles that without jOrgan needing Pizzicato.  Along with that, I designed the interface graphics for Miditzer so I have skin in the game.  Once Jim Henry releases the upgraded 260SP I will be content.  My console is also set up to drive Miditzer.

Just to complete the picture, I run Ubuntu Studio with Fluidsynth 2 pre-installed along with Jack (and Zeta-rev1 if I want it).  Miditzer runs just fine in WINE (and is not slowed down since Fluidsynth is turned off).  All ranks are sent using VirMIDI which is a kernel module virtual sound card with 4 virtual hardware MIDI cables.  jOrgan and JACK just see them as hardware inputs and outputs.  So does WINE/Miditzer.

QJackCtl is set to start automatically and runs a script after it has started to open jOrgan then Miditzer.  The patchbay auto-connects everything so I boot up and the whole organ starts. Similarly, one push on the power button and the system shuts down.  All this runs on a 2014 Mac Mini into a Marantz multichannel amp that has a DSP setting to virtualise a stereo signal to 5.1 surround.

Now I just need to start playing again to get the rust out of the joints.  My wife has threatened to invite a bunch of friends over for a Theatre Organ concert.  Currently, we are under strict COVID lockdown and will be for several months - time to practice!

BTW my Accomp manual is actually a weighted key 88 note piano so my piano rank is a Steinway and is velocity sensitive.  Great and Solo are standard 61 note and pedalboard is full 32 note AGO spec.




From DennisW on 2021-08-02 03:11

Hi Graham,

Thanks for the information. I had thought that Miditzer had stopped 260 development years ago. Glad to hear it's being upgraded. I am presently unable to run 64 bit programs on my organ computer (XP Home edition). I am stuck unless I am willing to replace the touch monitors and the midi interface to a more modern operating system and I really don't want to spend the money to do so. The old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies here.

I have always liked the 260 Miditzer for playing a theatre organ. I have made a couple of Jorgan attempts that didn't turn out to my liking and haven't spent the time needed to build one I am happy with. I have instead a very nice classical organ with over 300 ranks on 7 divisions (3 floating). It uses fluidsynth and soundfonts for over half the ranks and a Roland Integra7 sound module for the rest. I also use a smaller organ comprised of about 115 ranks from mostly the Integra7 (including about 10 or so soundfont ranks) with 4 divisions to play mostly jazz and modern pieces. These feed an AGO spec three manual organ I built several years ago.

Good luck with your project and again, thanks for the information. It looks like a great organ build!




From RickW on 2021-08-02 08:44

Hi Graham,

Interesting to hear of your project. Sounds like a great set-up.

Looking forward to hearing some tunes from you. I loved your early Miditzer tracks.




From GrahamW on 2021-08-03 15:07

Hi Dennis

On 2 Aug 2021, at 3:11 am, Dennis wrote:

Hi Graham,

Thanks for the information. I had thought that Miditzer had stopped 260 development years ago. Glad to hear it's being upgraded.

Restarted recently and the upgrade is to 64bit.

I am presently unable to run 64 bit programs on my organ computer (XP Home edition). I am stuck unless I am willing to replace the touch monitors and the midi interface to a more modern operating system and I really don't want to spend the money to do so. The old saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies here.


I have always liked the 260 Miditzer for playing a theatre organ. I have made a couple of Jorgan attempts that didn't turn out to my liking and haven't spent the time needed to build one I am happy with. I have instead a very nice classical organ with over 300 ranks on 7 divisions (3 floating). It uses fluidsynth and soundfonts for over half the ranks and a Roland Integra7 sound module for the rest. I also use a smaller organ comprised of about 115 ranks from mostly the Integra7 (including about 10 or so soundfont ranks) with 4 divisions to play mostly jazz and modern pieces. These feed an AGO spec three manual organ I built several years ago.

That sounds like a great setup.

Good luck with your project and again, thanks for the information. It looks like a great organ build!

BTW forgot to mention that the centre channel is a full (Bass & Treble) set of Conn Organ Pipes, L and R are Jamo towers (this doubles as my HiFi system for classical music). Rear speakers are 6inch two ways that I built myself and there's a 12inch 150W sub to round things off.

Unlike you Dennis, I just want one instrument that matches my console. As my Dad used to say :"Good as a bought one!"




From GrahamW on 2021-08-03 15:11

Hi Rick

On 2 Aug 2021, at 8:44 am, wrote:

Hi Graham

Interesting to hear of your project. Sounds like a great set-up.

I'm very happy with it.

Looking forward to hearing some tunes from you. I loved your early Miditzer tracks.

They were fun. I've just been able to come back to the organ after retirement. Teaching got so demanding, I had to let the organ go.




From GrahamW on 2021-08-03 15:49

Forgot this for anyone interested. Initial draft screenshot of proposed new Miditzer260SP.




From GrahamG on 2021-08-03 15:52

Oh that does look awesome :)


From DennisW on 2021-08-03 15:53

Wow, very impressive!




From RickW on 2021-08-03 18:30

That is quite a console!



From GrahamW on 2021-08-29 17:00

Hi Rick

I had sort of forgotten those early tracks. I've put them on soundcloud just for "historical purposes".



greenfox wrote:

Hi Graham

Interesting to hear of your project. Sounds like a great set-up.

Looking forward to hearing some tunes from you. I loved your early Miditzer tracks.




From PeteT on 2021-08-29 23:49

My understanding is that jOrgan is a relay - for virtual organ or pipe organ. Where do the ranks come from?

I have never been able to get anything to work past the first note, in YEARS of trying.

What is playing now sounds like Miditzer . . .

I could never get Miditzer to work either.

I haven't tried Raspberry pi, yet . . .

Graham Wykes wrote:

Hi Rick

I had sort of forgotten those early tracks. I've put them on soundcloud just for "historical purposes".


From greenfox on 2021-08-30 10:40

Hi Pete

My suggestions would be:

Miditzer is the easiest place to start. It is a self contained installer and doesn't rely on any extra software prerequisites (on a Windows computer). Once downloaded you should be able to immediately select a stop or default combination and play (and hear) a note just clicking your mouse on the graphical keyboard.

If you have any troubles email me direct and we can work through any issues.

jOrgan is a MIDI Relay, but the install package also installs Fluidsynth (and some basic Fluidsynth SF2 sound files) so it does become a functioning package. Users can choose to not use Fluidsynth if they have and know how to setup an alternative sound engine.

jOrgan needs Java and Java must match the "bitts" (32 or 64) of the version of jOrgan you are installing. If you have both 64 and 32 bit Java, then the most recently installed version of Java must match the version of jOrgan you are trying to run (because there is something in the install process of Java that sets which version of Java is active by default). Having both versions of Java (and jOrgan for that matter) causes all kinds of complications and is not for the faint hearted (or less than supernurds). In an ideal world, the jOrgan installer should look for the Java prerequisite and install it or update it as needed.

Further to this, the Windows jOrgan installer installs jOrgan (by default) in the "Program Files" area of Windows. This was OK for XP, but ever since Windows has had security measures to block writing to files in this area. Users really need to move any working files to "Documents" or at least somewhere Windows will allow files to be written. If users don't know which files to move, it is best to move the entire jOrgan package to a working area in Windows. This should have been modified in the installer at least 10 years ago, but is still there as a trap for new players all these years later. (the joys of working with free open source software)

jOrgan on Raspberry Pi (or any Linux operating system) is again complex and only recommended for supernurds. The audio environment in Linux is a steep learning curve for anyone not at least a little experienced in Linux and wanting a challenge on their hands.



PeteT wrote:

My understanding is that jOrgan is a relay - for virtual organ or pipe

organ. Where do the ranks come from?

I have never been able to get anything to work past the first note, in

YEARS of trying.


From PeteT on 2021-08-30 18:33

Hmm. I have not used windows in 20 years, only Linux. Maybe I could do it in Windows, but I have no windows computer so . . .

From GrahamW on 2021-08-30 19:40

Hi Pete

Since you are familiar with Linux...

Make sure you have JACK Audio Connection Kit installed along with QjackCtl

Install Java (OpenJDK). I think you need at least version 11 but perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Install jOrgan

Download a disposition - I would suggest you start with the Barton or the Freedom Morton models at

You start QjaclCtl first, then jOrgan. Once that is up, you open the distribution you want to use.

An alternative is the jOrgan Pup LiveCD at . This has Rick's Christie disposition on it as well as a great bunch of classical organs.

Apart from this, I second everything Rick has said.

(I have my own reasons for combining Miditzer and jOrgan and FYI, I use Ubuntu Studio)


From RoyR on 2021-08-30 20:40

Hi, Pete,

You say you never get past the first note. Does the first note play forever? If so, check that your keyboard element recognises both Note Off and Note ON, Zero Volume as note off, it's an ancient trap that many fell into.

Have fun,

Roy. (UK)

PeteT wrote:

My understanding is that jOrgan is a relay - for virtual organ or pipe

organ. Where do the ranks come from?

I have never been able to get anything to work past the first note, in

YEARS of trying.


From PeteT on 2021-08-30 23:23

Interesting question. Actually, the first note kinda crashes the computer and then I have to restart it.

RoyR wrote:

Hi, Pete,

You say you never get past the first note. Does the first note play forever?


From RoyR on 2021-08-31 01:13

Hmmm... That sounds kinda final! *:)) laughing

I'm not much help in general since most problems seem to revolve around Fluidsynth and I used external hardware synths. Not doing much at all these days as the old Anno Domini moves on, 82 not out at the last count!

Have fun,



Max Reger Documentary at Fugue State Films in UK

From Marc-Paul on 2021-07-28 10:08


Fugue State Films has just released a 6 hour documentary on Max Reger in 3 parts.  The first part is being offered to view for no charge until middle of July.  There is a lot of discussion about his Organ work. 

Google search Fugue State films and you can get the information. 

I own the documentary they shot on “The Genius of Cavaillé-Coll” and there are lots of other interesting films.




An interim replacement for the Nabble Forum

From JohnR on 2021-08-04 11:16

Hi all,

It is regrettable that jOrgan no longer has public accessibility to our discussions. I have

put together an interim replacement, until such time as we have a proper forum linked to the

Mailing List.

It has some rough edges, and I have to strike a compromise between no quirks and the time it

would take to eliminate them.

The link is (Altered to this, 9th Sept 2021)

Best wishes,



From PeteT  on 2021-08-04 12:45

Cool. Reply list to see if it works :-)




From PeteT  on 2021-08-04 14:21

Seems OK. Good.




From DaveT on 2021-08-07 23:50


Thanks for all your work. This should work as a reply.

Wow, that's some Miditzer260.



From JohnR on 2021-08-08 11:41

DaveT wrote: John R, Thanks for all your work.


It was your email to me a few weeks ago that prompted the creation of this interim solution. We hope that it's not long before a forum, linked to the Mailing List in much the same way as Nabble was, can take over.

Best wishes,



Malware False Positive for Website

From JohnR on 2021-10-04 12:35

Hi all,

Regarding the jOrgan-User Link web-page, I have somewhere seen the suggestion that to access the

Mailing List archive, one needs to be registered. I have placed a statement in the top part of of

the Link suggesting that it may be necessary to be registered. For obvious reasons I have never

been able to test that out for myself, so I recently asked one of my daughters to do it for me.

I gave her the Link web address ( - which is the new, simplified

address) and today when she tried it out, the security program she is using told her that the site

is "unsafe", lacking the "certificate" that would prevent such a warning. In a phone call she

reported this, and I asked her to ignore the warning and to go there anyway. She was able to access

the archive via the hyperlink I have provided there, indicating that one does not have to be registered.

The web address in question has of course the same domain name as the jOrgan Discovery website.

I think it was Google who some time ago labelled that site as unsafe, and when I contacted whoever

it was, and explained that "jorgan" formed part of the domain name of a very old dodgy site that

was to do with the musician and not with our program, they remedied that label problem very quickly.

Have any of you ever received a similar warning regarding the website or the Link web-page?

I might add that every three months or so, a "certificate" turns up in my Inbox regarding the website. Jonathan, who hosts the website, has never, to my knowledge, told me what

I am supposed to do with it.

Any ideas?

Best wishes,



From Jonathan A on 2021-10-04 12:57

Hi John,

The certificate you don't need to do anything all that does is make sure the site uses https

instead of http.




From Richard J on 2021-10-04 13:29


Your website uses Let's Encrypt certificates. It is a free SSL certificate, but in stead of the

typical 2 year you would get with a paid SSL certificate, Let's Encrypt SSL certificates expire

every 3 months. Most webservers using Let's Encrypt SSL certificates use their automated certificate

renewal program called CertBot. As long as CertBot is configured correctly, you should only receive

a notification that your SSL certificate is expiring, and CertBot should automatically renew it

before the 3 month expiration.

Most modern web browsers like Google Chrome will warn a user if they attempt to access a website

with an expired SSL certificate. This warning can also appear if the user's PC clock is incorrectly set.



From JohnR on 2021-10-04 15:16

Richard and Jonathan,

Thank you Richard, for your explanation of the certificate and Jonathan, for your assurance that I don't

have to do anything about it.

For what it's worth, the most recent certificate, declaring it to have been updated, arrived two days ago!

There has never been any suggestion that Jonathan's settings have failed to have it updated.

However, it remains a puzzle why my daughter received that warning, which was obviously unfounded,

as the site does have the certificate! I still need to hear from anyone who has received that warning

recently. I received such a warning when trying to access another website last week. In this case

I had used "https:// ", when in fact the site required "http:// ". Just a few minutes ago I tried

the jOrgan Discovery website using "http://" , only to find that my Chromium browser changed it

immediately into "https:// ", and of course took me to the site.

Best wishes,



From Marc A on 2021-10-05 00:55

Yes... I just ignore it... like any software problem that's not telling us

the truth. Or any big Pharma.


Forgive please... I know it's an issue for new users.


Jonathan A wrote:

I am curious to understand if anyone else got such a warning.


From Jonathan A 2021-10-05 00:57

You have to be very careful though they are there designed to protect you from any possible

malicious sites.

Will try and see if I can replicate the issue

Marc A wrote:

Yes... I just ignore it... like any software problem that's not telling us

the truth. Or any big Pharma


From Jonathan A on 2021-10-05 00:57

Just tried on my phone and it redirected without issue


From GrahamW on 2021-10-05 17:48

Hi All

Google Chrome in particular seems to like giving this warning when it gets http where the code

contains redirects but It doesn't seem consistent. I found that I had to use 301 redirects from

the hosting control panel so that the browser does not even try to read the page. It just jumps

directly to https.




From Jonathan A on 2021-10-07 04:28

Hi Graham,

What version of chrome are you on?


From JohnR on 2021-11-05 08:54

Hi all,

Yesterday I signed up for an internet security service from my ISP. I am now finding

the jOrgan Discovery website ( blocked. It is the same security service

which my daughter has, and which I mentioned in a previous post.

Jonathan, can anything be done about this?

Best wishes,



From JohnB on 2021-11-05 22:59

JohnR., I have no difficulty in accessing the website this morning.

ALL pages are accessible, so, perhaps, your problem is a local one. With the nature of the internet,

it is difficult to determine whether a particular, access problem is due to one's ISP's maintenance

schedule, a storage server, etc. If your daughter was having a similar access problem,

it may be local.

John B


From Jonathan A on 2021-11-05 23:32

Hey all,

I will carry out a test when I have the chance and connect to an Australian vpn server

to simulate me being in Australia if I see that the site doesn't log Australian internet

providers have blocked the site for some reason.

As soon as I have an update I'll let everyone know


From JohnB on 2021-11-05 23:04

JohnR., would you happen to know if the website is, physically,

stored on one single server, for example, in Australia, or if the worldwide web (www.)

works on the basis of back-up, storage servers around the world? That is, is it

possible that I am accessing an identical website that is stored on a

server in the U.S., whereas, you might, normally, access it from storage in Australia?

Perhaps, other members have more information about how this works or whether there is,

always, ONLY a single storage device for any given website??


John B


From Jonathan A on 2021-11-05 23:21

Hi john it is on my server which is based in Germany. There was maintenance being done

by the provider.

Please note that I am sponsoring the hosting as well as the domain as my contribution

to the community.


From Chris P on 2021-11-06 05:23

Hi, Jonathan

This is greatly appreciated. :-)

Chris Pearson


From JohnR on 2021-11-06 06:49

Thank you all for your concern. I should have been more precise. Yes, the

was being blocked by my ISP's security service, but I was able to access it by ignoring

the warning. And today, it is not being blocked, meaning that the service has "got the

message" (I hope), and will no longer warn me about our website.

What is of more concern to me, is that yesterday I was unable to update anything on the

site, which I am trying to do almost every day, in updating the Link webpage. This is quite

separate from the other issue. Jonathan knows about the problem, and so perhaps the

problem will only be temporary.

Best wishes,



From JohnR on 2021-11-06 08:12

Hi all,

The warning message I got about our website was purely local. It needs no investigation

by Jonathan. I forget whether there was another, separate report of such warnings.

but I think there was one. However, it is clear that something about our website was

triggering the warning, and it has been suggested that the redirection concerning

http/https may be the reason. THAT is the particular issue which needs to be investigated:

What caused this problem in the first place?

Best wishes,



From Jonathan A on 2021-11-08 15:46

Morning All,

Just ran some scans on the files john sent me and I am not picking up anything

out of the ordinary which indicates a false positive for malware.

just to confirm you sent me all the files associated with the site is that correct




From JohnR on 2021-11-08 16:25

Jonathan wrote:

"just to confirm you sent me all the files associated with the site is that correct"

Hi Jonathan,

Yes, what I sent you was a collection of all the site's files.

I might add that I have downloaded the files myself and checked them with Windows Defender

and also with Avira (which has a good reputation for detecting malware). It was all clear

in both cases.

Best wishes,



From Jonathan A on 2021-11-08 16:36

Good Morning John,

Thanks for the confirmation. I believe this issue is an open and shut case.

If you guys need anything else do not hesitate to reach out.




Win 7 Issues

From DennisW on 2021-08-28 10:19


I am trying to upgrade to win 7 pro 64 bit from win xp 32 bit. I downloaded the 64 bit version of jOrgan 3.21.1 but cannot get fluidsynth recognized by jOrgan - I get the “fluidsynth failure” error message. I tried jOrgan 4.0 and was able to get sound out, but the quality is not as good as I have under win xp. I have fooled around with number and size of buffers and can hear no discernable difference between 8/256 and 2/2048 and most everything in between - latency isn’t an issue. The volume settings in the customizer are at .5 or less. The sound card seems to be operating satisfactorily as I can play music using windows media player and it sounds great. I have both 32 and 64 bit java programs - latest versions installed.

Any ideas as to where to look next would be appreciated.

Kind Regards,


From JohnR on 2021-08-28 16:08

Dennis wrote, 'I downloaded the 64 bit version of jOrgan 3.21.1 but cannot get fluidsynth recognized by jOrgan - I get the “fluidsynth failure” error message.'


The usual view is that it is O.K. to have Java 32-bit and Java 64-bit installed at the same time, but having more than one version of jOrgan installed at the same time should be avoided. Are you observing this rule?

I should add for the sake of other readers that Dennis and I have been discussing his problems by email for a couple of days. He did have a problem with distortion using jOrgan 4, but this was solved when I suggested dropping the gain and increasing the buffer settings. However, he says that the quality of the sound with his Windows 7 computer is not up to the standard of that achieved with his XP, and this is something we need the List members to give an opinion on. (I have no problem myself with the quality of sound from later versions of Windows subsequent to XP.)

Our emails prompted me to try jOrgan 3.21.1 on my Windows 8.1 laptop, and I got it to work well, both with and without the use of the 64-bit "ALL" backend. (This was not entirely my experience yesterday, when the backend portaudio did not seem to work, but it certainly worked for me today - although not with a disposition having 3 instances of Fluidsynth, where getting portaudio to work on one instance of Fluidsynth had the effect of silencing the other two instances altogether, even when they were still set to dsound.)

Best wishes,



From DennisW on 2021-08-29 01:18

When I originally tried jOrgan 3.21.1 it was the only instance on the computer and it didn't recognize fluidsynth. I then installed jOrgan 4 and was able to get 4 (with John's help) to recognize fluidsynth even though I did not uninstall 3.21.1 However, as stated before the sound quality is not up to that achieved with win xp.

Should I just forget about win 7 64 bit and go to win 10 64 bit?




From JohnR on Sep 2, 2021-09-02 13:47

DennisW wrote: "The sound quality is not up to that achieved with win xp. Should I just forget about win 7 64 bit and go to win 10 64 bit?"


If you are getting excellent sound with your Win 7 computer using the music player, I think you are unlikely to have an improvement by installing Win 10 instead. The only suggestions I can make is that you observe the "only one version of jOrgan installed at the one time" rule, and that you reduce the Fluidsynth gain a little more. Also, I would make sure that the number of buffers used is not fewer than 8. So 8/512 or 8/256 should give you very good results. (The speed of your CPU suggests to me that you should be able to use 8/256 without any problems.)

Best wishes,



From DennisW on 2021-09-03 10:21

Thanks John,

I’ll give it a try.




Question re Mailing List

From JohnR on 2021-09-03 09:52

Hi all,

I have not yet become comfortable with using the Mailing List, as for years my preferred method was to read and send posts using the Nabble Forum. This morning I sent what I thought was a reply to the List, but it seems it went only to Dennis, who had sent the post to which I was replying.

I had clicked on Reply rather than on Reply All, as I was advised recently that this was the correct thing to do.

My question to seasoned users of the Mailing List is, in replying to a post, do you click on Reply, or on Reply All?

Best wishes,



From PeteT on 2021-09-03 10:57

Reply goes to the sender, Reply List goes to the list. Reply All goes to both the sender and the list.

Not all email clients support all three options. Or not on the same menu.


From MarcA on 2021-09-03 13:49

In Outlook 2016 I type Reply List in the "what do you want to do" and Send.




From RoyR on 2021-09-03 18:03

Hi, John,

I don't do it often enough to remember these days, this was sent by just clicking the reply arrow icon.

Have fun,

Roy. (UK)


From RickW on 2021-09-03 20:44

I use Gmail, and have my default send option set to Reply All.


From JohnR on 2021-09-04 12:22

Thank you to Pete, Marc-Paul, Roy and Rick for your help. "Reply All" or "Reply List" get the most votes, but note Roy's practice of using "Reply", which shows that things are not quite clear-cut.

I did a little investigating, and I concluded that "Reply" sends to the whole list, but only if the SourceForge web address is used. The reason my email went only to Dennis, was that it was his address that had turned up in the address window, and I didn't notice this.

So the safest thing is simply to use "Reply All" etc.

Best wishes,



Problems with Fluidsynth Backends on Windows 10

From JohnR on 2020-12-26 05:10:14

Hi all,
I have verified Andrew's inability to use the backend (I used 1.11 64-bit, with Java 8 64-bit and 
jOrgan 3.21 64-bit) with Windows 10. I consistently get the "Unable to create fluidsynth" problem 
when switching from dsound to portaudio. This is happening on two Windows 10 machines which 
I tried. There is no problem with dsound.  The problem does not occur using my Windows 8.1 laptop. 

Andrew and I have had a short email exchange. In my last email I told of an incorrect uploading of 
at least two backends which I had discovered: the zipped files unzip to produce a folder containing 
a sub-folder. The sub-folder is the one which should be copied to the Program 
Files/jOrgan/lib/fluidsynth folder, but a lot of people, including myself at first try, would 
not realise this. I emailed Andrew suggesting that this would be the cause of his problem, but 
unfortunately I have found through my own tests that it is not so. My tests suggest that if 
one unwittingly copies the "outer" folder into the /lib/fluidsynth folder, opens a disposition and 
uses the Configuration appropriately, and then tries to switch from dsound to portaudio (and 
subsequently saves it), that disposition is permanently marked with an inability to be used with a 
backend, even on Windows 8.1 .

It is surprising that it has taken this long for the problem to be reported. Has none of the regular jOrgan 
users come up with it? (Perhaps we all use Linux, as I do with my Rasp Pi's. My Windows use of 
jOrgan has been confined to dsound for a long time.)

I am moving the posts in the "jorgan" thread to this new thread, to keep it all together under a more 
appropriate heading.


From JohnR  on 2020-12-26 09:54:57

I have just noticed that jOrgan 3.20 was used with the W 8.1 laptop, but 3.21 was used with the two W 10 
computers. Tomorrow I shall repeat the tests using 3.20 on one of the W 10 computers. This may 
establish whether the difference in results was due to W 8.1/W 10, or to jOrgan 3.20/3.21 .



From JohnB on 2020-12-26 20:32:05

John R. said, "It is surprising that it has taken this long for the problem to be reported."

I reported this quite a while ago.  However, the reply I got was, essentially, since dsound worked,
 I should not worry about using portaudio. So, I have been using dsound ever since.

At present, using jOrgan 4.0 beta 1 (64-bit), with the Fluidsynth Portaudio ALL version 2.1.0  by 
Graham Goode, I have alternatives of output of MME, DirectSound, ASIO, WASAPI, WDM-KS on both the 
onboard (Realtek) audio and the Creative Labs Audigy 2 ZS with the Windows 10 WDM driver from the 
Audigy RX, although I am using the dsound driver, not the portaudio.   I can try it using the portaudio
driver and will let the forum know how that works out.

I have noted before that the joystick Gameport driver that is included with the Audigy RX driver 
from Creative Labs works with Windows 10, which means that the Audigy 2 ZS soundcard which has the 
older MIDI DB-15 connector can be used with a MIDI IN/OUT cable to connect a keyboard instrument.  
This is convenient for older keyboards that are not USB.


From JohnB on 2020-12-26 20:37:34

With the portaudio driver, it is only possible to load ONE soundfont.  This is fine for dispositions 
which have only one soundfont.  The dsound driver allows multiple instances and I regularly use a 
disposition that uses 11 soundfonts.  I believe the Wanamaker has more soundfonts than that and that 
the European Organ does, also.


From AndrewW  on 2020-12-26 21:37:55

I’m glad I’m not the only one to have this issue at least I know I’m not crazy. I was only trying to get away 
from dsound to try to reduce latency. I’m messing with the Morton set and response seems very slow. I’m 
running grandorgue and with the better audio drivers installed latency is minimal or the same as asio out of 
my Hauptwerk setup.

The raspberry pi setup of jorgan is intriguing. How is latency and sound quality if I go that route?

From JohnR  on 2020-12-26 22:05:22

AndrewW wroteThe raspberry pi setup of jorgan is intriguing. How is latency and sound quality if I go that route?Hi Andrew,
My use of Raspberry Pi for my home console use was due mainly to aesthetic reasons 
(appearance in a public part of the house) than technical, but quite apart from that, I have 
reasons to believe that I am unusually fussy when it comes to latency and sound quality, 
as most of my organ playing over the years has been confined to small tracker instruments, 
where close proximity to the pipes was the case.

I find that the RPi satisfies me totally on these two issues. Bear in mind that my hearing is 81 years old, 
but I can still hear sounds which some of my organ friends of similar age can no longer hear. One detail 
re latency is that I do use jack as the audio driver, and I think that this may give better results than
pulseaudio or alsa.


From JohnR  on 2020-12-27 01:49:22

JohnR wroteMy tests suggest that if one unwittingly copies the "outer" folder into the /lib/fluidsynth folder, 
 opens a disposition and uses the Configuration appropriately, and then tries to switch from dsound to 
 portaudio (and subsequently saves it), that disposition is permanently marked with an inability to be 
 used with a backend, even on Windows 8.1 .Hi all,

Further tests indicate that the above statement may not be correct. However, I am now in a position to 
give a fuller report. I loaded jOrgan 3.20 64-bit onto one of the Windows 10 computers. I continued to get 
the same "Unable to create Fluidsynth", whether I used the 1.6 ....ALL 64-bit backend or the 1.11 ....ALL 
64-bit backend. I then loaded jOrgan 3.21 64-bit onto my Windows 8.1 laptop and had success with portaudio 
using either of those two backends.

My conclusion is that trying to use the existing 64-bit "...ALL" backends leads to failure on Windows 10 

JohnB has reported above that he has had success on W 10, but he has confined his use to dsound. We now 
need to hear from any jOrgan users who have had portaudio success on a W 10 computer using one of the 
fluidsynth backends, and to give us fairly complete details. I lack the knowledge to take my research 
any further.


From JohnB on 2020-12-27 04:32:56

John R.,  I have tried jOrgan 4.0 beta 1 64-bit with fluidsynth portaudio ALL 2.1.0, portaudio 19 built 
with ASIO, WASAPI and WDM Kernel Streaming (WDM-KS).  Consistently, I can use only ONE instance of 
Fluidsynth with one soundfont.  Multiple instances for multiple soundfonts do not work.  The portaudio 
driver does work with either onboard (Realtek) audio or the Creative Labs soundcard, again with only one 
instance of fluidsynth and one soundfont.

So, it must be true that dsound is the only driver which allows multiple instances of Fluidsynth and 
multiple soundfonts.  Perhaps, Graham Goode can tell us why the limitation of one instance of Fluidsynth/one 
soundfont exists for the portaudio driver.   I have a vague recollection that he may have done this in the 
not too distant past, but can not recall the reason for the limitation.


From JohnR on 2020-12-27 07:09:37

JohnB wroteJohn R.,  I have tried jOrgan 4.0 beta 1 64-bit with fluidsynth portaudio ALL 2.1.0, portaudio ......   
The portaudio driver does work with either onboard (Realtek) audio or the Creative Labs soundcard

Hi JohnB,

Thank you for that report. I find that very encouraging, but also a bit mystifying, why the backend works 
with jOrgan 4.0 beta on Windows 10 machines, but there are problems on Windows 10 with earlier versions of
jOrgan and the appropriate backends. Perhaps we shall hear from other jOrgan users to help us fill in the 

Now all we need is for the Fluidsynth people to eliminate that annoying modulation from their new and 
improved reverb.


From GrahamG on 2020-12-27 07:48:30

I’m away on holiday at the moment so can’t test anything, however, ASIO should be the only backend that is 
limited to one instance of Fluidsynth, as the ASIO specification gets exclusive use of the sound device. 
WDM-KS, WASAPI, and Dsound are all Windows driver layers, and should be able to share the device.


From JohnB on 2020-12-27 12:20:27

Graham, thanks for the input.  I tried the portaudio driver with the WDM-KS and it only allows ONE instance 
of Fluidsynth with one soundfont.   However, as I said, the dsound driver allows multiple instances and 
soundfonts without a problem.  I think I asked you whether there was any significant difference in sound 
output quality between portaudio and dsound drivers.  I have used them both with onboard (Realtek) audio 
and Creative Labs soundcards and seem to recall that portaudio used to capable of multiple instances of 
Fluidsynth and soundfonts, but do not recall with which version of jOrgan or Windows operating system this 
capability may have become limited.


From greenfox on 2020-12-29 10:23:58

Hi John and jOrgan list members

As you may have guessed from my silence, I have not done much with jOrgan of late, however I have set 
up to test this latest feedback.

My daily work computer (and what I run jOrgan on) is Windows 10, Java 8 (271)  (I started with 
Java 8 241 then upgraded to 271 with no change in results)

I report no problems with jOrgan 4.0b1 64bit with Port Audio backend PortAudioALLa64 V2.1.0  using WASAPI
I report no problems with jOrgan 3.21b3 64bit with port Audio Backend V1.1

Using jOrgan 4.0b1 I confirm that WDM-KS works but only using 1 instance of Fluidsynth.
Other options in Port Audio settings had distorted output or no output.

These versions of jOrgan and back ends were downloaded previously, not fresh for this testing.


From  JohnB on 2020-12-29 13:47:01Other options in Port Audio settings had distorted output or no output.I failed to mention that,  when I gave my report on jOrgan 4.0 beta 1 64-bit with fluidsynth Portaudio ALL 
64-bit using WDM-KS.  The output was distorted.

Originally, when the portaudio backends were added, I was under the impression that portaudio was supposed 
to be a better quality sound than dsound.  However, consistently, I have found that dsound gives more 
functionality in terms of number of soundfonts allowed and my expectations with respect to sound quality 
are satisfied with dsound.  I have always used “speakers” for the output of both onboard and added soundcard 
audio.  I have read numerous articles that assert that digital SPDIF (optical) is the best quality audio 
output, but it requires a digital amplifier with SPDIF connector and the cables for that, and the output 
is digital to analog conversion (DAC) which is what the PC does, anyway.  So, it seemed unnecessary.  

Perhaps, GrahamG can look into these issues when he is back from holiday and has the time to do so.  

Incidentally, Audacity wave editor, which I used exclusively to record and edit the wave files which 
comprise my soundfonts  works best with settings of  MME (driver), “What You Hear” (recording), Mono or 
Stereo, and “Speakers” (output).   There are two alternatives to MME driver.  They are Windows DirectSound 
and Windows WASAPI.  Does anyone know what the difference, if there is one, is between Windows 
DirectSound and Windows WASAPI and Fluidsynth dsound and WASAPI?   I am thinking that it is merely what 
is included with a specific program and must be the same and copiable (by licence) a Windows Driver Model 
for inclusion in any individually developed program that requires it.  Am I way out in left field??


From JohnR on 2020-12-30 01:06:52

JohnB wroteon jOrgan 4.0 beta 1 64-bit with fluidsynth Portaudio ALL 64-bit using WDM-KS.  The output was distorted.Thank you to JohnB and to Rick for doing these tests.

In my own case, I have had good success on one of the W 10 machines with jOrgan 4 beta 1 and its ALL 
backend, when choosing portaudio as the audio driver. The Fluidsynth Properties audio device options were 
many, but contrary to both their reports, with WDM-KS I had good sound, and with WASAPI I got the "Unable 
to create Fluidsynth" problem message. All the other options gave good sound and latency. I was using 
Java 8. Certainly I had to increase the buffer numbers and size to get this result, but not at the expense 
of latency, which I judged to be good. I suspect that this W 10 computer has a fast CPU, but I have no 
knowledge of its specifications.

All this shows that there is no consistency, and people will just have to use whatever works for them.  
At the moment, it is clear that there are excellent options, if people are prepared to choose between 
jOrgan 3.20, 3.21, 3.21.1 , or 4.1.0 . Perhaps when Graham returns home from holidays, he will be able 
to shed some light.


From JohnR on 2020-12-30 04:31:09

Here is a footnote to my previous post:

On the W 10 computer (with jOrgan 4.beta 1 etc.), I opened a disposition with 3 instances of FS, after 
plugging in a USB soundcard (ATR2USB). I made the following selections using portaudio driver and 
various audio devices.

With MAN I set to MMM: Speakers (ATR2USB) [[or to WDM-KS Speakers (ATR2USB) (either worked) ]]* and 
MAN II and PED both set to MMM: Headphones (High Definition Aud), I had good results with two stereo 
channels!  (4 audio channels)

That is, MAN I was heard only through the headphones I had plugged into the ATR2USB card, while MAN II 
and PED were heard only the the headphones I had plugged into the computer audio output socket.
This may be very good news for people wanting to have multi-channel audio.

However, I got the "Unable to create Fluidsynth" problem message when I tried to use WDM-KS or WASAPI.


* See next post.


From JohnR on 2020-12-30 05:08:28


I now think my reference in the footnote to the WDM-KS working in one instance (i.e. to the ATR2USB 
soundcard)  was incorrect. Both WDM-KS and WASAPI produced the "Unable to create Fluidsynth" message.  
So you should delete all the material between the double square brackets. 
The other (successful) results were correct.


NOTE:  The posts which follow are actually from another thread, but I have included them here as they 
are relevant to the present thread. (JohnR)


From JohnB  on 2021-01-09 19:45:25

I have installed jOrgan 3.21 with the Fluidsynth 1.1.11, both 64-bit and I am only given the option of 
portaudio for a driver and one choice of device,  21 Windows direct sound Speakers Creative Audigy 2ZS WDM, 
and I am not able to load a soundfont at all.  

Any suggestions would be appreciated.


From JohnR on 2021-01-09 22:33:57

JohnB wroteI have installed jOrgan 3.21 with the Fluidsynth 1.1.11, both 64-bitJohnB,

I assume that you are using Windows 10. We also need to know exactly which backend file you are using.
How do you know that it was FS 1.1.11 which came with jOrgan 3.21? I apologize if my question is simply 
showing my ignorance, which is more than possible.    ;-)


From JohnB on  2021-01-10 01:01:33

John, yes, I am using Windows 10, 64-bit and with jOrgan 3.21 I tried both Fluidsynth 1.1.11 dsound. 
portaudio and the older 1.1.6, and with both, I had the portaudio driver, no option for dsound, and 
only one choice of device, the same as with 1.1.11.   The  21 Windows direct sound Speakers Creative 
Audigy 2ZS WDM.
I have reverted back to jOrgan 4.0 beta 1 which works just fine.


From JohnR on 2021-01-10 03:20:55

JohnB wroteI have reverted back to jOrgan 4.0 beta 1 which works just fine.Hi JohnB,

Thanks for that report. I think that's a good decision, if you feel you can live with the Fluidsynth 
Version 2 reverb until (hopefully) they improve it. I was going to suggest that you try installing 
jOrgan 3.20, as there have been no problems being reported with it, and I'm not aware of any pressing
reason why 3.21 should be preferred over it. By the way, it has occurred to me that in your previous 
post, when you mentioned Fluidsynth 1.1.11, you were referring to the backend and not to Fluidsynth.

There is still the problem of at least one of the Fluidsynth backends set up for download from the 
SourceForge site being a folder "within" a folder, and I have been caught out by that issue more than 
once, the most recent occasion being yesterday! And this was after becoming re-acquainted with it
only two or three weeks ago. Perhaps this can be remedied for us before long.


From LeeH on 2021-01-10 05:26:58

I do not have a folder named default to substitute them in to. What am I missing that is supposed 
to have this folder?

From JohnR on 2021-01-10 07:15:43
LeeH wroteI do not have a folder named default to substitute them in to.Hi LeeH,

If you are using Windows, the "default" folder is found in the \Program Files\jOrgan\lib\Fluidsynth\ 
folder. If Linux or a mac computer, the matter does not arise, in the sense that the backends are for 
Windows only. However, in those systems, there will be a "jorgan/lib/" folder where it can be found.
JohnB's method is to replace the existing "default" folder (which has the details needed for dsound), 
with another one called that but with the Backend folder there instead. That is not the method 
recommended by Graham Goode in his tutorial on using the backends, but it will work if done correctly. 
There may be advantages one way or the other, but they are not of great importance.


From JohnR  on 2021-09-25 11:32

With this post I am reviving a thread from last Dec/Jan investigating the use of the backends with 
Windows 10 computers. I did some further tests a few days ago using a Windows 10 Home Version 20H2, 
and came to the conclusion that the results differ somewhat depending on the computer being used 
and precisely which version of Windows 10 is installed.

The one clear result I came up with in these recent tests is that for this particular entry-level 
computer that I was using, if one wants to use a backend instead of the native dsound, the only version 
of jOrgan I could get to work was 4.0 Beta 1 (released only in 64-bit). JohnB and RickW had slightly 
more success, namely with jOrgan 3.21 or 3.21.1 , but that success would still have to be called “patchy”,
and does not seem to line up with what GrahamG was expecting.

There is Windows 11 just around the corner. I feel that with any Windows version later than 8.1, 
the only safe way to run jOrgan and be confident of having good latency, is to use a computer with a 
very capable CPU, and not depend on the backends at all. Or if backends cannot be avoided, then 
jOrgan 4.0 beta 1 (or later) should be used, but with no guarantee for multi-channel audio except the 
normal 2-channel stereo. I intend to add a notice to Graham G’s backend tutorial advising this choice.


From JohnB on 2021-09-25 17:38

JohnR,  I am, still, running Windows 10 64-bit with a 2.9 Ghz CPU, 8 GB RAM and an SSD,  
jOrgan 4.0 Beta 1 64- bit with Fluidsynth 2.1.0 Backend by Graham Goode.   I have never had it 
crash and it causes no problems, whatsoever.

Several months ago, we discussed the problem of Reverb in Fluidsynth 2.1.0, particularly, 
the factor of amplitude of the playback of the audible cycle of the looped wave-file by the 
LEVEL counter/slider when raised above, approximately, 0.15, when the other counters/sliders, 
ROOM, WIDTH and DAMPING are set to 0.0.    This is noticeable, and worse so, when any of the 
REVERB settings from Concrete Block to Cathedral Church are used, especially, on sustained chords.  
If a piece of music moves right along, it is not so much of a problem.  I don't know if the folks 
at Fluidsynth are aware of this, but it does not seem that they could NOT be, or if anything is 
being done to address it.   I believe this problem might be intrinsic to looped wave files with 
respect to the notion of "steady state."  Auto-looping can be the source of the problem, but, 
for a while, some years ago, was superior in realism to the sterility of fixed, loop points of 
short length, producing steady-state tone as from a continuous-wave, oscillator circuit. I used 
to loop all wave files with the same loop points (eg., 508-558, length of 50) to avoid the 
annoying modulation.  I realize that this was unrealistic, but it avoided the annoying modulation.   
I believe there is an ideal length to a wave file and that there are ideal loop points and that 
more research needs to be done in regard to the effect that amplitude (Reverb Level, in particular)
has on the modulation in playback.   This, really, needs to be addressed. Is REVERB LEVEL, really, 
nothing more than amplitude modulation of the looped, wave files in ranks?
It would be difficult to go back to a prior version of jOrgan and Fluidsynth 1.0, simply because of 
the fact that I have saved dispositions to the 4.0 Beta 1 and they, of course, are not backward 

After working with these things for 20 years, I have to say that there is, still, nothing like the 
real thing.  I have been impressed with much of the sound that I have heard from organists on youtube 
who have good Hauptwerk setups.  I watch several different, British organists who use it and they 
do sound remarkable. I don't know if they ever tried jOrgan or any of the downloadable dispositions.  
I don't see a great deal of user material on youtube by jOrgan users.

John Beach

From JohnB on 2021-09-25 17:50

I believe that I, also, made mention, several months ago, of the fact that, in Polyphone Soundfont 
Editor, Version 1.9,  the REVERB feature which consists of the same elements LEVEL, ROOM, WIDTH and 
DAMPING as Fluidsynth in jOrgan, does NOT produce the same effect problem with amplitude modulation 
of the wave file.  The tone is steady and unmodulated (no audible, cyclical revolution of the looped
wave file)  throughout the entire compass of the keyboard when played in Polyphone 1.9.  This is as 
it should be, and it would be good to know whether later versions of Polyphone which may use
Fluidsynth 2.1.0 have the same problem as in jOrgan 4.0 Beta 1 with Fluidsynth 2.1.0.

JohnB                           MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD

jOrgan on YouTube

From ChrisP on 2021-09-26 03:31
Hi, All
"I don't see a great deal of user material on youtube by jOrgan users."

John B,
I'm doing my bit, or I would like to think so.
Yes, it would be nice to see/hear other performances.

Chris P

From Pete T on 2021-09-26 10:13

How many people who are techie enough to put together a jOrgan instrument are artistic enough to play 
a performance on it? Need to collaborate with others, might not be that social to do it.


From JohnR on 2021-09-26 11:59

Chris, Pete,
I searched for "Chris Pearson" on YouTube and got a guitarist. I searched for "jOrgan", and mostly but not 
totally got Jorgan, a performer of popular music of some sort. So how do we find you, Chris?

Pete, I agree with you. jOrgan users are not the typical organist-type. I have tried to wave a banner for 
jOrgan on The Organ Forum, without overdoing it, because the vast majority of organists use Hauptwerk, 
and it is the only one they know about (or want to know about, I sometimes suspect).

Best wishes,

From Pete T on 2021-09-26 13:47     

If I can ever get something to work I will get it up on Youtube if I have to PAY an organist to record 
it! Problem getting a system together, though . . .


From Jan F on 2021-09-26 15:39

Hi all,
Please correct me if this way of reply is not good.
When you enter the keyword to search "jorgan" in Youtube, please ignore the
listed suggestions and enter.

I had some recording on youtube. That is found by jorgan jan Flikweert.

Kind regards,
Jan F

From Pete T on 2021-09-26 16:22

If you can find it, please post a link. Thanks.
On 9/26/21 1:39 AM, Jan F wrote:jorgan jan FlikweertRegards,

From Jan F on 2021-09-26 16:25

From JohnB on 2021-09-26 22:34

Sadly, Jan seems to be a singular minority with regard to performances made with jOrgan dispositions, 
and, ironically, the search on youtube which brings up Jan's jOrgan tutorials about Rodgers organs 
adapted for use with jOrgan stop changes, is followed, almost exclusively, by examples of Hauptwerk 
Virtual Organ program-related stuff.   I think that Fluidsynth's reverb is a fairly serious drawback for
those purists who might, otherwise, consider the benefits of jOrgan with respect to any realism of 
pipe organ digital reproduction or emulation. Has anyone ever done a serious comparison between the 
sound output quality between jOrgan and Hauptwerk.  (I know that GrandOrgue is considered to be 
a near-equivalent program and uses the same sample sets.)

The fact that jOrgan is free, open source software does not seem to make much of a difference.   
Hopefully, the problems of Fluidsynth Reverb will, someday, be overcome.  I did notice that several 
new releases have been made to Fluidsynth since the 2.0.1 release that Graham Goode provided backends 
for earlier this year or late last year.  They are, now, up to release 2.18, listing the changes made 
on the fluidsynth website.

From Jan F on 2021-09-26 22:53

Hi all,
To avoid misunderstanding: My recordings are not using Fluidsynth.

Kind regards,
Jan F

From JohnB on 2021-09-26 23:03

Jan, in other words, you are using "Generic Sound" or Creative Sound instead?


From Jan F on 2021-09-26 23:10

Yes, Generic sound with Linuxsampler

From Pete T  on 2021-09-27 08:02

What ever happened to the idea that "jOrgan is a relay"? So you can control pipes or virtual ranks 
with it?



From Al S on 2021-09-27 08:45
I had trouble sending.  Let me know if this comes through this time...    


NOTE (added by JohnR): The Archive Link is not set up to reproduce graphics or internet 
link addresses. Al's post has these links, which were current at the time of posting. You will 
need to copy and paste them to a new tab in your internet browser:


From JohnR on 2021-09-27 10:34

Hi Al,

It certainly came through. I have just thoroughly enjoyed watching and hearing Part 1 of your videos, 
kicking myself that they have been up for almost ten years, and this is the first time I have been 
aware of them.

I want to add the links to my jORGAN DISCOVERY website GALLERY page, so I shall be back in touch 
with you about that. I can't imagine a better advertisement for jOrgan than what I have just seen. 
Thank you so much. And this was only Part 1! I must make the time to watch the other videos! I see 
that only 210 people have watched Part 1. We can do much better than that, as my website is the 
main portal to jOrgan on the internet, with over 200 visitors each month, and increasing all the time.

Best wishes,

From Les K on 2021-09-27 13:25      

JohnB said:Has anyone done a serious comparison between the sound quality of jOrgan and Hauptwerk?I own several Hauptwerk sample sets, both freeware and purchased, and a rather complex jOrgan 
disposition for a 3/25 theater organ.  I have actually done a comparison using the same samples 
on each system.  I first did a comparison after installing Fluidsynth back ends and doing an 
A/B test. I felt the sound quality was equal for both systems, but additionally, there was more 
of a three dimensional quality with Fluidsynth, a depth I do not hear in Hauptwerk installations. 
At least with theater organs, there is a warmth and ‘chamber depth’ with Fluidsynth I do not 
get with other systems, six-figure Allens included.   

Part of it may be my speaker system, too; I never compared other speaker systems.  My reverb is 
from Creative Labs, part of the software suite that comes with their sound cards, so obviously 
my sound cards are Creative Labs, too.  My soundfonts are a collection of samples from jOrgan, 
Hauptwerk, and other sources including Allen and Walker instruments, so it’s all custom.  
Occasionally I will play some Hauptwerk sample sets, then go back to my jOrgan disposition 
to compare.  JOrgan is hands down my main axe. I have to be able to ‘build’ and customize my 
own instrument. No fun otherwise.

From Pete T on 2021-09-27 14:14   

JohnR said:Al's post has these linksYes, it sounds very nice. Thanks.



From JohnR on 2021-09-27 16:28      

Pete T wrote:
"What ever happened to the idea that "jOrgan is a relay"?


The word "relay" has a couple of technical uses. In this case think of a "Relay Station", which might 
be used to pass on a message to a further station. jOrgan is able to pass on MIDI messages to some 
other station (such as a sound engine or a decoder to control some pipes, or some physical stop 
switches, etc.), and to do all kinds of useful things in addition, all eventually involving MIDI 
messages, which may effect changing the images on the computer screen, along with much else, of course.

Best wishes,


From JohnB on 2021-09-27 23:47

First, Les, thanks for your input.  I know you have had a lot of experience and I think it is invaluable.   
Something jOrgan users may not realize, who do not have Creative Labs Soundcards, is the superior sound 
output that they give with the use of Generic Sound in jOrgan.  Those who have CL cards and who can use 
the packaged EAX Reverb application that comes with them will find that sound is not only better 
articulated but the reverb is far better than Fluidsynth.  One very superior aspect is the complete 
elimination of boominess of bass notes causing distortion which is a serious drawback in Fluidsynth.

Used CL cards are available on eBay and, personally, I would recommend that anyone who wants, should look 
for and try to get an  Audigy 2 (ZS) and use the Audigy RX (5.0) drivers with it.  Use the latest software 
applications that are downloadable from Creative Labs, but DO NOT install the drivers.  They will NOT work 
in Windows 10.  What you want are the Soundfont Bank Manager, and the EAX Reverb Console for the Audigy.  
Then, download the Audigy RX (5.0) drivers and, after extracting the files, navigate to the WDM (Windows 
Driver Model) folder and look for the Windows 10 driver and install that.  You can, also, install the 
CTgameport.sys file which will allow an older MIDI cable with the DB15 connector and MIDI-IN/MIDI-OUT Din 
connectors.   The Audigy gives very high quality sound output with a realism that is needed for the 
articulation of pipes.

Jan may, also, want to give some input on what he is using with Generic Sound which may be of interest 
and helpful to users who are seeking to improve sound output quality.



From ChrisP on 2021-09-28 01:39

John, John, Pete, Jan et al

John R, I use the alias of "jorganuser" on YT.

"Fluidsynth reverb"
The vast majority of my recordings use convolution reverb, mainly ReverberateLE as I found the 
built-in reverb to be lacking.

"Comparison of Sound, jOrgan v HW".
Having sampled an organ years ago and produced the sf for jOrgan I found that the quality of the 
reeds suffered badly in sf, with no deterioration in HW. 

Chris P


From Jan F on 2021-09-28 02:39            

Hi all, 

For me HW was no option. 

Because it is not easy to create your own disposition 

The quality of the commercial dispositions is not always good checking with SPEAR 

Quite not clear if you buy a complete organ 

I have a digital organ which contains 95 stops, so why buy. I created samples of my own organ. 

For me an important part of jOrgan is the memory. I use it for each piece of music. 

Kind regards,
Jan F                                                   MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


jOrgan and options

From RickW on 2021-09-29 09:20

My thoughts on jOrgan and options

jOrgan was the answer for me about 12 years ago when I wanted to create my own specific virtual organ 
to replicate a specific local instrument.
There was a steep learning curve and some very generous helpers in this community to achieve this.

jOrgan is a very powerful and efficient MIDI Relay, with a user customisable Organ focused Graphical 
User Interface.  There is no limit to what it can do in this field.  The integration with Fluidsynth 
provides a starting point to achieve an actual sound output, and there are many more options if you 
wish to experiment.

I also had an aim of wanting to share my creation with others, but have found this a constant battle 
with many people interested, but few getting a functional result.
The Windows installer for jOrgan is stuck at about Windows 98. It loads files in places Windows has 
deemed illegal for more than 10 years.
The Windows installer should also check for the current installed version of Java to advise of 

I am now planning to move to a new stage in my VPO evolution, which will involve recording and 
editing real sample recordings of my chosen local instrument.  I will be reliant on the permission 
of a not for profit organisation to do this work, and feel obligated to make the project provide a 
financial return to the organisation with the responsibility of maintaining the instrument.
To achieve this goal, I have no option but to use a platform that will guarantee the security of the 
samples and insure there is no way they can be shared or copied without the purchase of a licence.  
I see no option but to use the big "H".


From JohnR on 2021-09-29 12:14

On 2021-09-29 09:20, RickW wrote:
 "My thoughts on jOrgan and options"

Hi Rick and all,

Rick, thank you for your post explaining why you plan to create a Hauptwerk VPO rather than a jOrgan 
one. I also thank you for the many contributions you have made to our discussions, and in other ways 
too, over the years. Your explanation is helpful to us, as it moderates any hurt and regret we may 
feel at losing one of our valued members. Of course, what you are planning to do does not have to 
mean that we lose your contributions altogether - there are certainly precedents where long-standing 
members of the jOrgan community have done and perhaps are still doing what you propose to do, and 
they have maintained their presence with us.

The one thing I wonder about in your post is the statement that the jOrgan Installer places files 
(and their folders) in places which are illegal. As far as I am aware, the Installer places them 
in one of the Windows Progam Files folders. When I install Java on a Windows computer, I think that 
is where at least one Java folder turns up. Is that also illegal?

The question of expecting to be paid for one's work is another issue altogether. I have made no secret 
of the fact that I believe for both musical and engineering reasons that jOrgan is better than any of 
its current VPO "competitors". For this reason, I would be very open to any scheme that would use the 
jOrgan operating system along with some means of making the sound samples in use unable to be copied. 
This could be a program with another name, but which makes no secret of the fact that it uses jOrgan 
as its "works", and it requires the user to pay something for the program and for any VPO dispositions 
which will run on it. I have no idea whether there are straightforward means to prevent the copying of 
the samples, and I suspect that it could be quite difficult to set up.

Readers should notice that I said at the start of the previous paragraph that I was referring to my 
belief or "opinion". After a lifetime of preaching sermons in a public situation (a church where anyone 
can in most normal circumstances enter) I have learnt to be very careful in the statements I make. If 
I have ever stated that jOrgan is better than its competitors, that would have been in an off-moment, 
and it certainly deserved to be challenged.

In posts to the Mailing List, it is quite common to read that "X" sounds better than "Y", and quite usual 
to see no reason being stated. I rarely query such things when I read them, because I regard such things 
as empty remarks. An improvement would be to state, 'To me, "X" sounds better than"Y" ', but again, if no 
reason is stated, for me the whole thing falls flat.

Therefore, I feel obliged to say briefly just why I prefer jOrgan to the other VPO programs. This is 
something I have usually tried to avoid doing, as the last thing I want to do is to start a flame war.

From a musical angle, speaking as a player, I suspect that the use of release samples inhibits the 
production of a natural-sounding finish to the note (or chord) when the note has been played in a 
staccato or semi-staccato fashion. I find the effect with jOrgan very natural-sounding when playing 
that way, but I can't say the same thing when, for example, I play the GO demo organ. The effect 
strikes me as being unnatural and even weird. Whether other sample-sets do the job any better, I have 
no idea. But I note that the "higher-end" makers of sample-sets for Hauptwerk provide multiple release 
samples for their high-paying customers, and I assume that the reason for this extra work and expense 
is to avoid the problem I have mentioned. I suspect further that there are many makers of sample-sets 
who have no thought of providing those extra release samples, for reasons which I totally understand.

From an engineering angle, I hate unnecessary effort and expense to produce a given result. In a world 
where I believe resources need to be shared more fairly and responsibly, I am amazed at the need to 
install RAM of 32 or 64 GB in computers just in order to play a VPO effectively.

I shall stop there.

Best wishes,


From JohnB on 2021-09-29 16:47

JohnR.,  I agree with your comments concerning jOrgan and, although I understand the preference for 
Hauptwerk as the platform for recorded pipe organs, I think the few drawbacks which may discourage 
use of jOrgan, by comparison, could be, effectively, addressed and corrected or improved to make its 
appeal, as free, open source, virtual organ software more appealing to users who are not inclined to 
or in a position to afford the expense of Hauptwerk.    I believe the drawbacks and objections are, 
almost exclusively, related to Fluidsynth Sound and issues with Reverb which give a less than realistic 
production of organ sound.   I have begun using Generic Sound in jOrgan which allows the use of EAX 
Reverb with both Creative Labs and Realtek Onboard Audio.

The EAX Codec has been around for a long time.   My experience has been that there is a boominess in 
bass notes when Fluidsynth Reverb is used and, of course, there is the issue of the Amplitude Modulation 
of looped wave files which becomes unacceptably obvious in playing and playback, which I have described 
in detail in other, previous postings. If the developers of Fluidsynth can not rectify these problems, 
would it be possible to contact the developer of the CoolSoft Virtual Midi Synth to see whether that 
application might be adapted for use in jOrgan.  I do not like VST Hosts and instruments or apps to 
effectuate effects and, I feel, the appeal of jOrgan is decreased when its use is impeded by increasing 
the correlative applications which must be running in order to achieve the objective for which it was 
designed.   It needs to be as "self-contained" as possible without a lot of external connections to other 
programs to make it functional. I am going to use jOrgan with Generic Sound and the CoolSoft Virtual Midi 
Synth and EAX Reverb  for a while to see if any issues develop and whether the sound output is consistently 
good and I will report my findings on the forum.

Just out of curiosity, what sound engine does Hauptwerk use?  I know that Garritan Pipe Organs use the 
Aria sound engine.  I have never tried Garritan.  Has anyone on the jOrgan forum done so?



From RickW on 2021-09-30 11:22

Hi John and all

The Windows installer of jOrgan places "all" files in a jOrgan folder in "Program Files" or 
"Program Files (x86)".

Yes, other program installations also place "some" files here but not "all".
Other programs create a folder in "Documents" and place files there that are intended to be 
written to, or created and edited by users.
jOrgan needs to do this.
At the same time, jOrgan needs to group the example dispositions in folders with all their related 
files (even if they are duplicated) so that users get a working example of how jOrgan disposition 
packages need to be "packaged" in order to avoid learning complex "construct" addressing in the 
first attempt to use it.

Windows monitors and prevents "write" activity to any file in the "Program Files" folders as one 
method to avoid malicious activity on a PC.
If you try to use an Example Disposition of jOrgan from its default install position it will prevent 
the user from making any changes to the file.
To use a jOrgan .disposition file you inevitably need to make some changes to the file, even the 
simplest task of adding a MIDI keyboard requires that the file be written to.
Some users change security settings in the jOrgan folder to allow files to be written to, however 
this is not something I would recommend and certainly not something most users would know how to do 
for themselves.

New users face these problems before they get even the slightest squeak out of jOrgan, not to mention 
matching bitness to Java.
I believe we lose many would-be users at these initial hurdles, that could be avoided by just changing 
the installer package.
(having said that, I have no idea how to create or change a Windows installer package)

Some of our most esteemed previous jOrgan creators have tried to create their own "packages" to avoid 
these problems. 

Rick                                                            MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD

jOrgan Generic Sound and CoolSoft Virtual Midi Synth 

From JohnB on 2021-09-29 12:15             

I have been trying out some of the dispositions which others have produced using CoolSoft Virtual 
Midi Synth instead of Fluidsynth.

After creating a Generic Sound element, and referencing all the ranks that are listed under the 
Fluidsynth Sound element, I deleted the Fluidsynth sound element.  The Virtual Midi Synth will work 
with both Creative Labs soundcards and onboard audio (Realtek), once installed.  The installation 
went flawlessly and the program is very intuitive and simple to use.  I have only used it in 
conjunction with jOrgan and a MIDI file sequencer program outputting to Loopbe virtual Midi Cable 
which is the input on jOrgan.  The Virtual Midi Synth will show up as an alternative sound output 
in jOrgan.  You can load as many soundfonts (in proper, numerical order) as you have in a disposition.  
It supports controller Reverb and Chorus from both the Creative Labs soundcard and Realtek onboard audio. 
This might be an alternative to Fluidsynth for use with jOrgan.  I will try playing the organ using 
this Virtual Midi Synth and post my experience.  I do know that the Recorder in jOrgan does NOT work
for playback of the disposition proprietary midi files and I have, yet, to figure out why.   Make sure 
you download the proper bit version for your system, if you try to use it.

From Sven  on 2021-09-29 16:18

Hi John,

interesting, I've never heard of that one.

Note that CoolSoft's VirtualMidiSynth is just a wrapper around the un4seen's BASS audio library. 
The latter has a C Api, so we could build a similar integration into jOrgan as we have with 
Fluidsynth currently.

I'm curious what results you will achieve and how this compares to Fluidsynth.

Best regards

From Jan F on 2021-09-29 17:03

Hi all, 

I am very curious about your opinion/experience with Linuxsampler. How does is compare with fluidsynth?

I suppose a good reason for fluidsynth is the available dispositions.

Kind regards,
Jan F


From JohnB on 2021-09-29 23:53

Sven, after playing around with the configurator settings of the CoolSoft Virtual Midi Synth, I find 
that, whether attempting to play a jOrgan disposition with a MIDI controller keyboard or using it to 
playback .mid files using another sequencer application, the latency, which is, theoretically, 
regulatable (0-100) is unacceptable with nearly a half-second of hesitation after the initial press of 
a key.

It would be intolerable with that response time.   Also, when used in conjunction with jOrgan stops, 
it does not seem that the correlation of preset numbers in the soundfont is accurate.   Whether this 
may be due to the difference between a base of 0 and a base of 1 with respect to the 000-000 bank and 
preset numbering system in soundfonts, I don't know.   There seems to be only one example of a tutorial 
on youtube that deals with CoolSoft Midi Synth and General Midi soundfonts, exclusively, while it may 
have potential uses for .mid file playback, I don't think we will do better than Fluidsynth and, after 
comparison, I think I will stop finding fault with it.  It does an excellent job for me with NO latency 
whatsoever and I have played organ with it for many, many hours.  I do experience boominess with the 
bass notes in the Pedal division of my own dispositions, and this is a problem whether using headphones 
or loudspeakers with amps where treble and bass are controllable. 

I may try playing around with the configurator in the Virtual Midi Synth, but as it is, now, without 
improvements in latency of play, and preset identification in the soundfont, it would not be suitable 
as a substitute for Fluidsynth.

Generic Sound works pretty well with the Creative Labs Soundfont Bank Manager and produces a very high 
quality sound because the EAX console feature for Reverb allows better control than Fluidsynth Reverb 
does and there is no annoying  amplitude modulation of the sound of the looped wave file which is, 
definitely, caused by the LEVEL control of Reverb in Fluidsynth.   I have read up on what LEVEL, actually, 
does and the concept of increasing the overall effect of the correlated parameters of ROOM, WIDTH, and, 
to a lesser extent, DAMPING, as a purpose of "amplitude," really, seems to be the problem, although I can't 
imagine how else it could be effectuated, considering the implications of impulse response, the frequency 
of phase of waves bouncing around in enclosed spaces of varying sizes.  Digital signal processing is pretty 
remarkable, considering that it must be based on means of simulating what is captured on recordings or 
experienced, sensorily, by the human ear, subjectively.
If my opinion changes relative to experience with the VMS, I will let you know.
Thanks for your input.

From JohnB on 2021-09-30 11:35

I have no experience with Linux at all. 

From Pete T on 2021-09-30 12:39
It is easier than Windows nowadays . . .

From Jan F on 2021-09-30 16:40
Linuxsampler has nothing to do with Linux. 
There is a good working windows installer.

From Jan F on 2021-09-30 16:48

Linuxsampler has nothing to do with Linux. It has a good windows installer. I work only in windows with it.

From Pete T on 2021-09-30 17:27     

Aha! What's in a name?


From JohnB on 2021-09-30 22:17

Pete and Jan,  a few important questions.  I have downloaded the Linuxsampler.exe for Windows,  
and the Asio4all (which I have used before).  My question is, since Linuxsampler calls "soundbanks"
"orchestras?", are soundfonts (sf2) files supported or do I have to convert my soundfonts to some 
other soundbank format? 
Since the subject of Linux was brought up, and my objection was that it was not as easy to use as 
Windows, I should explain that I was put off by the amount of manual entries of DOS-like data that 
was necessary on installation (and about which, the average Windows user would have NO idea whatsoever,  
the frequent use of "sudo" and other "commands").  Also, the file storage system in Linux is complex 
and not as well-identified as Windows.   I never knew where to install programs or where to find parts.  
I did have the very limited experience of trying to use GRUB and GPART and tried the Linuxpuppy for 
jOrgan with no success.  That is the extent of my unhappy experience with Linux.
Now, back to the problem of soundbank conversion to Linuxsampler format.   I have SF2 soundfonts, eleven 
total, for one disposition in jOrgan which has about 540 stops.  It is a kind of "wishlist" organ
that includes about every stop to be found in pipe organs.   It is divided into 7 divisions from Pedal, 
Swell, Great, Choir, Solo, and Echo.   How do I go about converting these to "Orchestras" or "Midi 
Instruments" for Linuxsampler?  I don't seem to find any information on the tutorial page for Linuxsampler 
concerning the actual "creation" of soundbanks or "orchestras" as they refer to them.
On opening the "Load Instrument," I get a blank window with no choices, obviously, so I am mystified at 
this point.  (Again, a deterrent to the popularity of Linux-based OSes, etc., please, forgive the 
personal opinion!) 
Thanks for your tolerance and patience with my ignorance.


From Jan F on 2021-09-30 23:09


Due to health issues my memory is not good. So, regarding Linuxsampler I cannot remember how 
and why I did it. 

I recorded from my digital organ, edited the samples and  have made from my recording from my 
organ sf2 files. I used these samples and created .gig files. That is a soundbank. 

The best way to get familiar is to use fantasia. 

You create a midi device and a audio device. Forget orchestra'sdatabases. You create a instrument 
from gig,sf2 and connect to audio/midi. 

After that you exort a lscp file. This is a text file. You can edit this in your notepad. 

Linuxsampler does not use sudo etc. It is normally compiled in Windows. 

I can make a video creating a lscp files with sf2.

And each stop has its own file in .gig When you use the same stop on more then one manual you 
can use one file. You can create f.e. a mixtureIV with four samples for each note.

The only issue I can see is that Linuxsampler as far as I know has no reverb. I use REAPER 
and Reverberate.

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From Les K on 2021-10-01 02:53 

During the course of this thread, I guess I forgot the beginnings of it.  What, besides unsatisfactory 
reverb, are the perceived downfalls of Fluidsynth, and why are people jumping through such hoops 
(including alternate OS) to avoid using it?

As has been discussed at length here, there are fixes for the the reverb, not the least of which is use 
of Creative Lab products as well as other add-ons for those not wishing to use CL.  What else is not 
good about Fluidsynth?

I for one have been using Fluidsynth since the day it became available in jOrgan, and welcomed its 
ease of operation and improvement in sound quality.  If you make your own soundfonts using Viena and 
various looping programs (WHY isn't Zero-X looper available any more, it's the best), you can create 
soundfonts with release samples, just not, to my knowledge, multiple ones.  This is not an easy or a 
fast process.  I have only done it on my chorus and solo reeds:  Clarinet (most effective of all of 
them), Kinura, Tuba Mirabilis, Trumpet and Posthorn.  The other ranks, at least on a theater organ, 
do not seem to have nearly as noticeable releases. (to my ears).

I can see where releases on more of the traditional organ ranks in a classically-voiced instrument 
would become more important for authenticity. 

Les Knoll                                       

From Jan F on 2021-10-02 18:43

Hi all, 

I have this program. You can convert sf2 files to gig files, this are the soundbank for 
Linuxsampler. You may call Linuxsampler also Windowssampler.

Kind regards,
Jan F                                                           

From Graham W on 2021-10-05 17:42

Linuxsampler can use sf2 and sfz as well as gig files.  My experience is that sfz files have the 
best sounding engine of the lot.  Polyphone will export an sf2 file as sfz.  Sfz does not have patches 
the way sf2 does. 

Sfz is an "open" standard.  The samples are held as wav files and the parameters (called "opcodes") 
are in plain text files. That means thay can be edited in any text editor at a pinch. Polyphone will 
open an sfz file as a new sf2 file for editing. Here is the header and first sample of John Tays 
Wurlitzer Diapason as an example. (Each sample gets a <region>.)

// Sfz exported from a sf2 file with Polyphone
// Name      : Tay Diapason 48
// Author    : John Tay
// Copyright : 
// Date      : 2021/09/29
// Comment   : 


sample=..\samples\Diaphone C2.wav
lokey=12 hikey=24


Jan F wrote:
"Hi all, 
I have this program. You can convert sf2 files to gig files, this are the soundbank for Linuxsampler. 
You may call Linuxsampler also Windowssampler."


From Jan F on 2021-10-05 20:58

Extranslator also translates to SFZ.


From Jan F on 2021-10-05 21:01


Do you prefer SFZ above gig? 

I have the option to convert my gig disposition to SFZ. 

Kind regards,
Jan F

From JohnB on 2021-10-06 02:34

In jOrgan with LinuxSampler, in the LinuxSampler Sound element, after selecting the output device, 
(Synth A or Synth B with a Creative soundcard), in the "LSCP" dropdown box, are the SFZ (exported 
SF2 folder saved in C:\Users\Me\SFZ Folders) folder/instruments selected for this?  Also, do the sf2 
banks have to be loaded into RAM with the Soundfont Bank Manager as with Generic Sound or Creative Sound?
John B

From Jan F on 2021-10-06 04:15

The best way to explain how it can be done I think the best way is to provide a video. I do not know 
what Graham Wykes thinks about this idea? 

Probably a small disposition. Please give ideas?
                                                                                MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD

"Great Organ" virtual pipe organ software

From JohnB on 2021-09-30 00:40

I just came upon this website as I was looking for a jOrgan disposition of the Barton 3-10 that 
Jan mentioned in his last post.   Is this just an English version of the alternative to Hauptwerk, 
called "GrandOrgue" open source software, or something far more extensive?  It, certainly, allows 
for a great deal of input and control of features.


From JohnR on 2021-09-30 06:27    

Hi JohnB,

It has been around for some time - certainly some months, and probably over a year. I don't think it has any 
connections with Hauptwerk or GrandOrgue. As far as I recall, somewhere on its website it says that it does not 
use release samples.

Best wishes,


From RickW on 2021-09-30 10:50

Great Organ was originally named Digital organ.  It has been written by Richard McCavery in the UK.  
They made contact with me in April 2016 wanting to use the "Christie" in their software.  At the 
time I tried the software and found it very buggy and lacking a lot of important functionality.  
I believe it has evolved a lot from then and has been on again off again over the years with key 
people suffering a lot of very personal and very damaging attacks by some very powerful lobbies 
promoting only the big "H".


From RickW on 2021-09-30 10:54     is another virtual organ some of you may not have seen.

                                                                MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD

A Lynn Walls' Video on jOrgan from 2009 

From JohnB on 2021-10-01 16:10
The link above is an introductory video made by Lynn Walls in 2009.


From Pete T on 2021-10-01 21:18

Interesting look back. I remember in subsequent posts Lynn was working on a "real" console installation.




From johnB on 2021-10-01 22:06

Pete,  I did a search in youtube for "jOrgan Virtual Pipe Organ Users" and that came up.  Also, 
a user named, Josh Walworth,  has posted several videos of him playing hymns.  Other than those, 
I don't find much, which is sad, because I listen to a lot of organ music and I think jOrgan 
dispositions do a pretty fine job of emulating pipe organ sound.   I think what we need to remember 
is that, as with the Hammond and Allen organs which were designed to meet the needs of persons and 
congregations which could not or did not want to afford a pipe organ, jOrgan has been, and is, free, 
open source software that has, thanks to Sven's abilities, met the wishlist requests of those of us 
who did not or could not or would not afford the Hauptwerk software.

Purists have expectations that we, lesser mortals, may appreciate, but not fully enough.



From Lynn W on 2021-10-02 01:23

I just found another video from the same day:

...and here's one from 2018 after I converted from jOrgan/GSO3 to Hauptwerk:

Note that the sound quality, especially the pedal notes, is much better.

...and here's the last video that I made (from 2020):

Note that the console monitor has been moved over to the console and is now reachable 
while playing.



From Pete T on 2021-10-02 01:50

Have you ever played the same sound font in jOrgan and in Hauptwerk? Kind of an A-B comparison?




From Lynn W on 2021-10-02 02:01

No.  Hauptwerk doesn't support soundfonts -- only sample sets developed specifically for Hauptwerk.

However, I suspect that someone could take the same samples used to build a soundfont, and use them 
to build a Hauptwerk equivalent...But I don't know of anyone who did that.

Please be aware that the video camera used to make the earlier jOrgan/GSO3 videos had a fairly lame 
built-in microphone (for music recording).  So, the later 2018-2020 videos used better microphones.

Note that I never used fluidsynth (except experimentally) for sound rendering.  I only used GSO3 and 
later Linuxsampler to render the audio for jOrgan.



From Pete T on 2021-10-02 02:08

I understand that Graham Goode has done both jOrgan and Hauptwerk versions of the same samples, 
maybe he has some recordings if he is following this thread.



From Jan F on 2021-10-02 02:52

Hi all,

Some years ago I recorded a video playing jorgan.

I recorded a video including sound, but replaced that with the same recording in the computer.

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From Chris P on 2021-10-02 04:14


Did you not see an earlier reply I made about jOrgan videos on YT?

Here is my channel

Chris P


From Pete T on 2021-10-02 07:52                 

So the blue screen videos are jOrgan and the other stuff is other stuff?

Chris P wrote:

Did you not see an earlier reply I made about jOrgan videos on YT?

Here is my channel

Chris P"



From King Hedonist on 2021-10-02 23:55

I took the Freisach set created by Piotr Grabowski for Haupywerk/Grandorgue 
and made a soundfont using every third sample. I myself don't notice a big difference.


Lynn Walls wrote:
No. Hauptwerk doesn't support soundfonts -- only sample sets developed specifically for Hauptwerk.

However, I suspect that someone could take the same samples used to build a soundfont, 
and use them to build a Hauptwerk equivalent...But I don't know of anyone who did that.


From ChrisP on 2021-10-03 04:16                         

They are all jOrgan, apart from the bike.

Pete T wrote:
So the blue screen videos are jOrgan and the other stuff is other stuff? 


From Les K 2021-10-03 08:13                             

"I suspect that someone could take the same samples used to
build a soundfont, and use them to build a Hauptwerk equivalent...But
I don't know of anyone who did that."

Yes you CAN do that, but Hauptwerk sample sets are much harder to create than
soundfonts.  The instructions for creating a Hauptwerk 'Codem' and other details 
are not widely published.  It is also possible to do the reverse, but Hauptwerk sample 
providers claim this is copyright infringement, even for the freeware.

All in all, if you are happy with the sound of jOrgan, and you have an actual organ console with a 
movable combination action and/or other special features on your console, jOrgan may be a better bet.
jOrgan's capture combination action is easier and less expensive to set up than Hauptwerk, and 
completely customizeable. 

My favorite things about jOrgan/soundfonts are that you can create your own totally customized 
list of ranks, and swap out ranks, even individual pipes if you want.  It's like George Wright with 
his Pasadena studio organ, swapping out ranks or portions of ranks to achieve the very sound 
desired!  It's the closest thing to a hobbyist's pipe organ you can get in the VirTual world.  The 
other thing is that you are not married to (stuck with) the stoplist that someone thought would
be best for your instrument.  I own some Hauptwerk sample sets created by well known 
theater organists.  Anyone who has heard my youtubes knows I sure don't play like those people,
so why should I have them dictate how my personal instrument is configured?

Here's are examples of this.  My 3/25 theater organ has two Tibias, two Voxes and six Strings. Stop tabs
for all of these would fill my single rail bolster twice over!  Using the concept of Amplexes, I can add
Solo Tibia to any and all Tibia stops drawn, Solo String(s) to String registers, Solo Diapasons to the 
Diapason stops, the list goes on, and the stoptab count goes down.  If I want individual Pizzicato stops 
rather than a "Solo to Great" Pizzicato coupler (wastes an entire manual just for Pizzicato effect) I can 
(and have) put these in.  BTW, Pizzicato ranks can be created from conventional soundfont ranks in Viena 
by altering the volume envelope.

Les K


From Pete T on 2021-10-03 12:26

What, that guy playing the terraced French console is jOrgan?


From Chris P on 2021-10-03 20:27

There's no terraced French organ on my channel 

From Pete T on 2021-10-03 21:02

YouTube slipped it in, I guess.


From Pete T on 2021-10-03 22:06

Say, you are a very accomplished organist!


From Pete T on 2021-10-03 22:30

What happened on that one, Alexandre Guilmant - Andante Sostenuto from Sonata No.8, at 2:54 - it all 
goes to static? Clearly a technical glitch in the system. Do you know what caused that?


From Chris P on 2021-10-03 23:40

I've just played the original file I uploaded, there's no static on it!
Can you send me the link to terraced French organ, please.
Is YT being hacked?

From Pete T on 2021-10-04 03:43

The static is right at the end. It is still there. Just as you are grabbing for the mouse.

I can't find the terraced French organ right now. It played right after one of yours, I just can't 
remember which one.


From JohnR on 2021-10-04 06:28                                          

Pete T wrote:I can't find the terraced French organ right now. It played right  after one of yours, I just can't 
remember which one.”

I wouldn't bother looking for it. Those videos are a list which YouTube has put up because you are 
interested in pipe organs, and which YouTube goes on to play. They have nothing to do with Chris's videos.

From JohnB on 2021-10-04 10:06

Chris, I was away for the weekend and just saw your post and checked out the link on youtube.  
You have a lot there.  Will comment later.

John B

From JohnB on 2021-10-05 01:03

Lynn, given the attractiveness of your console and the high quality of your playing, 
why did you turn off comments?   Given the difference in interests in organ by fans of 
theatre and classical, I think it would be beneficial to hear people's opinions of the 
videos, regardless of how superficial they might be or which aspects those comments address.  
I am, also, wondering if the differences between theatre organ and classical, as preferences 
by people, are the reason why Chris Pearson's videos have had so few views.   I noted that in 
2008, one of your jOrgan videos had almost 1K views, but that one made three years ago had 
only 26 views.  The sound quality of the threatre organ was the same for both videos.

What is observable about views is this.  Over the past 6 years, views have dropped more than 
50%, overall, from more than a thousand in many instances of videos, to far less than 500 
within the last 6 years.   Does this represent, simply, the declining interest in organ, 
as an instrument, or organ music, generally, as a trend?  My point is that the lack of the 
popularity of jOrgan may have nothing (or very little) to do with its actual quality, 
features and ease of use or price.

John Beach


From JohnR on 2021-10-05 08:34

JohnB wrote:
"I had to lower the bass setting to –6dB to eliminate an overwhelming boominess"

I suspect that any boominess is likely to be the result of using connvolution reverb and failing 
to re-regulate the levels, note by note. I noticed this back in my Puppy Linux days, where GrahamG 
provided convolution reverb. My recollection is that I felt there was disproportionate emphasis on 
the bass frequencies, and so I preferred not to use it, but to use the Fluidsynth reverb, which I 
always had at a lower setting for LEVEL than I imagine most jOrgan users would be satisfied with.

Convolution reverb mimics the acoustic properties of actual buildings. In a cathedral building 
with its long distances and vast space, it is inevitable that acoustically it will act as a great 
low pass filter, suppressing the treble sounds drastically - or putting it the other way, 
drastically over-emphasizing the bass sounds. A pipe organ will be designed and regulated accordingly.

HW and GO use actual recordings, and so there is no need for any kind of re-regulation. However, 
that doesn't guarantee excellent results in every aspect. The microphone(s) can be placed in one 
location only, and will fall prey to the existence of standing waves in such buildings. The result 
will be that across the range, notes with mainly fundamental content will greatly vary in loudness 
from note to note, some being too loud, and some appearing to disappear altogether. If you are in 
the building listening, the same thing applies.

Best wishes,


From RickW on 2021-10-05 11:25

You may be interested to know that the more recent (and more expensive professional) HW sample sets 
have 4 and even 6 channels of sound recorded simultaneously (at 24bit 96kHz) with multiple attacks, 
loops and releases.
A user is able to use the various positions if they have multiple channels of audio, or they can use 
various adjustments to create a personal perspective in a stereo pair, headphones or however many 
audio channels they have. 


From Lynn W on 2021-10-05 12:32

John, I rarely go back to youtube to read the comments, so I just turned them off so as to 
not disappoint people when I don't respond back.

Also, I am not much interested in the comments of people I don't know, so I am content 
to read just the comments of the people here on jOrgan-user.

In the early 2000s YouTube had only a very small fraction of the video material that it has today.  
Back then it was a novelty and many of us uploaded a lot of theatre organ stuff.

Today, there is indeed more theatre organ stuff, for sure...but there is also thousands of times 
more material on YouTube than there was back then.  So the percentage of theatre organ videos 
to the total is minuscule.   Also, no matter what you search for on YouTube, they always try 
to divert your attention to something else.


JohnB wrote:Lynn, given the attractiveness of your console and the high quality of your playing, 
why did you turn off comments?”


From JohnB on 2021-10-05 14:30

I have been interested in VPO for longer than I knew about jOrgan and, even now, I listen regularly 
to scheduled live streams and recorded videos of two of the very professional users of Hauptwerk.
On the basis of my age and my limited ability to play a lot of organ literature or repertoire, 
I can't justify the cost of Hauptwerk .   But I do appreciate the outstanding quality of 
the sample sets that I have heard on youtubers such as "Beauty in Sound" (Richard McVeigh) 
and Fraser Gartshore.  Anyone who likes a combination of theatre, jazz and classical organ 
will appreciate the outstanding offerings of the latter and those interested in the hymns of 
the church and more sacred classical organ music, the former.  
A further note about the "lower bass setting to –6dB to eliminate an overwhelming boominess,"  
the adjustment of setting was made to the soundcard "Properties> Tone" control in "Sounds" by 
right clicking the Volume (Speaker Icon) in the lower right on the Launchbar.   This took care 
of the problem....which, I thought, might be related to the EAX reverb setting, at first, but I, 
usually, uncheck the reverb to avoid the "inside the barrel" perception it causes.
Our expectations with respect to perception are formed by experience with real-world instruments 
in the building environments where they are located.   In producing sample sets, especially, for 
the professional VPOs such as Hauptwerk,  I get the impression that they are recorded to give as 
accurate a presentation of the environmental acoustic as "the most important stop in the organ," 
as they can, and, yet, allow the user organist to adjust that environmental acoustic, to some extent, 
at will.   So, the same sample set does not have to sound, acoustically, representative of the 
environment in which it was recorded.  I have seen videos of the machine that plays each note of 
each stop for the recordings of sample sets for entire, cathedral organs and read the detailed 
description of the process.  It is, technically, quite interesting, and, while automated, 
as a procedure, it is time-intensive, done at night when no one, other than sound technicians, 
are in the space and when external, noise sources are minimal.   It is, truly, impressive.
John B                                   


From Chris P on 2021-10-17 22:07

Hi, John B

Yes, I agree the sound quality of my YT videos is poor. I believe that YT doesn't allow .WAV files 
so I have converted the audio to mp3. I don't know if this is the best quality audio available for YT. 
If anyone knows which is a better format I would be interested.

In the meantime I have deleted the Reubke video and I have now uploaded the original Audacity wav 
recording made from my jOrgan MIDI recording. See (hear) what you thing to that,

There are other original wav files on MediaFire which I have uploaded over the years,

Chris P                                                          


From Pete T on 2021-10-18 09:35                                 

Well! That is awesome. Definite bass line, that's for sure. Brightwork is nice as well.

Pete T                                                  MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


Fluid synth distortion 

From NickP on 2021-09-29 17:57

Hi everyone, apologies if a solution exists but I've had a long search and not turned anything up..

I used jOrgan 4.01 beta on Windows 10 with a laptop, but when I've installed the portaudio and

fluidsynth backend, I get distortion when setting a sound font to use WASAPI via portaudio.

I've tried all sorts of variations of buffer size and number, large and small without luck too...

Is it my CPU or memory? I'm trying to use the Barton 3/10 disposition with Atom x7-8700 CPU

and 4GB. Tried an external USB sound card with no luck either.. perhaps the system is not powerful enough?

Many thanks!



From GrahamG on 2021-10-02 17:24

Hi Nick,

There are a couple more things to try to see if it helps:

1. Reduce the Gain value in the Fluidsynth element (This is typically where most distortion 
comes from once you've ruled out buffer number and size)
2. Turn off the Reverb (if this works then your CPU is under too much strain)

Have you tried any other dispositions? Do they also have distortion?

Kind regards,


From Nick P on 2021-10-09 05:32

Thanks very much for the tips, Graham. I will try it out at the next opportunity 
and report back. If I have no luck, I think I may just have to get something 
a little better to run it on...

Nick                                                                            MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


 jOrgan Linuxsampler
From JohnB on 2021-10-06 04:06
Since LinuxSampler uses the ASIO4ALL, which can only take one soundfont, does SFZ allow multiple SFZ 
folders of instruments to be used?  By analogy, with Fluidsynth, I load 11 soundfonts for use with my
favorite disposition.  I am assuming that this is NOT possible with Linuxsampler.   Is that correct?
John B

From Jan F on 2021-10-06 04:17



From Jan F on 2021-10-06 04:43

Test_LS_SFZ.disposition  (~6 KB)   
Web link:


This is a small example dispo. 

I use loopmidi from Tobias Erichson. 

The sound engine is defined in a .lscp file. That defines several sfz files for each stop 
and the sound engine. This can be Jackrouter, REAPER Rearoute or a sound card.


From JohnR on 2021-10-06 08:45

There is a small amount of information on using LinuxSampler with jOrgan on the LinuxSampler sound page, 
found on the jOrgan InfoBase. I am not aware of anything else, such as a tutorial. 
Here is the link:

A much larger source of information is found in the Mailing List archive. I put "LinuxSampler" into 
the Search Window, and there were many results. You will find a convenient link to the archive 
in the text at the top of the Mailing List Link (2nd paragraph, I think).

Best wishes,


From Jan F on 2021-10-06 16:35

Hi all,

Scrolling on this page you find example LSCP scripts:

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert


From Jan F on 2021-10-06 16:40

Hi all,

Here a part of my lscp script.:


# Audio ASIO Device 0

# MIDI MME Device 0

# MIDI MME Device 1

# MIDI MME Device 2

# MIDI MME Device 3

# MIDI MME Device 4

# MIDI MME Device 5

# MIDI MME Device 6

# MIDI MME Device 7

# MIDI MME Device 8

# MIDI MME Device 9

# MIDI MME Device 10

# MIDI MME Device 11

# MIDI instrument map 0 - Chromatic

# MIDI instrument map 1 - Drum Kits

# Channel 0
LOAD INSTRUMENT NON_MODAL 'C:/Domus gig/Nov2016mono/Gedekt8.gig' 1 0

# Channel 16
LOAD INSTRUMENT NON_MODAL 'C:/Domus gig/Nov2016mono/Prestant8b.gig' 0 16

# Channel 153
LOAD INSTRUMENT NON_MODAL 'C:/Domus gig/Nov2016mono/PdlBombarde16a.gig' 0

# Global volume level


From Jan F on 2021-10-06 16:47

Hi all,

Test_LS_SFZ.disposition   (~6 KB)    

For every 16 stops you create a generic sound:
Each generic sound connects 16 ranks with the virtual loopmidi port as
defined in the lscp script. See the section sound in Test_LS_SFZ.disposition.
In the rank you define the midi channel [equal ..] as defined in your lscp

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From Jan F on 2021-10-06 17:45

Hi all,

Now an example using more then one sfz.





LOAD INSTRUMENT NON_MODAL 'D:/Domus\x20gig/sfz/Bourdon8_hfd.sfz' 0 0

LOAD INSTRUMENT NON_MODAL 'D:/Domus\x20gig/sfz/Clarinet8_nvn.sfz' 0 1


From Jan F on 2021-10-06 17:48

Hi all,

SFZ documentation:


From JohnB on 2021-10-06 20:45

Jan, thanks for all your input and work on this.   Unless the sound output from Linuxsampler is 
so perceptibly better than that of Fluidsynth or Creative Sound (using Generic Sound with soundfonts 
loaded by Soundfont Bank Manager in RAM), given the fact that Linuxsampler must use ASIO (ASIO4ALL) 
and all soundfonts must be combined into one Mega-soundfont, it would not be worth it for me to go 
through the work of combining all the soundfonts into one.  Generic Sound, as I described, allows 
the use of all Soundfonts, without conversion or alteration, along with EAX, which, in Creative 
Soundcards, is superior to Fluidsynth Reverb.  So, depending on the wave file-sample quality, which, 
in my case, is excellent, there would be no sound quality advantage in audio output to gain by using 

For others who may want to use it, perhaps, a repository could be created of downloadable, 
Linuxsampler-configured,  jOrgan dispositions, created by users of the jOrgan dispositions that are 
linked for download in the jOrgan Wiki or websites.  The work of creating the SFZ files 
from SF2 files is easily done in Polyphone by simply opening the soundfont and Exporting it as an 
SFZ file.  These are saved in the root directory, C:\Users\Me\Stop Name.sf2 and a "Samples" folder 
of all the wave files used in the bank.  My impression is that, for the LSCP file which Linuxsampler 
uses, there is a great deal of work to create it.  For me, with 11 soundfonts, 5 of which have, 
all, 128 presets of the soundfont, and which total nearly a gigabyte in size, the task of conversion 
would be enormous.   Generic Sound is identical to Creative Sound (without the CTLoader, which is no 
longer a functioning part of jOrgan, anyway).  Once soundfonts are loaded into RAM by Soundfont 
Bank Manager, the sound output is, exactly, the quality of the wave files that were recorded for 
the various ranks/stops.    I only found one youtube video that did a comparison study of the difference 
between Linuxsampler audio and Fluidsynth, but my understanding is that the opinion of the person who 
made the comparison is that Linuxsampler is better than Fluidsynth.

John  Beach


From Jan F on 2021-10-06 22:37


That is clear.

Generic sound routes only midi messages between linuxsampler and jorgan.

For those who are interested I will make a video. Using Fantasia will create
a script file a  .lscp file.

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert                                                                        

From GrahamW on 2021-10-07 13:00

John, just a few points to note.  

I don’t believe there will be much, if any, quality difference between FS2 and LS using translated 
sound fonts.  SFZ has a lot of potential if you build from scratch and optimise for that format.  
There are also alternatives for sfz players out there.

Don’t be put off by the scripting.  I’ve never written a script because the front-ends (Qsampler or 
Fantasia) give you a GUI for the setup and create the script for you.

LS does not have reverb so that has to be an external reverb of some type.  (BTW, Linux makes all 
this relatively easy esp Ubuntu Studio).  As I’ve said before, I use Zita-Rev1 which was designed 
specifically for use within a virtual organ and then separated into its own application but 
is Linux/MacOS.



From Jan F on 2021-10-07 15:54

Hi all,

For those who are interested a video explaining a disposition Linuxsampler
with sound engine SFZ. A script file is also created.

Kind regards
Jan F                                                                   MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


Comparing GIG and SFZ with Linuxsampler 

From Jan F on 2021-10-08 23:11

Hi all,

I compared SFZ and GIG in Linuxsampler. As known I work with Windows. I converted GiG files 
to SFZ and did not edit the sfz files. I used the same project settings in my DAW REAPER. 
I used the same disposition in jOrgan. With the same stops. The result can be download from 
Google drive. It is a short wave file during a few seconds playing accord both gig and sfz.

I prefer the gig result because the high frequencies are better. I use a "scharf".

The registration is
Pdl 32-4
All based on Montre,Flutes.

I did not use reeds on the manual.

In other cases the sfz reeds are to loud. Of course that can be corrected.

Kind regards,
Jan F


From Pete  on 2021-10-08 23:51

Nice. Thanks.


From Chris P on 2021-10-09 05:08

Hi, Jan

Thanks for the video.
I agree with you, the GIG is better.
It has a broader and deeper sound I associate with Cathedral organs I've heard live.
Is the set up similar for GIG files?

Chris P

Jan F on 2021-10-08  on 2021-10-09 06:37

Hi Chris, 

Every stop needs instead of LOAD ENGINE SFZ [nr of stop] :

ENGINE GIG [nr of stop]

That Is all. 

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert


From Jan F on 2021-10-09 06:47


Fantasia does the job for you. Every instrument you add is default gig. Just choose your 
gig file and save the script. 

See video 

Kind regards,
Jan F                                                                   


From JohnR on 2021-10-10 08:44

Jan F wrote:
"I prefer the gig result because the high frequencies are better......In other cases 
the sfz reeds are to loud."

Jan, I have listened to this, and I think something else may be going on rather than 
simply GIG being preferable to SFZ in sound quality. I think there is some difference 
in the way GIG and SFZ are treating the Attenuation parameter figures. Such parameters 
in a soundfont can refer to individudal notes and to individual stops, as we all know. 
Thus the Mixture stop ends up being rendered as too soft by SFZ, and the reed stops too loud.

I recall the VST plug-in "sfz" (not to be confused with the current "SFZ"), which some 
jOrgan users were employing, possibly before Fluidsynth became widely used. Its Attenuation 
parameters applied different rates of attenuation compared to other sound engines such as 
Fluidsynth, the Creative soundcards, and VSTsynthFont (or whatever it was called). All those 
three applied identical attenuation according to the figure designated by the soundfont creator. 
Perhaps something like that is going on.

Best wishes,


From Jan F on 2021-10-10 17:43

Hi John,

Thanks for your reply. Reading your message I suppose each stop needs its
own Attenuation?

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert


From JohnB on 2021-10-10 23:25

On the subject of attenuation parameters....With recorded pipe samples which are wave files 
used in the creation of soundfonts, and without alteration to amplitude, this, seemingly, 
should not be a problem.

Originally, in the creation of soundfonts using synthesized wave files, I set the attenuation 
parameter in the Instrument pool of the soundfont, having set all the wave files at the same 
amplitude (Change Volume in Polyphone Menu>Samples) in the Sample Pool.   The settings in the 
Instrument Pool were 6 dB per octave, maintaining consistency relative to the footages of stops.  
That is, if 32' equals 0, 16=12, 8=18, 4=24,2=30, 1=36, etc., with thirds and halves for tierces 
and quints.  I found that this did not work well at all, causing near silence when, for example, 
in a Dulciana 8' in the Preset Pool, a setting of 20 or 30 for the attenuation of the compass of 
the stop was used to achieve the ppp volume of that stop.

My solution was to use a system of settings for the wave files in each octave at the Sample Pool 
level, having determined that a difference of 10 (70 to 60) achieved the 6 dB attenuation from 
one octave to the next.  So, my wave files for each octave from 32' stop to mixture fractions 
decrease from a loudness of 70,  by 10 for the wave files of higher octaves.  This achieves a 
uniformity of sound without shrill harshness in the upper registers.   For softer stops such 
as the Dulciana, I halve the starting amplitude in the bass octave and continue the halving 
throughout the wave files of the upper octaves.

I, once, used a chart that listed the ppppp, to fffff values for all stops in the organ and put 
the numerical value in the velocity settings of Polyphone .12 for ppppp to .95 for fffff, along 
with the Attenuation Parameter setting 127=0 to 31=.88. I did not find these to be satisfactory, 
either, and that is when I began to use the Change Volume feature in the Sample Menu of Polyphone.  
This has achieved the best results.  I have stopped expecting perfection from digital, although 
I have thought that the theory of "harnessing," while, obviously, correct, is defied by the nature 
of electricity and electronics in nature.  We can not always get it to do what we want it to do, 
regardless of the harnessing we apply to it.   I do find this annoying and I think it explains 
why real-world instruments are the epitome of man's creative genius.  As long as the electric 
blower produces the wind, the organ sounds as it should after being tuned by a master voicer.

Using synthesized wave files, it is easier to use standardization in parameters in editing 
soundfonts, than it would be with wave files from recorded pipes.  I do try to make reference 
to the soundfonts of other disposition creators on this forum to inform my choices and increase 
my knowledge and understanding of the science of editing.  However, there is no standardization 
which can be achieved with recorded-pipe, wave files where "normalization" can not be used for 
a complete rank and "Change Volume" adjustments made per octave.

John Beach


From Jan F on 2021-10-11 06:43


That is very interesting.

You write: "That is, if 32' equals 0, 16=12, 8=18" Should "32"not be 6?

You made quite a journey and the resume seems to me: "Perfection does not
exist and go back to the basic the wave sample."

I suppose you do fine tuning using attenuation and sustain.

In my case the manufacturer of my "Domus Vivace digital organ" did a very
good job. And fine tuning attenuation and sustain will do. The combination
of these two involves "chiff".

The con of linuxsampler gig files is missing a complete editor. Using
gigedit Windows you cannot hear the result in the editor.

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert


From JohnR on 2021-10-11 14:58

Jan Flikweert wrote:
"I suppose each stop needs its own Attenuation?"


I am not familiar with GIG or SFZ soundfont files. Sf2 files are the only ones I know about, 
and I use Viena as an editor, with its excellent GUI (Polyphpne is very similar). But as far 
as I know, the actual Sf2 files are text files, and I assume that is the case also with SFZ 
and GIG. With Sf2, the stops are referred to as "Presets". They are made up of one or more 
"Instruments", and they are the repositories of the appropriate sound Samples.  Attenuation 
parameters can be applied to the notes, which are arranged in "splits" or "zones", each such 
making use of one sample, and they can also be applied to the Presets. In this case they set 
the sound level for the Presets (stops).

I think JohnB made it clear in his recent long post that he normalizes the level of each sample 
(probably to the maximum level allowed), and I might say that that is my practice also, even 
when I am using recorded samples. However, many makers of soundfonts (or sample-sets) do not 
adjust the level of recorded samples, and they use the samples much as the microphone found 
their sounds. Any processing will attempt to remove unwanted noise and insert looping points 
without changing the level of each recording (or the pitch of the sounds, possibly). In this 
case attenuation parameters will not be applied, either at the Instrument level or the Preset 
level, and all in the name of authenticity. As far as the soundfont is concerned, the attenuation 
parameter will usually be "0", I would expect.

My theory after listening to your sound clip is that converting from SFZ to GIG has incorrectly 
changed the attenuation parameters, so that the figures for the Mixture(s) ended up higher 
(more attenuation) than they should have been, and those for the reeds lower (less attenuation). 
But I have no way of investigating that. Perhaps you can use a text editor to explore it.

The only other suggestion I can make is that you (or someone else) create a very simple soundfont 
in Sf2, which can be converted to SFZ and then to GIG. Let it consist of only one Instrument 
(say a fairly dull flute), and let it have two Presets - one called Great Flute 8 and the other 
Swell Soft Flute 8, and each using the same Instrument. (Of course you will need to use a set of 
Flute samples). Make the Preset Attenuation Parameter for the Soft Flute to be 15 higher than 
that for the Flute. This should make it 6 dB softer. Using a jOrgan disposition you have designed 
for the purpose, play C48 (Tenor C - an octave lower than Middle C) on the Great, and then on the 
Swell. Can Linuxsampler play SFZ files as well as GIG files? If so, then you can compare the 
difference in level between the Great and Swell notes, as achieved by SFZ and GIG. If you get 
the same level, then it disproves my theory. If LinuxSampler does not play SFZ files, then all 
is not lost. You simply use Audacity to measure whether Playing using the GIG file reproduces 
the 6 dB difference accurately. This is all a bit complicated and time-consuming, and I wonder 
if the text editor idea may be all that's needed.

Best wishes,


From JohnB on 2021-10-11 16:05

John R. and Jan,  John R. stated:  "I think JohnB made it clear in his recent long post that 
he normalizes the level of each sample (probably to the maximum level allowed), and I
might say that that is my practice also, even when I am using recorded samples. However, many 
makers of soundfonts (or sample-sets) do not adjust the level of recorded samples, and they 
use the samples much as the microphone found their sounds."

After synthesizing my organ ranks for stops using a jOrgan disposition which I created for the 
purpose, using a soundfont of sine waves, or the Sample Set Creator application (which synthesizes, 
writes the wave file to specific length in seconds and autoloops the wave file), I record them 
using, simultaneously,  the jOrgan Additive Synthesizer disposition,  a Midi Sequencer Program 
which plays a midi file containing 6-second length of each the desired pitches, recorded, spaced, 
contiguously, ascending the compass of octaves from 32' to 1/16th Foot (16 Hz, Midi Note 12 to 
8,196 Hz, Midi Note 120) by Audacity, in which I, also, "normalize" the wave files and edit them 
for length.  

I, then, import them into Polyphone where, in the Sample Pool, I set the root key,  
"Change Volume" wave file(s) for each octave for the 6 dB attenuation and auto-loop the samples.  
Then I create the Instrument Name for the Rank/Stop being made and copy and past the specific wave 
files used in each footage of the rank as many times as it will be used for  notes, zones or splits 
in the octave.  Usually, I have one wave file for each note since the parameters for each individual 
note can be set, rather than having one sample cover several notes where the parameters are the same 
for all notes of a "zone" or "split" having only one wave file.  If each octave has twelve wave 
files, the settings for each note are specific to the twelve notes of that octave.  Polyphone's 
editing features allow for bulk editing and copy and paste of the complete parameter settings for 
given footages.  So, the process is relatively rapid.

Final attenuation settings are made at the Preset Level in the soundfont, the actual Program Change, 
where the final loudness of the rank/stop  is set by a percentage of loudness value, for example, 
30% attenuation.   I had attempted to set the attenuation by using a "Velocity" parameter, but this 
was not effective and what I have described above is the manner in which I do it, now and it works well.

Although the practice of "Normalize(ing) the wave files is not necessary in Audacity, I do so because 
it is easier to see the points at which I want to edit the wave file.  Polyphone's Sample Pool is 
where the standardized attenuation settings for each octave or a rank/stop are made.

John Beach


From Jan F on 2021-10-11 16:53

Hi all,

Thanks for your replys. Later today I will read them better, because it are
interesting things.

I would like to do some testing.

One remark: Fluidsynth deserves more attention. I suppose the 2gb limit was
a reason to switch to gig.

From my digital Domus organ I have recordings before editing in spear,
before normalizing.

I made sf2 files from the sfz files. Due to limitations I splitted this to 6
sf2 files.

My mixtures contain separate samples for each footage.

My SFZ file for Scherp(Scharf):

My gig file has not txt file the same stop:
Volume -23.2
Sustain 8,8 %

I cannot remember how I did things but the base of this is converting sf2 to

In my dispositions Prestant 32,16,8 has chiff, a nice chiff. Because I love
the romantic sound I mostly play based montre/flute based. And for that
reason mixtures montre based. I can check this with SPEAR. At this point the
manaufacturer of my digital organ did also a good job.

Kind regards,

Jan F


From Jan F on 2021-10-11 17:13

Linuxsampler can play sf2, sfz, gig files. Gig files are no text files. But
stops wich use the same samples can be stored in one gig file.

The problem of my disposition is that I suppose I cannot share it.

I can send a printscreen of one stop recording from Audacity and spear. I
cleaned each stop in spear and normalized each stop to -6db and splitted the
sampled in audacity.
I set volume,attenuation and sustain.
The script file also contains volume for each stop. This is set to 1.
The main volume of the script file is f.e. 0.3

Jan F


From Jan F on 2021-10-11 17:38

Hi all,

My digital organ has an option to correct each the volume for each stop.
Before recording I placed all volume for each stop to zero. My recording was
on 48000/16. This because the limit for SPEAR is 16 bit. At the end I
normalized in Audacity to -6 db. I also did it in Polyphone. All samples in
one time. In the first sf2 I used I think I placed attenuation according to
the volume for each stop in the digital organ. My goal was the loudest to -3

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert


From Jan F on 2021-10-11 22:02                                  


My sfz f.e scherp.sfz file is editable with text editor. Both Polyphone and
Extreme Sample converter save in that format. This setting is converting gig
to sfz using Extreme Sample Converter.

After creating a sfz file Fantasia creates a lscp file pointing to that sfz
file for each stop.

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert                                                           


From Jan F on 2021-10-13 16:30

Hi all, John&John,

Thanks to your feedback I think that the difference can be caused by the way
sf2,sfg and gig are handled. My mixtures f.e. II-VIII have 8 instruments.
Simple converting volume causes a difference.

Yesterday I changed the SFZ files. It now contains only the reference to
each sample and volume. No more, no less.

I judged the volume for each stop again.

The reason I did not do this with the samples is that they can change every

My impression is that mixtures in sfz are a matter of attenuation.

I now consider how to go on with gig. Convert back from this result or
modify the gig files to defaults and volume.

How about comparing the way f.e. linuxsampler handles soundfonts? That
cannot be perfect and that should not be perfect. Every judgement of
volume/attenation is handmade and depends on the moment. When the difference
between the way linuxsampler handles gig, sfz and sf2 soundfonts is a matter
of taste, there is no good no bad.

Kind regards,
Jan Fl


From Jan F on 2021-10-13 16:45


I will split things apart.

I think there is no perfect comparasation and there should not be. The
difference the way Linuxampler handles instrument in gig and sfz files
causes the difference in my comparisation. After correcting that I suppose
it is a matter of taste.

Now I did the next thing
-modify linuxsampler/sfz

I Planned to do:
-modify linuxsampler/gig
-modify linuxsampler/sf2
-modify jOrgan generic sound Creative X-fi xtreme music.

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.                                                                 MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD

jOrgan w/Fluidsynth vs. Hauptwerk 

From Les K on 2021-10-09 08:46                  

Several years ago I re-recorded HW freeware samples using the HW audio recorder and created 
a soundfont of the samples just for comparison, as I had installed Hauptwerk 4.0 as well as 
jOrgan.  This was a tremendous amount of work with processing, looping, etc., but I had to 
see how it sounded.  I did an A/B comparison with the same ranks in each system and found 
the sound quality equal for both.  The Fluidsynth version sounded a bit different, but I 
liked it more.

Bear in mind this is for theater organ samples, so that's a bit different than the classical 
sample sets most of the jOrgan people use.

Les K

Creative Soundfont-Bankmanager Cache-memory limited to 1968 mb 

From Jan F on 2021-10-12 03:25

Hi all, 

Today I started using jOrgan with my Creative soundcard x-fi music to use the soundfontbank 
with that card. 

My system: Windows 10 64 bit 16 gb ram, AMD athlon 3300 

How to increase the cache-memory?
It stays on 1968 mb. 

The help file states for xp and windows 2000:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\
PagedPoolSize FFFFFFFF 

After reboot this does not change anything. 

Any ideas? 

Kind regards,
Jan F


From John B on 2021-10-12 11:56

Apparently, That's the maximum permissible in Windows 10, makes no difference how much RAM 
you have installed.   I have the same limitation and I have only 8 Gb RAM.
John B                                  MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD                                                                    


convert sf2 to Linuxsampler sfz/gig 

From Jan F on 2021-10-13 16:51

Hi all, 

I should like to convert a existing jorgan sf2 disposition to Linuxsampler sfz and gig. My idea 
is to choose one classic and one popular one. 

Please tell me which disposition you prefer? 

The only thing I do is convert disposition/soundfond and judge attenuation. 

Each can judge attenuation, make his own modification and compare. 

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.                                 MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD                                         


Convolver for Legacy Organ 

From Pete T on 2021-10-14 12:30

Hi List,

This is a question I have not seen explored. We expect to receive a Legacy Toaster in the next 
few weeks which will have the more or less standard outputs to a tone cabinet. Can we use a 
convolver reverb somewhere in this set-up? The room is large, but very dead.

No, we can't convert it to jOrgan right now. No money for that.


From JohnB on 2021-10-14 16:29

Does the "Legacy Toaster" have MIDI or will you take the analog signal and input it to a computer 
Line-In, use a convolver reverb with a VST Host and output it to the Tone cabinet?  When you say, 
"No, we, can't convert it to jOrgan right now,"  I assume you are intimating that it has no MIDI 

John B

From Graham G on 2021-10-14 17:53

Hi Pete,


Audio L/R out of organ > computer Line In > Linux running jConvolver >
Computer audio out > speakers

You have the choice of hardware (from RaspberryPi to any Intel/AMD
based PC) and Linux distributions (based on your hardware choice).

So first step is finding out how many audio channels the organ has....
(as some toasters have 8 channels) and then see what PC you're going
to use, etc.



From Pete T on 2021-10-14 17:49

The lady who once owned the Polk Theater Robert Morton has passed away and left this Legacy Organ 
to CFTOS in her will. In truth, I have not seen the organ yet but I have not known this lady to be 
a MIDI sort of organist so probably not. If it does have midi, well, that is a whole new dimension, 
of course.

If I had to guess from the one picture I have seen of it I would say it is an old Wurlitzer, c. 1960 
or so. I expect to see it soon so the first thing I will look for will be the model number. But for 
speculation I have to say probably no MIDI.

So, the block diagram is analog from organ to a computer line-in, convolver running on the computer 
with a VST Host and output to a Tone cabinet? Sounds doable . . . Might be good.

Another possibility would be a guitar reverb pedal. Some of them are quite interesting. I have never 
seen one patched into an organ but perhaps it has been done. Probably want to make sure to not overdo it.



From Pete T on 2021-10-14 19:32                                 

Recalling a message from you years ago, I would like something that could run "headless" and live 
out-of-sight inside or behind the tone cabinet.

Kind of minimalist. Figure out the best setting for the room without seeming phony and then let 
that be it.



From JohnR on 2021-10-16 11:12  

Graham G wrote:
"So first step is finding out how many audio channels the organ has.... (as some toasters have 
8 channels) and then see what PC you're going to use, etc."

Since Linux is being proposed, it would be good if you or other Linux users could report on which 
currently-available sound "cards" (USB or otherwise) have been found to work well with Linux computers.

JohnR                                   MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


Creative sound font bank and Linuxsampler gig

From Jan F on 2021-10-18 01:13                                  

Hi all, 

I have a Creative xi-fi xtreme music soundcard.
This card is shipped with a sound font bank manager.

I recorded two short examples with this Creative sound font bank manager and Linuxsampler Gig.

This is no compare
It is difficult to compare.
Every recording and sound font differs.

Perfection does not exist.
On the other hand is nice to "show" them. 

The recording can be downloaded from Google Drive: 

The title of this file explains itself.
The Reverb is not good, because it cuts off at the release.
I recorded both dry and added reverb/compressor in REAPER. 

There is one problem:
As far as I know you need an EAX console in Creative which is not available with my Soundcard. 
That is a nasty limitation for which I have no solution.

I tried to install a EAX console but I get an error message. 

Kind regards,
Jan F                          MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD                                         


Fluidsynth 2 jOrgan 4 

From Jan F on 2021-10-23 23:54

Hi all, 

I did not follow the posts regarding Fluidsynth2 and jOrgan 4. 

I managed to get Fluidsynth2 working on jOrgan 4 leave audio device and driver blank. 
I used reverb and chorus from Fluidsynth and did not edit the result in any DAW. 

Here a link to download a very short result: 

In early comparisations I learnded that it is all about attenuation/volume. 

Kind regards,
Jan F


From JohnR on 2021-10-24 06:57

Jan F wrote:
"I managed to get Fluidsynth2 working on jOrgan 4"


I think it would be helpful if, when we refer to Fluidsynth reverb, we mention what parameter 
settings are being used. Fluidsynth reverb has long had a bad reputation among jOrgan users, 
and I have never felt that it was totally deserved. In fact I have settled on settings with 
Fluidsynth 1 reverb which I find give quite a satisfactory sound. Admittedly it is all a matter 
of taste - personal preference for one sound over another.

Our main criticism of the Fluidsynth 2 reverb is that there is a definite cyclic "modulation" 
which is very obvious at high settings of LEVEL (anything more than 0.05, in my opinion!). 
However, I wonder how distracting it is when we are listening mainly to the music and not 
concentrating on what the reverb is doing.

Do you know what settings you were using for that short recording?



From JohnR on 2021-10-24 11:45 


It's important that you have raised the subject of reverberation for discussion, as we all know 
what a difference good reverberation makes to organ sound.

I have come to the conclusion that in a normal domestic-sized room, we shall never truly rival 
the sound produced in a large acoustic space. At the very least, we should feed the reverb signals 
through separate amplifiers and speakers, located away from the main organ speakers. At 82, 
I lack the energy to set that up properly in my home. But even if I were to do that, I suspect 
that there would still  be something missing.

My local church, where I built a jOrgan installation with the BROADWAY disposition, is very dry 
acoustically, and I have set the Fluidsynth reverb at very modest levels (sorry, I haven’t written 
down what they are). Yet even there, when listening to the sound in the body of the church, 
I think I can hear something of the “magic” quality which is absent in my music room at home, 
where I have the Fluidsynth reverb settings at L 0.07, D 0.3, R 0.9, W 1 (and which I certainly 
should have quoted in my previous post!). The settings at home are far more reverberative than 
the church settings. Yet even in that dry church, there is a hint of that special quality.



From Marc A on 2021-10-24 14:46                                 

This discussion about reverb is quite interesting.  Here is what I have decided to use in 
my dispositions.  SoundBlaster x-Fi with EAX.  There are many adjustments in the advanced 
settings.  The card I am using is a pci-e with 4 stereo outputs.  The reverb is mixed into 
all the outputs.  To make it sound good for my ears...  I like the reverb to respond to the 
bass as I feel bass frequencys last longer in big spaces.  I cut off treble quite soon to 
eliminate what I hear as a "brassy" sound that is unflattering.  Very little pitch shifting.

When I have had other organists in to play... they seem to like the reverb quite a bit.  
It can be shut off with one click also.

Thanks for everyone's discussion.


From Jan Fl on 2021-10-24 19:00

JohnR wrote:
"Do you know what settings you were using for that short recording?"


Indeed. For this recording I used Fluidsynth Chorus: D 0.7/L 0.5/NR 0/Sp 0.1
Reverb: D 0.31/L 0.28/R 0.95/W 0.23

Kind regards,
Jan Fl


From Jan Fl on 2021-10-24 19:14                                                 

JohnR wrote:
"I have come to the conclusion that in a normal domestic-sized room, we 
shall never truly rival the sound produced in a large acoustic space."

Hi John,

I agree that we can get a very beautiful sound, but not replicate real space.
But our result can me very good and it is good to search for the best as possible.
And I enjoy fiddling this things.

For a good result I need Chorus. Chorus: D 0.7/L 0.5/NR 0/Sp 0.1
Reverb: D 0.31/L 0.28/R 0.95/W 0.23

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From JohnR on 2021-10-24 20:57

JohnR wrote:
"Our main criticism of the Fluidsynth 2 reverb is that there is a definite cyclic 
"modulation" ... However, I wonder how distracting it is when we are listening mainly 
to the music and not concentrating on what the reverb is doing."

Jan F,

I listened to your short sound file a few times, and I think it illustrates what I was 
getting at. Although on this occasion I was listening to the reverberation as well as 
the music, I did not feel that the Fluidsynth 2 modulation was all that obvious, especially 
as there was so much complexity in the sound anyway.

Any real pipe organ with chords being played on a number of stops together is bound to have 
undulations which cannot go unnoticed. It is part of what makes organ sound interesting. 
If the FS 2 undulations were occurring in your example file, they were being swamped by 
what else we were hearing. On the other hand, if we were listening to sounds which were 
all completely in tune, those "unwanted FS 2" undulations might indeed be distracting.

Best wishes,


From JohnB on 2021-10-24 21:58                          

Pertinent to what Marc Allen has stated, below, for those who are dissatisfied with the 
Fluidsynth 2.0 reverb problems,  an excellent and inexpensive workaround with the Creative 
Labs soundcards WHICH support soundfonts (are soundfont capable with the Soundfont Bank 
Manager software) is the best alternative.  Creative Labs still produces one soundcard 
in the Audigy line, the RX, which is soundfont capable and which has a preamplifier at 
output, just as the Sound Blaster AWE-64 sound did.   I, recently, purchased a new one 
(they sell for $69. USD) and installed it in the PC which I use exclusively with my 
midified Allen Organ.   I use the original Allen amplifiers to output stereo from the 
Realtek Onboard Audio of the PC to one set of speakers and the Audigy RX with a separate 
100 watt amplifier with separate subwoofer input and output and volume control to an amplified 
15-inch subwoofer.  My soundfonts are organized according to organ tone families, Flutes, 
Diapasons, Mixtures, Reeds and Strings with a GM-based percussion section which includes 
Acoustic Piano, harp, harpsichord, bells, chimes, tubular bell, choir ahs.  The Flutes and 
Reeds output through the Audigy RX and the Diapasons and Strings output through the Realtek.  
I, also, have a soundfont for ambient blower noise with optional on/off in jOrgan.

Previously, I had used an X-fi Titanium which produced decent output, but the articulation 
of the Audigy RX is superior.  I think this may have to do with the preamp at output.   The 
advantage of either soundcard is the fact that the EAX console feature can be used in place 
of the Fluidsynth Reverb, even if one uses Fluidsynth instead of Generic Sound and soundfonts 
loaded by SFBM (Soundfont Bank Manager).   I doubt there is a better long-term solution to 
the reverb problem.

I think that amplitude modulation with the LEVEL of Fluidsynth Reverb is indicative of a major 
impasse with respect to Digital Signal Processing. That is, it can not be done any other way.   
This is equivalent to saying that reality is reality with respect to acoustic environments and 
impulse-response, wave files have to be manipulated with "amplitude" in order for the effect 
to be noticeable. As the amplitude is increased, distortion of the sound  relative to loop 
points, (the length, in time, of the looped wave file), pitch/frequency and amplitude level, 
occurs.   This is compounded by multiple stops of different footages and, in slower music or 
sustained tones, is, objectionably, noticeable.   Whereas, when playing faster pieces, it may 
not be.

I use 6-second long, auto-looped, wave files for every pitch in every instrument.  So, it does 
not seem to matter how long or short the wave file is, the reverb LEVEL distorts.  This is not 
the case with the EAX console settings for reverb with the Creative Labs soundcards.

John Beach

From Marc A:
"This discussion about reverb is quite interesting.  Here is what I have decided to use in
my dispositions.  SoundBlaster x-Fi with EAX.  There are many adjustments in the advanced 
settings.  The card I am using is a pci-e with 4 stereo outputs.  The reverb is mixed into 
all the outputs.  To make it sound good for my ears...  I like the reverb to respond to the 
bass as I feel bass frequencys last longer in big spaces.  I cut off treble quite soon to 
eliminate what I hear as a "brassy" sound that is unflattering.  Very little pitch shifting.

When I have had other organists in to play... they seem to like the reverb quite a bit.  It 
can be shut off with one click also.

Thanks for everyone's discussion.


From RickW on 2021-10-25 08:29

I agree, reverb has a lot more work to do to carry the pedal low frequency sounds. They do 
hold longer in a real space, and I find playing without that most unsatisfactory. 

In the Christie disposition I went to the trouble of creating another Fluidsynth Element just 
for ranks played on the pedals (which for a highly unified theatre organ is all of the ranks). 
This allows the user a set of Fluidsynth reverb settings for the Pedal voices and a separate 
set of reverb settings for keyboard activated sounds. 

It was always my aim to be able to distribute a package that other people could easily set-up 
and enjoy the organ I had worked so hard to emulate, without the need for extra hardware and/or 
extra software will links and connections. 

My attempts failed. It seems to me, that users who have persevered with jOrgan each end up 
with it as one part of a complex puzzle with their own unique combination of extra software 
and hardware to create their "own" organ. Their specific investment in hardware and/or research 
locks them down their own path. 

In the end, the strength of jOrgan is that it enables so many optional configurations, and it will 
never be a cookie cutter, one size fits all solution.


From Jan F on 2021-10-25 19:45                          

Hi all, 

The goal of the recording is to hear the quality of fluidsynth. That quality is very good.
Important is reverb/chorus. 

I doubt if reverb and chorus of fluidsynth can beat Liquidsonics Reverberate with IR. 
Fluidsynth has a nice reverb and chorus. 

I must confess I am not blessed with patience to hear and judge sound. I better should do that. 
When it sounds good I think it is good.


Reverberate can handle two streams to process reverb. Each stream can has his own equalizer.
Reverberate is shipped with presets for churches, cathedrals. Indeed they f.e. process the 
low frequencies.

So using these presets and pick your favorite IR is possible. I use saint silvain.

Kind regards,
Jan Fl


From Les K on 2021-10-26 01:55                                          

Marc A wrote:

"This discussion about reverb is quite interesting.  Here is what I have
decided to use in my dispositions.  SoundBlaster x-Fi with EAX. ... "


There's a country song that goes: "I was country before country was cool."  My version of this 
would have to be:
"I was Creative Labs/EAX before Creative Labs/EAX was cool."  I have been using various CL 
soundcards for well over a decade and found the EAX reverb settings just right for the type 
of instrument I am trying to create.  

As many who have read my previous posts know,  my jOrgan project is 100% theater organ 3/27 
(if you count the ranks in my 'junk box') with a restored and midified theater pipe organ 
console.  My present soundcard is a Soundblaster Audigy 5/RX.  I use three channels, two 
from the Soundblaster and an additional 15" subwoofer channel for my 5-16 foot ranks. (No 32's).  
I have recently added an additional soundfont of modern percussion to go with the Arduino-based 
programmable percussion sequencer I developed for the instrument.  More on that another time. 

My studio is approximately 15' x 18' and with the chambers built into the 'long' wall for max 
stereo separation.  Some time ago I decided to be more realistic about the relationship between 
my physical space and the organ sound that would fill it.  I envisioned what it would be like 
if a windblown instrument was installed in chambers speaking into the studio, which, incidentally 
was designed for the organ installation when the house was built.  Besides violating all  building 
codes by hanging over the lot line, the two attached chambers feeding into this room would give 
more of a "studio sound" to the instrument, not unlike the Vaughn WurliTzer that George Wright 
recorded on (about the same size instrument but with five manuals) but not quite as acoustically 
flat as Leon Berry's "Beast in the Basement." (2/7)

My thoughts on this were "Who am I kidding, this instrument is not in the 'Frisco Fox', why try 
to make anyone think it is?"  All I have to do is look around the room to tell I'm not in a 5,000 
seat theater!  A studio organ sound similar to broadcast instruments is realistic for this room 
and actually contributes to the illusion since is is 'nearly' plausible that such a sound could 
be created by a windblown instrument speaking into this room, violating a string of building codes 
not withstanding.  The one thing I do not duplicate is the roughness of sound many theater organs 
would have if placed in a similar environment.  Of course such is not the case when expert 
technicians tailor the voicing to smaller quarters, but fortunately I did not have to call in 
Terry Klevin or Clark Wilson to do the job here!  If you have ever been in an organ chamber 
in a theater while the organ is playing, you know that what you hear in the chamber is a whole 
lot different from that you hear in the theater, after the sound has been allowed to 'breathe' 
before reaching you.

By the way, I do have personal experience with residence theater pipe organs, having owned one in 
my younger years.  It had to share space with the Rock group I was playing with...cramped quarters.  
Would I go back to pipes? no way.

I use the EAX "Jazz Club" setting with a moderate amount of reverb in the mix.  The idea is to 
create "chamber reverb" and not a whole lot more.  Since just about all the samples in my 
soundfonts are sampled outside the chambers, this reverb treatment merely reinforces what is 
already there. Modern music production does not put much if any reverb on bass, and I have
followed this practice.
The overall result is realistic for my studio space, and I can actually perceive some "chamber 
depth" whereby some ranks seem deeper in the chamber than others.  My Posthorn spits fire from 
the rear of the Solo chamber with Tibias and Voxes more to the front. In the Main chamber, the 
gentle two-rank Salicional (actually a scaled down Barton VDO) is up front, where I hear all the 
nuances of its attack and its tremulant, just as I have heard in similarly sized residence pipe 
organs (Morton) while sitting near the main chamber.  

I do, however, appreciate the need and desire for those recreating classically voiced organs to 
have a greater level of reverb.  Classically voiced instruments just are not the same without it.  
Theatrically voiced pipe organs in a studio environment have set a precedent for what I am doing 
here, and a 'close' sound is more accepted in a theater organ.

By the way, I had a Yellow Labrador way before THEY were cool, too. (Shay, RIP).

Les Knoll


From Jan F on 2021-10-26 16:45

Hi all, 

Bach and Franck are the greatest organ composers. 

I did not learn play  baroque organ, I struggled with articulation. 

Once I was Shopping, I hear outstanding organ music! I went to the shop. They played a CD of 
Jean Guillou playing organ works from Franck on a "van den Heuvel" organ St. Eustache in Paris. 
It concerns the recording on Dorian. That is what I love. Clear musical lines! 

I must confess Bach/Franck do not fit in the Dutch Protestant tradition. I prefer as I call it 
the Dutch romantic style. (Jan Zwart, Feike Asma, W.H. Zwart etc.) Most of these music is at 
the best with good reverb and chorus/flanger. 

That Dutch Romantic does not require a specific style organ, it requires a good reverb/chorus/flanger. 

See f.e. Klaas Jan Mulder: 

Jan Fl


From Jan F on 2021-10-26 16:50                                                  

Hi all, 

And not to forget the Bovenkerk in Kampen: 

Jan Fl

From Pete T on 2021-10-27 18:59

One man who can speak to this is Graham Goode. If you study his words.

I want to eventually create an instrument that works as a traditional organ. Using SAMs, 
keyboards, pedals, expression controls - all as God Himself intended, :-), without all 
these computer thingies cluttering up the console. In Graham Goode's immortal words, "headless".

Over the years I have been gathering parts . . .



From JohnB on 2021-10-27 22:38

Pete T wrote:
"I want to eventually create an instrument that works as a traditional
organ. Using SAMs, keyboards, pedals, expression controls - all as God
Himself intended, :-)"

Pete, funny and timely that you should mention that.  Not to be off-topic or trouble-making, 
however, I posted a comment to an article concerning a very famous social media website 
(which shall remain unnamed) that  has been in the news for its apparent censoring of 
comments or perspectives with which it was, either, not in agreement or which did not reflect 
its determination of acceptable truth."
I stated that the entire internet is a mistake and that social media is a profound waste of 
time filled with, largely, non-essential "swap-shop" comments that profit no one.  I, also, 
condemned the digital age as having changed basic, human activities, interpersonal 
interaction and relationships and face-to-face, business transactions in many instances. 
The universal wearing of masks reflects the slide down the slippery slope to the condition 
of present-day society.   Shutdowns have limited personal interaction for business and 
fostered greater use of online purchasing. All leading to greater government surveillance 
and control of our lives. I, strongly, reject this.

Now, to the matter of organs.  After all these years being involved in jOrgan which has brought 
me many hours of educational endeavors related to it, practice and enjoyment, I am more 
convinced than ever that there is nothing like the real thing.  One of my favorite Motown songs 
was Marvin Gaye's  "Ain't Nothing Like The Real Thing, Baby, Ain't Nothing Like The Real Thing."  
That is, certainly, true of the pipe organ.  But my appreciation for the virtual pipe organ 
programs continues to grow through the productions of youtubers.   I, as an amateur, would be 
hard-pressed to distinguish the difference between the same piece of music played on the pipe 
organ and that piece played on a recorded sampleset of the same organ. I have really good sound 
systems and they can handle the most bombastic organ music with the deepest bass notes and the 
punchiest reeds without a problem.   They, all, use organ-manufacturer-manufactured subwoofers.

...." all as God Himself intended,"....Given what is known and has been published concerning the 
field of music and music theory, the amazingly ordered structure, mathematically, I have often 
wondered how the principles of music were transmitted to man.  The Old Testament makes no mention 
of God, literally, revealing them to a man who, He purposed, to be a musician. Yet, it seems so
complex that explanation had to have been necessary, just as instruction is done, today.   If I 
had been left alone in a field with a flock of sheep, I doubt that I would have had a brainstorm 
and decided that a shepherd's flute would be a good way to amuse the ewes and rams and lambs and 
have broken a branch from a willow tree and proceeded to fashion a flute of an octave of 12 notes 
with no engineering courses from Post-Eden University.   So, I suspect that the history of music 
is lacking in similar details for many thousands of years, but that more recent establishments in 
the field of music, such as "equal temperament" tuning, having promoted greater universality with 
respect to it.   Certainly, it has progressed from simple, flute tonality to orchestral divisions 
of layered and blended sound.

These latter must have been by experimentation with respect to materials and structures which 
produced particular, tone qualities.   That the organ, a wind-blown instrument, has developed to 
contain, potentially, every instrument in the orchestra, including percussions, identified as 
"orchestral," on the one hand,  or "organ tone quality," on the other, is interesting. That the 
state of tools must have been primitive, the construction materials and design techniques--trial 
and error--, whether modelled on a consideration of the principles of the human windpipe and human 
voice, or not,  were what, eventually, was discovered to work, or whether God saw what man was 
attempting to do and guided man to effective design is not recorded history.

A problematic thought is that much technology emanates from the tragedy of war, after the fact.   
How much of the workings of the universe were affected by the Fall of man in the Garden of Eden?
I think the effect is limited to earth, that the universe functions as "God Himself intended," 
since man does not, nor has ever had, any control over it.   In the limitation to earth, man has 
endured the consequence of being subject to what earth (as "creation") contained for sustenance 
and resources.   It is, seemingly, counter-intuitive that technological development should be 
inspired by or result from the machinations and tragedy of war.
I don't understand this since the survival instinct is so strong that, it would seem, it would 
be the only thing to come out of war. The reconciliation of what "God intended" and what man, 
through trial and error experimentation,"  developed is, factually, what works.  So, we deal 
with the question of "how can it be better?" and is that the difference between "what God 
intended" and what man has developed?  I am reminded of the verse that says,  "He hath shown thee, 
o man, what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly, to love mercy and to 
walk humbly before thy God."   That the organ found an exalted place in leading church worship was 
fitting and I, still, find it difficult to adjust to its displacement by praise bands, however 
powerfully loud. They are not the same and do not inspire the same sense of reverence, meditation 
or awe as the organ.  I apologize to those who are offended by this.  I have learned that this is 
a generation gap "thing," and a cultural "thing" as well.

John B


From Pete T on 2021-10-28 01:05


JohnB wrote:
"the organ found an exalted place in leading church worship was fitting and I, still, find it 
difficult to adjust to its displacement by praise bands, however powerfully loud.  They are not 
the same and do not inspire the same sense of reverence, meditation or awe as the organ."



From Christian W on 2021-10-28 19:52                                                    

Being a professional theologian I cant help but making one remark:

JohnB wrote:
"The Old Testament makes no mention of God, literally, revealing them to a man who, He purposed, 
to be a musician."

Music is highly esteemed in the context of the OT. The English Standard version shows 19 hits 
( and all except 3 (being all from Daniel) are positive. 

So even though there is nowhere mentioned that HE is a musician himself, it is clear that the Bible 
favors the thought that he likes music.

I absolutely love the thought of Tolkien (unfolded in the Silmarillion) that God created the universe 
by the ultimate harmonic chord ... but that is, of course, not biblical 😊

Greetings                                                       MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


New Features for jOrgan

From JohnR on 2021-10-26 08:46                                          

RickW wrote:It was always my aim to be able to distribute a package that other people could easily set-up …Rick,

We can identify with your disappointment and your failure to achieve this. I listen to what I 
consider to be the outstandingly beautiful sounds from the NORDEN SCHNITGER VPO (courtesy of 
jOrgan), especially when using the Recorder, and I think – what a pity that  almost nobody else 
is hearing this! 

I suppose the snag was in those words, “that other people could easily set up”, and you found 
that they lacked the computer expertise to reproduce your own success.

Is it true that jOrgan could not rise to the occasion? I remember BCA’s “jOrgan in a USB stick” 
(my description), and I wonder if it would not have been within the capabilities of your friends 
to insert it into the USB port of their computers and enjoy what jOrgan had to offer? True, the 
boot-up procedure might have needed to have the settings adjusted, and perhaps in those days many 
computers did not provide for USB boots. But things should have improved these days, and the 
procedure is not all that difficult to describe in ordinary words, and have them follow it.

I think that within the jOrgan community there are a number of people capable of producing what 
BCA did for us, and I hope at least one of them might do so, if the request went out.



From RickW on 2021-10-26 11:11                                          

JohnR wrote:
"I remember BCA's "jOrgan in a USB stick" (my description), and I wonder if it would not 
have been within the capabilities of your friends to insert it into the USB port of their 
computers and enjoy what jOrgan had to offer?"

Hi John

As always, thank you for your thoughts, and yes, the USB stick package BCA produced did bypass 
the main installation issues that can be experienced with jOrgan.  My only concern is that it 
becomes locked into the java version at the time the package is created.

Other thoughts to air again:

1/  The "Customizer" settings could be saved to a dedicated file so users don't need to reconfigure 
their console settings every time they try a new or updated disposition.

2/  The "Memory" function be upgraded to a 2 stage system allowing Map/Range/Scope whatever people 
would prefer to call it.

More detail

1/  if a jOrgan user is using a particular organ package and the package creator issues an update 
to the package, the user needs to start from scratch as if it was a completely new disposition, 
and enter all of their console Customizer settings again.  This might seem ok for a couple of 
keyboards, pedal and swell, however if a user has 50 pistons this can become a much larger task.  
The whole idea of virtual is to use the power of a computer and remembering things is one of the 
best functions of a computer.
It could also help in a user being more likely to try more dispositions, if they didn't have to go 
through the entire setup process for each one.
There would need to be one more step in linking the stored configuration to a new disposition, 
but if dispositions were created to follow a formula, this step could be minimised.
A user with access to more than one console could have extra named "Customizer" files depending on 
the console being used, and not need a completely different disposition file.

2/  it is possible in Construct Mode to set the References for each Piston to effectively make them 
a General or Divisional Piston, however I wonder how many users know this can be done or how to do it.  
It is certainly not a simple task.
If the Memory system had two stages Set Piston 1 (Called Map or Range or Scope) to visually set on 
the active console screen whether or not each drawstop or tab are included on this Piston (General 
or selective Divisional), then Set Piston 2 (the traditional Set piston) to store the position of 
the drawstop or tab (if it is included in Set Piston 1)

Not the first time these have been mentioned, maybe this time they are explained in a way that is 
better understood as to the usefulness, and/or how it could be achieved.



From JohnR on 2021-10-27 12:03

RickW wrote:
"The "Customizer" settings could be saved to a dedicated file"

"it is possible in Construct Mode to set the References for each Piston to effectively make them 
a General or Divisional Piston"


Yesterday I spent quite some time looking into the first matter referred to above. I came to the 
conclusion that what you are looking for is probably possible.

The method I envisaged certainly requires the disposition creators to adopt a protocol of naming 
stops in a particular way (but without having to consider what names appear on the screen stops). 
I think it would involve setting up a TEMPLATE disposition (created using File > New) and adding 
nothing to what is there (Console, Memory, Recorder), but keyboards, stops, combination pistons 
and swell pedals (perhaps also Crescendo Pedal), all duly named. It may be necessary to group the 
stops in divisions (Great, Swell, etc.), but perhaps not, because I think that the naming protocol 
would take care of that. It would also be necessary to include a large number of stops etc., to 
cater for those who want to use large dispositions. These would be irrelevant to small dispositions, 
and would not do any harm.

This TEMPLATE disposition would be "charged" with the desired information by using the Customizer 
to record the MIDI messages sent from the console by "anything that moves". Care would be needed 
in the ORDER in which keyboards, stops etc. are chosen for recording, all related to how the naming 
protocol is arranged.

jOrgan dispositions are XML files, which means they are in text. To view their content and edit it, 
all you need do is rename them, replacing the extension ".disposition" by ".txt".

The user would need a PROGRAMMABLE text editor to FIND and REPLACE relevant sections of text in the 
disposition of the VPO wanting to be used, drawing on sections of the text found in the TEMPLATE file. 
I am assuming that this is a very common need in the IT world, but I have no personal experience of 
doing this sort of thing. It is of course possible to do it manually, but most people would find that 
it would take longer than simply recording the MIDI messages sent by the console in the normal way - 
which is what you want to avoid.

We need to hear from Mailing List members to shed some light on this. What I envisage is someone 
telling us that what I am proposing can be done relatively easily and quickly, even by someone not 
used to doing it, if furnished with clear and adequate instructions to be used with whatever (free) 
text editor they recommend.

As regards the second matter, I suppose it is not users in general who need to know how to do this, 
but only disposition creators. However, any time saved there, is time gained! Is the process 
documented anywhere?  I don't think I have ever heard of it. One could presumably use COPY and PASTE 
methods when assigning references to the pistons - are you referring to some more elegant process?

Best wishes,


From JohnB on 2021-10-27 17:14

Several years ago, when Jonathan Aquilina proposed to take over the programming aspect of jOrgan 
from Sven,  we discussed the possibility of changing the structure of jOrgan to that of "modular" 
construction. Envisioned was the idea of a customizable module of the , individual, system-based, 
hardware-specific, organ division=MIDI channel assignments, audio inputs/ drivers and output, 
sound devices, elements, those things (elements) that are the same for an individual's physical, 
organ console and audio output sound devices which remain the same, regardless of the disposition 
that is being used.   This involved the concept of "standardization," which, we found, was not, 
specifically, established by the MIDI Association (such as the General MIDI Soundfont or GM.DLS 
bank instrument and preset standard) for permanently fixed, MIDI channel assignments for organ 
divisions and which was never agreed to by manufacturers for purposes of facilitating 
interchangeable playback of .mid files of organ music.  For example, a Pedal division channel 
assignment might be 3 or 4, depending on whether the organ was a 2- or 3-manual. Swell=1, 
Great=2, Pedal=4  would be the fixed "standard" and if an organ had more divisions, Choir=3, 
Solo=5, Echo=6, etc.

The rejection of a compulsory agreement or "standard," on the grounds that it violated freedom 
of choice prevents the concept from being, purposefully, implemented.  Just as the idea of a 
standardized, naming and numbering of specific, organ stops as presets (Program Changes) in 
soundbanks or soundfonts was never established or implemented to facilitate playback of .mid 
files in the way the General Midi Standard effectuated the same for .mid files.

Apparently, corporate cooperation between organ manufacturers never established an Organ 
Manufacturer MIDI Standard for division-MIDI-channel numbering or the naming and numbering 
of organ stops for the soundbanks/ranks or stops which MUST be considered as preset (program 
change numbers) in order for the standard to work, even with System Exclusive. Seemingly, MIDI 
should, always be System (MIDI System) INCLUSIVE.  As was noted, at the time, the individual 
quality of presets (wave files compromising the sounds) was what distinguished one organ or 
company from another, and the standardization of basics (midi channel to organ division and 
Soundbank Preset Naming and Numbering) was not an abuse or  violation of freedom to be, 
professionally, distinctive.   It, actually, enhanced the attractiveness and makes the concept 
of a choice more relevant to specific quality differences.

I believe someone in our jOrgan group reached out to a spokesman for one of the organ 
manufacturing companies and asked why such a standard had never been established.  After all, 
what does MIDI-capability on an organ, actually, DO if interchangeable stop/preset naming and 
numbering are not standardized?  Why have MIDI in an organ?

It should be said that we never created a tutorial for editing the skin.xml file within jOrgan 
or created a user-accessible tutorial for creating and editing skins.  Some members were very 
proficient at doing so.  However, that is something that would have been very useful for 
home-made dispositions.  I, for one, still use the classic skin that comes in the original skins 
folder of jOrgan.  I have never had any success in trying to substitute edited image files of a 
console skin which I made from self-taken photos of wood and real console, organ stops for the 
image files packaged with the jOrgan skins.   I am sure this had to do with the xml file edit, 
not the dimensions of the image file or its renaming and substitution with the original.

Those who use Hauptwerk or Grand Orgue might be able to input some information (without violating 
copyright or licensing rules)  concerning the concept of standardization within the "shell" of 
the program where individual customizables, once set for an individual organ, remain the same for 
all the various organ sample sets and specifications that are imported for playing.

Sorry about the length of this.  For something that is, seemingly, so fundamentally, simple, its 
description is pithy!

John B                                                  


From JohnR on 2021-12-06 08:45                                                  

JohnR wrote:The user would need a PROGRAMMABLE text editor to FIND and REPLACE relevant 
sections of text in the disposition of the VPO wanting to be used … 

We need to hear from Mailing List members to shed some light on this. What I 
envisage is someone telling us that what I am proposing can be done relatively 
easily and quickly, even by someone not used to doing it, if furnished with 
clear and adequate instructions to be used with whatever (free) text editor 
they recommend.”

JohnB’s post speaks of a problem in the need for the stops etc. to be 
named in accordance with a certain protocol. John’s concern is irrelevant to 
what I am proposing, which I am calling a Customization Scheme. jOrgan can 
assign TWO separate names to those elements which would be involved. The 
Scheme's protocol applies to those names which are seen only in Construct 
Mode or when using the Customizer, and not to the names seen in normal use 
of the VPO. The latter names can be assigned by the VPO creator (or by the user) 
when using the Description View. They could conform to whatever separate naming 
protocol may be in use, without affecting the Customization Scheme in any way.

Someone I know who works in IT confirmed my suspicion that Notepad++ would be 
a good text editor to use (it is a free program for Windows). It can open more 
than one text file at the one time and perform editing automatically if provided 
with a suitable script. This is exactly what the Scheme requires.

Below is a lengthy description of how the Scheme would work, including the 
naming protocol. 

Comments or questions would be welcome.



This scheme allows a user to write the MIDI messages sent by their console into 
a “new” disposition file, without going through the usual Customization process. 
It requires that disposition creators observe certain protocols in how they name 
keyboards, stops, pistons and swell pedals. But there is nothing that is 
particularly troublesome, for the creator or the user. 

1. Change the keyboard names to reflect physical position, starting at the floor.  
        Keyboards to be  1PD!, 2KB!, 3KB! etc  
        (numbered from the floor)
    Change the coupler names so that they read (not the quotes)
        1CP1!. 1CP2!, 1CP3! Etc.   “Ped, 1st Coupler, 2nd Coupler etc.”
        2CP1!. 2CP2!, 2CP3! Etc.   “1st Manual, 1st Coupler, 2nd Coupler etc.”
        3CP1!. 3CP2!, 3CP3! Etc.   “2nd Manual, 1st Coupler, 2nd Coupler etc.”
        (numbered from the left or from the bottom)

2. Change the stop names so that they read (not the quotes)
        1S1!, 1S2!  etc.        “Stop 1, Stop 2 on Ped”
        2S1!, 2S2!, etc.        “Stop 1, Stop 2 on 1st Manual”                  
        3S1!, 3S2!  etc.        “Stop 1, Stop 2 on 2nd Manual”  
        (numbered from the left or from the bottom)     

3. Change the Divisional Pistons (Combinations) so that…
        1DP1!, 1DP2!, etc. “P1, P2 on Ped” 
        (numbered from the left)
        2DP1!, 2DP2!, etc. “P1, P2 on 1st Manual”
        (numbered from the left)

4. Change the General Pistons …
        GP1!, GP2!, etc. “General Pistons 1, 2”
        (numbered from the left)

5. SET Piston(s) to be SP1!, (SP2!)          “SET 1,  SET 2 (if such exists)”
        (numbered from the left)

6. Swell Pedals to be  1SWPD2!, 2SWPD3!, etc. (numbered from the left)
        (The second number would indicate the Manual under control.)

7. Cresc. Pedals to be 1CRPD!,  2CRPD!, etc. (numbered from the left)

We don’t want those “!” names and numbers to be appearing on the computer 
screen, but the Description View takes care of that. Those names will 
certainly appear on Page 3 of the Customizer, and so the creator will need 
to provide a  file (probably .odt or .doc etc.) which lists the visible names 
against the “!” names. An experienced creator will know how to put the 
disposition together so that Page 3 lists all the appropriate elements in a 
tidy fashion. (They are listed there in the order in which elements are added 
to the disposition.) The keyboard names will appear (1 PD!,  2KB! or 3KB! etc.), 
on Page 1 of the Customizer, and the user will need to be given appropriate 

The Scheme makes use of the fact that a VPO.disposition file can be re-named 
simply as a VPO.txt file. 

To set up a Template File, one  goes through the normal Customization 
procedure whereby the TEMPLATE.disposition is fed with the various MIDI messages 
from the console, and then saved. The user will need to observe the numbering 
protocol, as indicated above. The procedure preserves the console’s MIDI messages 
in a set format within the text of the TEMPLATE.disposition file. This file does 
not have to be created each time a new user wants to set the scheme up for their 
console.  It would already exist, for anyone who wants to use the Customization 
Scheme, due to the helpful efforts of some other party, presumably. It would, 
of course, need to be fed with the messages from the console, and then saved 
(preferably with some console identification).

When the Customization details need to be transferred to a new disposition (which 
should not yet have been put through a Customization process), a “reversal” of 
this process uses that FILE, renamed as TEMPLATE.txt file (it will not actually be 
"TEMPLATE", as by now it should contain some form of console identification), so 
that for each appropriate element, those details are copied and pasted to the 
relevant locations in the “new” disposition file (temporarily re-named to VPO.txt), 
which is then saved, and re-named as VPO.disposition. ("VPO" here represents the
actual name of the jOrgan VPO, but possibly re-named slightly to show that it has
been Customized for a paricular console).

This process, apart from the renaming, can be done automatically and quickly using 
the Windows text editor program NotePad++ and a specially-written script file.

As already indicated, keyboards are to be numbered from the bottom, starting with 
the Pedals. In horizontal displays (stops, couplers or pistons) numbering is to be 
from the left; in vertical displays (stops, couplers), from the bottom. Whatever 
names they are given by the creator, to be seen in the display console (e.g. Bourdon  16”), makes no difference to the names (e.g. “1S1!”) being used by the 
Scheme. Any new disposition to be used, will of course have had to have the stop, 
piston, etc. names changed to match the above format. The actual stop names seen on 
the computer screen “console” will be those set by the creator by using the 
Description View for each relevant element.

For dispositions that already exist, there is obviously a lot of work to be 
done to render them usable by the Scheme. The use of FIND/REPLACE and COPY/PASTE 
techniques will minimise that work. It may be quicker to apply the changes to the 
disposition as a .txt file than by using jOrgan for this. (“!” does not yet appear 
in the VPO.txt file.) 

We need to have someone with the experience, who can write the basic details of the 
script file. Someone else could use that work to produce the full script, which would 
be quite long, to refer to large numbers of elements. This would involve much use of 
COPY and PASTE. However, only one full script file is needed for the Scheme, if the 
naming protocol is observed by all creators/users. It will then work with any 
disposition that is observing the naming protocol.

You will probably come to the conclusion that even if this Customization Scheme 
becomes a reality, most people will prefer to use the Customizer in the normal 
fashion, unless we are talking about new dispositions where the creator used the 
protocol names from the start, and also catered for the “visible” stop and piston 
etc. names by using the Description View in all relevant cases. An exception might 
be for a console which uses a touch screen for the stops but does have physical 
pistons. In this case only the pistons would require renaming as per the naming 
protocol, with the Description View being used to prevent those names from appearing 
on the console display. (This would be the case even if the creator or user wants 
no numbers or letters to appear on the piston icons. The Description View allows you 
to assign no name, and this over-rides the name required by the Scheme.)


From JohnB on 2021-12-06 18:12

While I am not sure if I am the "JohnB" whose "post speaks of a problem in the 
need for the stops etc. to be named in accordance with a certain protocol," 
I know that I have made comment on the subject of a permanent change with respect 
to the "Customizer" in jOrgan, as a user-proprietary module with the input and 
output devices specified relative to the individual, physical-organ console of 
pedal and keyboards which are unique to each user's circumstances.   The practical 
purpose of a "fixed Customizer Module" is that the basic elements of it do not 
change, regardless of the disposition being played.  Since we, all, have a 
"default" disposition which is set to open upon starting jOrgan (Configuration), 
we know how this Configuration function works.

My thought was that any disposition, upon opening (click on the disposition which, 
then, starts jOrgan),  The input (keyboards or virtual midi cables) and output 
devices (Fluidsynth Gain, buffer and settings) are retained by the Customizer 
"Scheme" or module.   The organ is ready to play.

The fact is that referencing within jOrgan takes care of such issues as couplers 
and other keyboard-correlative functions.  So the concept of a "text editor to 
find and replace relevant sections of text in the disposition of the VPO wanting 
to be used...." seems to be unique or, perhaps, extraordinary relative to 
individual circumstance or purpose.

While there may be circumstances when the use and ability to edit the XML text is 
desirable, this function is not essential to the Customizer, as such.

John Beach


From Julie P on 2021-12-07 14:04

I use a scripting language called postscript to create dispositions.

On occasion I have used a text editor to do search and replace.

Organ definitions are basically a database in computer lingo.   With postscript it 
is easy to parse (or generate) the xml.  Sometimes however there are simple things 
that need changing.  Mostly where path to things like the soundfonts or skins that 
need to be found.  These paths can be absolute which contain user and computer names.  
They can also be relative to either the app folder (in the case of Mac OS X)  or the 
folder where the disposition is.   Sometimes it is simplest to open the xml and 
change the path.  It is also possible to do some soundfont substitutions as well as 
these are also file names.

Dealing with the MPL which gets customized, is a bit more tricky.  Especially when 
multiple keyboards are shared on the same channel and not always aligned to a Midi C.   
The automatic setup does not like negative offsets of many octaves, and will attempt 
to 'Correct' this 'Error.'   The interpreter seems to be happy with these 
transpositions.  The only way to set such things up is to edit the XML with a 
text editor.

Things get more complicated with the rest of the definitions. By necessity the 
relations of the stops, ranks, manuals, and couplers is many to many.   Some of 
these can also have a slight recursion.  Especially when activators are used to 
implement tremulants, celestes and re-iteration.  Where one tab can control groups 
of tabs.  Search and replace is not going to work well in this case.



From RickW on 2021-12-08 10:33

Hi John

You have certainly given this a lot of thought and work.  I agree with your 
naming/numbering systems as I think this level of linking physical with virtual 
needs to steer clear of any particular strain of organ conventions.

Having had a quick scan through your detailed proposal I am not sure it would 
achieve the goal I was looking for.

What I would like to see is that effectively all parameters and values viewed 
and set in the "Customizer" (anything relating to external links in or out of 
a jOrgan Disposition) be saved in an independent file (like skin, combination...) 
and named to relate to a physical console.
On opening a disposition, a user would choose their "Console" from one or more 
"Customizer" files. All data and configuration relating to external links would 
be independent of the Disposition file.

A Disposition builder could alter, modify or evolve their core Disposition and 
a user could download a new version, then not need to go through all the steps 
in the Customizer to be able to use the disposition.

By the same token, a jOrgan user would set up their "Console" "Customization" 
file once, then they could open any "Disposition" and play it with as much console
MIDI physical connection it might offer, without needing to go through all the 
settings in the Customizer every time.

There would obviously need to be a double link, but I believe the effort to do this 
once for each Disposition being used and circulated in the jOrgan community would 
be worth it.



From JohnR on 2021-12-08 21:05                               

Hi Julie,

Thank you for your remarks, and I take note of the cautions you have expressed. 
The Scheme has jOrgan itself using the console MIDI messages to edit the TEMPLATE 
file appropriately, and this inserts the correct MPL content there. That TEMPLATE 
file, after being saved with an identifying reference to the console, is henceforth 
used, unchanged, to Customize whatever jOrgan disposition is intended to be used 
with that console. The MPL content is simply passed on to it when it is processed 
(edited) by NotePad ++ controlled by the script. This leads to all those vagaries 
you mention being taken care of by jOrgan itself, if the disposition creator has 
got it all correct.

I knew from your previous posts that you are able to create scripts almost without 
thinking about it, and so I was confident that I might be able to call upon your help 
to set up the initial script, based on what I consider to be needed (the details 
being expressed in my layman's terms). Then I or someone else would be able to expand 
on that as required, without having to know how to do that initial scripting. If you 
are not able to find the time, I would be surprised if we have no-one else in the 
jOrgan community who can do it instead.

Hi Rick,

Thank you too for your remarks. I think if you give the Scheme a bit more thought, 
you will see that it does achieve what you were seeking - even if it does not do it 
in quite the way you were expecting. The Scheme is not quite as "elegant" as the 
method you were expecting. Its big advantage is that it does not require the 
jOrgan program to be altered in any way to accommodate it. I would be very surprised 
if Sven would consider putting in the work that would be needed to implement your 
idea, especially seeing that a remedy that works is feasible without him doing 
that work.

Best wishes,
JohnR                           MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


Dutch romantic organ reverb/chorus

From Jan F on 2021-10-27 20:07

Hi all, 

For those who are interested in Dutch romantic organ music on jOrgan I recorded Fantasy Psalm 25 
of Willem Hendrik Zwart. Son of Jan Zwart. It can be downloaded here: 

Please note the chorus effect in the first part on the 8,4,3 registration. 

Most recordings you find on Youtube are Prestant/Flute based. I played this Montre/Flute based. 
Even the mixtures are Montre based. The reeds in pedal are Bombarde. Reeds manual is 
Trompet Harmonique. 

I played the choral FF because I want to hear that. Feike Asma played this choral P. 

I use reverberate. From Bricasti small church 4,2 seconds reverb. Fusion 1 hz early fusion on.  
One chanel I raised at 7,1 khz 3 db The other chanel I cutoff below 710 hz.
Chorus post off and both channels chorus width 40 and rate 0,4 hz. 

In REAPER I have for each manual and carillion a separate track. Each track has Reverberate 
and a compressor. After that each manual has his own track with vibrato. In this peace I did 
not use vibrato. 

I seems to me interesting to hear your opinion about the rever/chorus. 

Kind regards,
Jan Fl


From JohnB on 2021-10-27 23:43

Jan,  I think this kind of exchange is helpful.  I find the chorus fluctuation, which is very 
evident in the treble melody notes, to be annoying and difficult to listen to, after a short time.  
It is distracting.
At 4:25 (minutes and seconds) into the piece where the registration changes, the balance between 
the loudness of the pedals (should be stronger) and the difference in reverb between that of the 
manuals is unrealistic, to the point that it sounds like the pedal division is located in a 
different building entirely.

This is a difficult subject.  I have experimented with Fluidsynth Reverb in jOrgan using 4 different 
sets of reverb elements (room, width, damping and level) and assigning the divisions of the organ 
to each.  What is critical is that they must, all, sound like they are located in the same building.    
I have, also, tried assigning the organ tone families (flutes, diapasons/mixtures, reeds and 
strings) to separate Reverb elements in jOrgan.  I can do this because all of my soundfonts were 
created by organ tone family.  That is, all the flutes are in Flutes.sf2, soundfonts, Diapasons are 
in Diapasons.sf2, Mixtures are in Mixtures.sf2, Reeds in Reeds.sf2 and Strings in Strings.sf2.  
With the exception of Strings,  which tend to be a slightly smaller family of stops than all the 
others, there is one full soundfont of 128 presets and another soundfont of the same tone group to 
complete each family of stops. 

These I use in a home-made disposition of 6 manuals and pedal.  The combination pistons are, also, 
unique, having tone-group pistons, (Flutes , Diapasons, Mixtures, Reeds, Strings, and Celestes)  
instead of divisional pistons, but general pistons for the whole organ.  For example, the number 1 
piston in the "Flute Combinations" turns on the Pedal, Bourdon Doux 16, Lieblich Bourdon 8' , Swell 
Lieblich Bourdon 8', Lieblich Flute 4' and Great  Lieblich Gedeckt 8', Choir Flute 8' Flute 4', 
Solo and Echo flute choices.     (General Pistons are, typically, settable for the entire organ.  
(pppp to FFFF).   I used this technique experimentally, at first, and have found it so intuitive 
and, functionally, useful that I have kept it and not reverted to divisional pistons. 
One thing that might be beneficial would be if a .mid file of a jOrganist-played piece were made 
available for download with the specific registration and changes used in the piece and users could
make a .wav recording of the .mid file with their disposition/soundfonts and reverb/chorus settings 
and make it available to listen to for purposes of comparison.  This does get into issues of 
hardware differences and obvious subjectivity and preferences of the listener.   It might be 
informative, however.
John B.


From Jan F on 2021-10-28 00:07

Thanks for your reply. I think the values of chorus can be lower. I Will look at the bass. 
Sorry, i should say listen. An idea could be place reverb at the end in the master track

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From JohnB on 2021-10-28 00:27

I may be wrong regarding my observations about chorus.  However, I believe that the individual 
stops, when combined, may, or may not, cause a slight chorusing effect.  Whether this is due to 
wave file sample quality, loop points, the effect of the LEVEL with Reverb in Fluidsynth.  My 
preference is that of as perfect a tuning to eliminate chorusing as possible.  Celeste tuning 
is, purposefully, a chorus effect which, when done correctly, is, truly, beautiful.  I think 
what makes classical organ so powerful is the steady state of sustained tone without undue 
undulation which, I perceive, to be a weakness.
Indeed, the tuning adjustments in cents from tuned frequency, perfect 0, specified for nazards 
or quints (+2), tierces (-14) or flatted 7ths (-31) (there is also an adjustment for 9ths, 
I believe, which I have forgotten), prove the recognition and need for this steady state of 
sustained tone, particularly, in footage combinations.   It may sound counter-intuitive, but 
the Principal chorus 8', 4', 2' should not waver or undulate.  It should be a steady blend of 
those footages.
So, I think it is, generally, considered that chorusing is a somewhat, undesirable effect that 
detracts from the overall quality of sound and makes the listener think the organ is not properly 
tuned. Insomuch as there are harmonic upper partials that may cause a minor undulation, proper 
cents tuning should eliminate it and produce a solid blend of footages.   I don't think this is 
an expectation in the theatre organ, as distinct in its voicing from the classical organ. 
John B.


From Pete T on 2021-10-28 00:33

The reverb/chorus is nice. However, your choice of stopping point is sort of unresolved :-)



From Jan F on 2021-10-28 03:36

In English flanging. See:

Pete T wrote:
"your choice of stopping point is sort of unresolved :-)"

Hi John and Pete, Hi all,

When you record samples from an organ I suppose they have been tuned. I
recorded from a digital organ and I suppose they tuned.
My goal is to emulate the effect of the space, a church for classical
organs. The manfacturer of Reverberate ships it whit reverb/chorus. Better
should be reverb/flanger. By using Montre instead of Prestant I want to
avoid the difference in tuning.

Then I will go and listen. The problem is I send the audio to my digital
organ and listen on the speakers of that device. This has no noticeable
stereo effect.

I also have two headphones. One is very sheep. The other is an 30 year old
Sennheiser. The sound of these headphones is not nice.

The speakers of my digital organ I should listen and try to understand the
words of John: The pedals sound if they come from another room.

Pete stated that my stopping point is a sort of unresolved. Do you mean the
"reverb"? For this matter I added a few print screens of Reverberate an
haring There you can see the graph of de IR file.

I will also look at the compressor. I can look at the "clever volume
manager" from my Creative sound card.

So I go on with your feed-back and possible you see some new views.

Kind regards,

Jan Flikweert


From Pete T on 2021-10-28 03:37                                 

Jan F wrote:
"Do you mean the "reverb"?"

No. I mean the composer would have finished the piece on a resolution chord. Unless it is 
something from the praise band . . .


From Jan F on 2021-10-28 16:36

Hi all,

Regarding praise bands and the evangelical movement which at the end is a " progressive " 
movement in churches there is much to say. I always think: Did they reinvent the gospel? 
Which release we have now? The Holy Bible did not change!

Let us think in opportunities: VPO can be an affordable way for small churches to have a 
great orchestra. You need one man, the organist, that is every service available.

After the fire of the Notre Dame of Paris I thought please make let there be a recording 
of that organ.

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert                                                   


From Jan F on 2021-10-29 17:44  


One of my principles is that the human observation is real. So your observation should be 

First of all I changed the script of Linuxsampler in stereo.
I also checked my headphones. One has no stereo. The other is very damaged but good. The 
upholstery of the auricle has gone. It misses damping. 

A personal weakness of me is putting not much bass. 

The composer composed the "cantus firmus" double in octave. The distance between bass and 
next voice is large. I used mixture+scharf. That is something over the top. 

Another point is that choosing the attenuation there is music which uses double pedal. 
Especially in Dutch romantic music this is often used. This may not cause to loud bass.

To illustrate another way of composing, another way of choosing stops and putting chord 
between the repeated cantus firmus in octave an example of the father of Willem Hendrik Zwart, 
Jan Zwart. This time without mixtures+schaf and more reeds. This is the choral from Toccata 
Psalm 146. Please note that a choral in these setting is not rhythmic. This is not the way 
we sing this psalm. As Pete stated regarding the previous recoring also father Zwart uses 
an unsolved chord. 

Kind regards,
Jan Fl


From JohnB on 2021-10-29 22:24

Jan, that recording was excellent.  I have listened to a fair number of Dutch organists,  
Klass Jan Mulder and Gert Van Hoef are two of my favorite and there is another excellent 
organist and pianist duo who change places playing either organ or piano together.  
Excellent all!   

I think the Dutch organs have a truly wonderful, unique sound due, perhaps, to the tuning 
which, to me, at least, sounds like what we call, in English, "stretch tuning."  
It is just a fraction of cents broader than equal temperament tuning.  So, the Dutch organs 
have a very "warm" sound with just a perfect, minimal amount of oscillation in the overall, 
blended effect which is "romantic" or, even, symphonic.  I don't know is there is a term 
"romantic tuning" or "symphonic tuning," but it would be appropriate and, specifically, 
identifying of that particular warmth of ever so slightly undulating sound.  I believe that 
symphony orchestras achieve this effect due to the string sections. 
John B 


From JohnB on 2021-10-29 22:29

Jan, I agree with your comments on praise bands and the evangelical movement, but I will say 
no more as this can be a very argumentative and divisive topic.   What has been lost in worship
in most non-liturgical churches is the opportunity for quiet meditation before a service.  

These are, certainly matters of culture and personal preference and taste, but I have often 
thought what God would prescribe for us to do if the inspiration of the culture of the world 
music scene had not invaded the minds of musicians who dabbled in, both, popular and church music.

John Beach


From Pete T on 2021-10-30 00:27

Jan F wrote:
"also father Zwart uses an unsolved chord."

Oh, it is written that way? Just like that, he wrote it unresolved. Did he ever say why?



From Jan F on 2021-10-30 03:56

Hi Pete, Hi all,
Yes it is written that way.

Dutch romantic composers does not always follow the rules.

There are much notations of improvisations of Klaas Jan Mulder. He did not
follow the rules.

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From Jan F on 2021-10-30 04:19


Interesting question:
Why does organs played by Dutch romantic organ players sound like they do? 

I am not sure. There are a few points I think: 

1.   Acoustic effect space;
2.   Combination of Prestant, Flutes and Nazard which have a different "beating" 

That is why I try to get this effect using "chorus". Study of presets of churches learn that 
"chorus" is important.

There should be impulse response files which records what space does with sound during sustain, 
So before "release".

I have no knowledge about tuning. 

Another point is that much organs played by Dutch organ players are no romantic instruments. 
They are not build for this music.

F.e. St. Laurens Kerk Rotterdam. That is a Marcussen organ. Marcussen build neo-baroque organs.
I will search on youtube for examples.

I am impressed by the registration of Cesar Franck. Montre/Flute based. Only Gamba added and 
not Vox Celeste added. You see not much 4+2+3+mixtures except with Grand Orgue. And not to 
forget: Reeds are important. This inspires me for Dutch Late Romantic. And to be clear Dutch 
Late Romantic music is not always high state of the art, but beautiful and very useful in 
protestant tradition. 

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From Jan F on 2021-10-30 04:31

Hi all,

Here an example the Sint Laurenskerk in Rotterdam. This is indeed a Neo Baroque Marcussen organ. 
I think space and combination of prestant, flutes causes the sound as it is. 

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From Jan F on 2021-10-30 04:45  

Here Oude Kerk Amsterdam. Organ 18th century. Especially take notice of 9:00:
Kind regards,
Jan Fl.                                                                 


From Pete T on 2021-10-30 15:59                                 MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD 

Yes. I would class this as inspirational . . .



Enjoy our Music

From JohnB on 2021-10-27 23:51

I have used the website in the past as a source of midi files of organ music.  
I just received this in email this morning and, as I do not have a spotify account, it is not 
useful to me, but I did check out the offerings at the links below and these might be beneficial 
to check out by those who do use, in consideration of the things that Jan Flikwert 
has been presenting.
I hope this does not violate jOrgan User policy.  If it does, I apologize.
John B. 

"Dear friend,

We created these special Spotify playlists for you:

Latest Releases:
Satie's Music:
Very Short Pieces:
The Scarlatti Project:
Calming Classical:
Travel Classical:
Classical for Sleeping:
Classical Concentration:
Dreamy Classical:
Sad Classical:

Feel free to follow them by clicking on the green heart. They are 100% free!

Take care.


Connect multiple instances of fluidsyth with jackrouter of Rearoute             

From Jan F on 2021-11-02 21:11

Hi all, 

How to connect multiple instances of fluidsynth in jOrgan with JackRouter of Rearoute? 

I use windows 10 64 bit. I installed Jackrouter (jack2-win64-v1.9.19). jOrgan 4 and 
This works. I can connect one instance of fluidsynth in jOrgan with JackRouter. More 
than one instance of Fluidsynth causes a “fluidsynth failure” in jOrgan. 

Kind regards,
Jan Fl


From JohnB on 2021-11-02 21:42

Jan,  does that setup use ASIO4ALL?  ASIO only allows ONE soundfont.  I have never used it
because it would require combining 9 soundfonts into one,  and I don't want to have to mess 
around with the bank number changes which can become a nuisance based on the base 0 or base 1.   
Normally, the Soundfont Bank Manager reserves bank number 0 or 000 for the General Midi 
Soundfont (2MBGM.sf2, by default).  If or since the Soundfont Bank Manager is used to load 
soundfonts from bank numbers 1 or 001 to as many as necessary, e.g., 9 or 009,  if I combine 
them into one and use fluidsynth at bank number 0,  they must have a bank number added 
in order to distinguish presets having the same number (but in different soundfonts) from 
one another.  Thus, the importance of the bank number.  If, in jOrgan, bank number 1 is the 
bank used for ASIO4ALL, all the assigned bank numbers IN the combined soundfonts will be 
treated as the next higher number and it will not be correct in the MPL messaging regarding 
the "set (bank number) x".    This is a lot of work and I am not inclined to do it for over 
500 stops or ranks.
I am not sure that this describes your problem, but it seemed that, perhaps, that might be 
the issue.
John B


From Jan F on 2021-11-02 22:12               

Hi John, 

No that setup does not use any ASIO. For jOrgan Portaudio, Jack uses Portaudio and REAPER uses 
WASAPI. REAPER can recognize multiple channels. In case of Linuxsampler you define multiple 
channels of rearoute in the script. And that works. 

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From Graham G on 2021-11-04 00:48

Hi Jan,

Rather use the package as
then there is no doubt as to which drivers are in use. The ALL package
will not be as good for this.



From JohnR on 2021-11-04 07:04

Hi Graham,

A question I have sometimes wondered about. One reason we have needed the backends is 
the latency issue. Does using dsound with the backend give better latency than dsound 
without the backend?

Jan will need to revert to jOrgan 3.21.1 if he uses the backend you have recommended. 
At the moment he says he is using jOrgan 4. I notice there is a backend suitable for 
jOrgan 3.21.1 which offers WASAPI (without the ALL). Would this be better for him, 
as he wants to use Reaper?



From Graham G on 2021-11-04 14:48

Hi John,

All that a backend does is provide access for Fluidsynth to use a
different set of Windows audio drivers. DSound is Dsound whether it is
native DSound or PortAudio DSound, so there will be no difference in
that latency given the same properties.

Sven make the latest version of jOrgan 4 compatible with both
Fluidsynth v1 and v2, so I would assume that Jan just needs to install
the backend and configure it.

Kind regards,


From Jan F on 2021-11-05 19:53

Hi Graham,

I did my best to get things work, but I did not succeed.

Using "" does not list a
device/driver in jOrgan 3/4.

Using PortAudioAll64 does give the option dsound, portaudio and wave. Using
portaudio give for device choice of
"ASIO::Creative Asio","ASIO::Jackrouter","ASIO::Rearoute". There are some
options which result in only one javaw input in Qjackctl. Using more then
one instance of fluidsynth in jOrgan will result in a fluidsynth error.

Another option could be vbcable. This is not free. For me at this moment no
option, because I am trying things out.

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From Jan F on 2021-11-05 20:45

Hi all,

I got the next messages in Jackd:
"Cannot connect to named pipe after wait = \\.\pipe\server_jack_default_0
err = 2
Cannot connect to server request channel
jack server is not running or cannot be started
JackShmReadWritePtr::~JackShmReadWritePtr - Init not done for -1, skipping
JackShmReadWritePtr::~JackShmReadWritePtr - Init not done for -1, skipping
Open error: is JACK server running?
jack_deactivate called with a NULL client
jack_deactivate called with a NULL client
jack_client_close called with a NULL client
JackPortAudioDriver::Render paOutputUnderflow
JackPortAudioDriver::Render paOutputUnderflow
JackEngine::ClientCloseAux wait error ref = 3
Driver is not running
Driver is not running
Driver is not running
CheckRes error
JackRequest::ClientOpen write error name = javaw
Driver is not running
CheckRes error
JackRequest::ClientOpen write error name = javaw
Driver is not running
Driver is not running"
Kind regards,

Jan Fl                                                                  


From Graham G on 2021-11-08 17:48

Hi Jan,

You have not gotten JACK native to work, so you are not using JACK.
ASIO::JackRouter is an ASIO->JACK bridge and so from Fluidsynth's side
is just ASIO.

Have you started JACK for WIndows (Qjackctl) and configured it to run
before starting jOrgan with the jack backend?

Jan F wrote:
"I did my best to get things work, but I did not succeed."


From Jan Fl on 2021-11-10 17:05


I installed jack, jack2. Run it first. Use dsound.jack. Let
interface,input,output to default. Restart jOrgan, reboot computer.
Re-installed vc-redist 2015-2019. In jOrgan I definitely can only use
default fluidsynth and portaudioallx86 v2. In all other cases I even can not
choose a driver in jOrgan.

Now I use VBCable. That works whith multiple instances of fluidsynth and one
input in REAPER. Using the tremulant from Silbermann disposition works well.

I also used fluidsynth and jack and jorgan in Ubuntu studio with wineasio.
In some settings the attenuation of one stop caused distortion. That
solution is easy.

Could Rearoute from REAPER conflict whit jackd,jack2? I will try that.

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.                                                                 MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


Fluidynth failure on mac osx big sur. 

From Julie P on 2021-11-07 06:26

It has been a while since I attempted to run jOrgan on my mac which is now running Big sur. 

I noticed that there has been a bit of discussion regarding the website with the latest 
update.  I thought I would give it a try again.  
I attempted to follow the mac install instructions which are quite outdated.   The dmg does 
not contain an installer and a proper apple bundle.  It only contains some support folders 
and a java wrapper (which could be confusing to most mac users.)
I  get fluidsynth failure when I attempt to load my dispositions. I do not get sound.   
I can run the editor using the cryptic icons.  There are no proper mac menus other than 
the java wrapper.
I suspect some this is due to gatekeeper, which does not allow non apple certified programs.  
When launching jorgan there are a number of warnings about running non apple certified code.  
Some of these can be overridden in the system preferences
The issue could also be that the fludisynth in the sourceforge distro is 32 bit.  The newer 
mac os from mojave  only run 64bit.  So if the fluidsynth lib is 32 bit, that could also 
present a problem.
I use Java for development through the Eclipse IDE,  I also do quite a bit with the command 

One of my projects also uses fluidsynth,  so I have fluidsynth loaded via macports.   There 
are also many variations of java that have been downloaded over the years.  It might be 
possible to run the newer jOrgan from the command line (the way linux is usually used.)  
I suspect that there are few if any users here that are so inclined.  Most of the users here 
seem to be windows centric.  Which is fine.  But does become a bit of a self fulfilling 
prophecy when users say mac is too expensive and not open to users to program.  (even though 
mac has a complete BSD Unix command line system under the hood.) 

I used to really enjoy jOrgan.  It worked great and still does on the High sierra.   I have 
a lot of scripts for creating dispositions and translating performance recordings from other 
relays such as Hauptwerk and Uniflex.  (Also Emutek.)  These can also communicate with each 
other using the built in MIDI over ethernet that the mac supplies.   There is also a version 
of this MIDI driver that works on WIndows.  Documented in the online papers "Hauptwerk as a 
box of ranks."    

I sort of drifted away from jOrgan, as I found the same Arduino based hardware also worked 
with Hauptwerk and the same Robert Morton definitions (sample sets) run on Hauptwerk.  The 
users prefer the latter.    So there is not much reason to use the jOrgan as it becomes 
redundant.  There is still a lot of criticism of that 'Last 10 yards' issue with all of 
these synthetic systems.   Close, but not quite there.

Uniflex (which is what I work with the most, as I do work on the hardware side, testing 
repairing boards etc)  can also use Fluidsynth.   This was intended as a demonstration mode, 
so there are few issues.  Only sample sets (soundfonts) that map identical to the MidiTzer 
sets work.  There is no expression or reverb control exposed as part of the built in uniflex 
implementation of fluidsynth.   Typically in Uniflex installations Fluidsynth is used to 
create raw digital voices inside the swell box or chambers.    Again, for most users Hauptwerk 
provides better digital voices.  

... still have a soft spot for jOrgan though and would like to see an increase of the user 
base sometime. 


From JohnB on 2021-11-07 12:34

Julie said,    "The issue could also be that the fluidsynth in the sourceforge distro 
is 32 bit.  The newer mac os from mojave  only run 64bit.  So if the fluidsynth lib is 
32 bit, that could also present a problem."
Julie,  since your OS is 64-bit, you need to install the 64-bit Java Runtime and use the 
64-bit version of jOrgan with the fluidsynth portaudio backends.  You can't mix the bits.
If you do a DEBUG in jOrgan, (Taskbar:  View>Debug)  it will tell you where the error is 
with a "failed" line in the Debug Log.   It is, usually, a simple matter to make the 
corrections or, let the forum know what the Debug log says and someone should be able to 
recommend a solution to the problem. 
John Beach


From Julie P on 2021-11-07 14:03                                                

More experimentation and I sort of have it working.

Each time you start jOrgan  the "Gatekeeper" blocks the dynamic libs in order.  There are 
about 6 of them.  The program  had to be restarted that many times then one had to click 
on 'security & Privacy' after canceling each of the warning windows.    One could of course 
go into the terminal then disable this security and reboot, which sort of moots the point 
of having security in the first place.  

This gets the main program running, but inside the java wrapper.  There are no menus and 
clicking on a disposition does not launch the app.   This also means there is no proper 
menu bar (what is called taskbar in windows.) so 'Taskbar:  View>Debug' is not possible 
without a proper mac application 'bundle.'  The 3.20 (32 bit version) did have a proper 
mac application bundle.

Once up, jOrgan does run,  and it does play the pre-recorded songs.  It does not however 
support dark mode. File selection for choosing other dispositions and playable songs. does 
not use standard mac windows.  Instead it opens java created dialogs for choosing the files.   
I have not attempted to launch the jar file directly from the command line, which might 
allow for more options such as starting in debug mode or the organ setup wizard.  

I have also been experimenting with MIDI patchbay which allows one to use the built in 
'Audio MIdi Setup'  to connect instances of fluidsynth run from the command line, to the 
core audio endpoints, which can be seen network wide.  A bit of work.  Especially on a 
subnet that only has a switch and no router.  Everytime the system boots it creates a new 
random IP address.  While these can be set static, that only works for permanent setups.   

Old macs have long lifecycles, so It is quite practical to acquire cheap or gifted machines, 
which are great for running an instance of fluidsynth, or even an old copy of Hauptwerk4 to 
create a box of ranks over ethernet.



From JohnB on 2021-11-07 22:25

Julie, knowing nothing about Mac systems, I consulted the Oracle website  
to determine what the difference between the Java wrapper in Mac OsX  and Java Runtime 
Environment in Windows. According to Oracle, it appears that the Java wrapper is used 
with VST audio applications in Mac OsX and requires a lot of set up procedures to run 
audio applications such as jOrgan.
Is there a virtual machine, such as Wine in Linux, that can be used to run Windows 
applications in Mac OsX?   Given the simplicity of running jOrgan dispositions with 
Fluidsynth in Windows, once Java (JRE) is installed,  the input and audio output device 
selections are, ALL, made within jOrgan relative to the instances of Fluidsynth with a 
soundfont in Construct Mode.  Along with the specifications in the Customizer 
(Taskbar: File>Customizer), you would not have any other program (besides the Java 
Runtime) running in addition to jOrgan, if you are, either, playing the disposition 
from an organ console or using the recorder/memory feature of jOrgan to playback 
pre-recorded, jOrgan- proprietary .mid files, that is, those .mid files that were produced 
by the jOrgan disposition.  
I must admit a bias against VST, (gained by personal experience with VST and Reverb 
applications), and, I think, there is a certain unnecessary redundancy possible when 
using a VST, to say nothing of the greater demands on the CPU when running multiple 
applications.   I, often, use jOrgan in conjunction with a midi sequencer program 
to input the playback of .mid files which were NOT produced with a jOrgan disposition, 
using a virtual midi cable (Loopbe1) to output the playback from the midi sequencer 
program to input to jOrgan.  This works very well without stressing out the CPU. 
My point is that you seem to be having to do a lot of correlative "interfacing" of 
Mac-related and required stuff which is, succinctly, accomplished within jOrgan itself 
in Windows and, perhaps, Linux, although the latter seems to be, somewhat more complicated.  
The idea that some features of jOrgan "(Taskbar View>Debug) would not be possible without 
a proper Mac application bundle" makes no sense, at all, to a Windows user, if or since 
the jOrgan program runs independently of any other program except the JRE (which would 
only be perceptible when viewed in "Task Manager" if needing to shut down jOrgan because 
of a system "hang."  (and the known fact that jOrgan runs in JRE).
John Beach


From Julie P on 2021-11-08 05:53


I think this is going off in a different tangent.   There was a version of jOrgan written 
for 3.20 that worked fine.  Still does on Mac OS up to High Sierra.   The wrapper to the java 
has nothing to do with Oracle.  It has everything to do with the way Apple bundles mac osX 
applications into a 'Package' is through something called a pList or 'property list'  Which 
is basically an xml file inside a folder with certain attributes.  Sven seems to have had 
no trouble working this out.   I suspect the scripts are still there to create the wrapper 
mac OS X pLists and folder bundle.

I downloaded the jOrgan source a few years back when I was playing with a raspberry pi zero.  
It was too complicated to figure out.  Ironically I do use Eclipse (which is written in java) 
to program embedded systems.  I forget if the jOrgan codebase used eclipse or NetBeans.   
My normal scripting workflow is unusual as I use the printer language 'Postscript' as a 
general purpose scripting language via the ghostscript interpreter.

Up till Steve Job's war with Oracle Apple did include java6 which is what jOrgan 3.20 uses.   
This build works fine as far back as OSX 10.4 and possibly earlier.  Why I said that macs 
have long lifecycles.   A powerPC mac can run jOrgan and with acceptable latency.  Of course 
that 'war' has kept java off of iOS for phones and tablets, which is pure politics.  I could 
be wrong and there might be a java engine for iOS now,  I do not always keep up on that sort 
of thing. There are OSC applications which run on iOS and can connect back to relay systems 
like Uniflex.  I use 'Protokol' and 'TouchOSC'  to monitor midi and audio streams.

If one does have a mac, then a right click on the app will bring up a pop up menu that says 
'Show Package Contents'   When this is done it can be seen that there is a folder called 
contents which contains a number of sub folders and files.  One of these is the executable.  
I have a number of apps which are written in java.  In these the wrapper is simply the jar file.   

Another side digression,  I have been working on an app that works on windows.  So it can 
work on rasberry pi and mac.   This uses an older graphics library called wxWidgets.  
wxWidgets does not get updated a lot because it is mature and works well.   Unlike some 
of the  other systems wX uses the native drawing system.   Audacity is written in wX.   
Of course this would not work for jOrgan as the 'j' stands for java.  Still the OS dependencies 
could be wrapped using wx.  I do note that the use of the fixed menu bar compared to the 
'Tool bar' fixed to the current window, does crop up in the wx discussions from time to time.

Not sure what 'VST audio applications' relate to.  Mac uses something called 'core audio'  
Fluidsynth uses this natively  (see the ref to audacity above.)  A lot of what other OSes 
use is already built in for networking audio.  A lot of professional studios use this.  
MIDI and advanced audio has been part of Mac since day one.

Most of this is irrelevant.   To a determined person like myself,  jOrgan can run on OSX.   
On the newer versions there may be some issue with the menu bar.  But the pre configured 
dispositions load and the so called 'Proprietary' midi files play.



From Marc A on 2021-11-08 06:29                                         


...I have been running Mac OS X and PC's side by side for years.  The Mac Mini's starting 
with intel i5's are still superb at Hauptwerk 4 & 6 with solid state drives and 16gb of ram.  
They are 11 years old.  I am not having good success with getting jOrgan to work well.  
I use High Sierra mostly but have implementations of other incarnations of OS X also.  
Your notes are of great interest to me. 

jOrgan works well for me on most PC's. 

Has anyone taken notice the the current incarnations of Qsynth use fluidsynth 2.  Very easy 
to experiment with Reverb.

Thanks to all...


From JohnR on 2021-11-08 08:44

Hi Julie,

Good to hear from you again.

You wrote:
"I attempted to follow the mac install instructions which are quite outdated.   
The dmg does not contain an installer and a proper apple bundle."

Could you please tell us which mac install instructions you are referring to, 
and also which dmg? Also, what changes would you recommend to bring those 
instructions up to date?

Best wishes,


From Julie P on 2021-11-24 05:53

So I discovered that the version of jOrgan that partly worked on the latest mac big sur 
works if run from a terminal command line  (like on raspberry pi) 

Clicking on the application jOrgan.jar, in the application folder, does not fully work as 
many of the menus are missing.

On the other hand if one goes to the terminal window, then  does a change directory to the 
jOrgan folder in the application folder like this
cd /Applications/jOrgan-3.21.1

then if one types the command 
java -jar jorgan.jar

Then the program launches with the file menu.  The preferences then show up under the mac 
parent "boostrap" menu.

Of course java has to be installed.

I checked the java version that I had installed and this is what it showed.  I am not sure 
if I installed this through the Oracle installer or the MacPorts installer.
$ java -version
java version "1.8.0_311"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_311-b11)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.311-b11, mixed mode)

I think the code to build the proper macintosh bundled app that associates file names with 
the app is still in the git source.  But the above makes a decent workaround.  More 
importantly the disposition can be edited. 

-julie                                                          MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


Processing workflow for soundfonts

From Julie P on 2021-11-08 08:30

I have not posted much here as this seems more of a 'Users' group.  I have yet to find 
a technical group, especially one that covers creating the sound samples. Sound samples 
specifically for jOrgan and SF2 rather than the closed Hauptwerk system.  Who these days 
is creating new soundfonts? 

This may be a bit technical, still it might be of interest as there are parts I do not 
understand.  Specifically what exactly is Reverb?  How is it synthesized? And what is 
wrong with the current digital implementations of it?

Over the last decade or so I created a set of scripts, which can parse organ definitions 
such as created by jOrgan which is in a format called xml.  This way I can create a 
disposition from a list of stops, keyboards and ranks automatically using postscript.  
In effect this would be like printing the 'display screen'  jOrgan shows to a PDF file.  
Or converting a photograph of an organ console to a jOrgan disposition.

It is well known that sounds can be printed as a wave forms and music represented as note 
on off events over time (Piano rolls/MIDI)  Internally the file formats for representing 
images and sounds are similar.  Even to the point where images can contain sound (as in 
the case of video files) and sounds as images (as in presentations or slide shows.)  
A modern photograph taken with a mobile phone contains several kilobytes of what is called 
'metadata' . This contains everything from the size of the photograph to the GPS coordinates 
and angle the camera is held.  It can also contain arbitrary data such as the names of the 
people in the photograph (and where their faces are in the photo  If part of a video burst 
such can contain audio snippets.  This container format is known as IFF when binary and xml 
when ASCII or text.

I forget what IFF stands for, the most well known variations are TIFF and AIFF.  At the 
heart of these formats are a concept called a chunk.  MIDI and WAV files also contain chunks 
of IFF data as do JPEG images(if you look at a jpeg with a text editor the chunk is called 
JFIF.) This is why one can add 'metadata' to link all this together.  

SF2 files are also chunk based.

I took my laptop and recorded a WAV file of a rank of pipes playing with a bit of silence 
between each note.   I then converted this WAV file to an image (like a TIFF) image and 
separated each section into separate WAV file.  (this can also be done using an application 
like Audacity.)  

I had an old BASIC program from the 1970s which converted to mac in the 1980s and postscript 
in the 1990s which does a fourier transform to find the fundamental frequencies of an audio 
wave.   (Internally this is how apple and others 'Render' Midi to output audio)

At this point I can open the collection of WAV file rank recordings with an app like polyphone 
(which also shows the frequencies.)  Or I can process the WAV files into a prototype SF2 file 
using ghostscriot.  The advantage of the latter Is I can attempt to automatically detect the 
loop points of the sound and separate the attack from the decay.   Polyphone can also do this, 
but it is a lot of clicking and menu selecting.  Either way one has to do quite a bit of hand 
editing over 100s of samples to get the phases aligned somewhat.

The next part is fairly straightforward, which is to fill in the chunks detailing the 
'instrument' and 'preset' chunks in the soundfont.  This can be done manually or 
automatically.  I tend to prefer the latter as I can use the parsed disposition file to fill in 
the blanks regarding the 'presets' so that tremulated and reiterated samples have the proper 
channel offsets in the so called patch.

This is as far as I have got.  

Polyphone exposes dozens of tags inside the sound font.  Some of these are obvious such as 
note range.   Where I get lost is the other stuff.

Modern audio processing seems to be based on something called a finite infinite response 
filter or FIR filter.  I quickly get lost in the textbooks.  I understand the abstract concepts.  
Not all infinities are bounded.  A circle is a finite infinity.   Frequencies can be graphed 
using imaginary numbers on a polar circle etc.  Where I get lost is when the textbooks start 
talking about 'poles' on the filter. Then delve into advanced mathematics that hides what the 
numbers really are.    I think a lot of the SF2 tags relate to these so called 'poles.'

The other frustration is the use of dB to express volume.   I can understand a knob that goes 
from one to 11, where 11 is louder than loud.  I find it totally obtuse where -dB is louder and 
+dB does not really exist.   More confusing is that dB is not even a number.  It is a ratio 
between two numbers. Where one of the numbers does not really exist.  The sound of silence.  
The best I can figure out is that in a laboratory,  a perfect microphone provides a specific 
voltage which then is the x axis of the imaginary number.  This abstract then becomes the number 
of steps (normally 0 to 255) which may or may not represent voltage when seen on an oscilloscope.  

This makes changing a sound sample that is too soft impossible to make louder (without changing 
the waveform causing distortion) and really annoying when someone says the strings are too soft, 
now make them louder.  Even worse is when someone says that the languid is too high, or the mouth 
too low, or that the toe needs to be coned.   In other words, traditional pipe voicing techniques.    
Perhaps this is what I am attempting to create  a sound font editor that works with these parameters.

Even more mysterious is which of these numbers control that elusive quantity called "reverb."  
I think this is the echo caused by the reflections in the room.   If I understand correctly dry 
samples are created with no room noise (such as the chamber).  That wet samples contain the echoes 
from the room where the samples were recorded.

My understanding is the best solution to this is to put the speakers in a swell box and use 
louvers to control the sound.  That way the room is what it is.  Obviously the sound in a living 
room can never sound like that of a large hall or church.  Still a live audio recording hints as 
such things when played in a smaller room through phase illusion.  The other thing I do not 
understand is the temperature of the room is going to change the sound.   Even when recording
 an organ in the hall with an audience, and playing it back to an empty hall changes what one 
hears.  (the tuning can also shift between playbacks.)

Are people attempting to simulate this with digital filtering?   Is that the problem with reverb?  
I am not even sure where one would place a reverb unit?  I take it such would probably go on the 
analog or ephemeral side rather than the digital side.  I know that studios and concerts use 
things like equalizers and mixers, so I figure that a reverb unit is just more expensive gear 
to brag about.

The other threads have also discussed how fludsynth changes between version 1 and version 2.   
I am wondering if this might be a windows thing.  Has anyone ever done a comparison?   The 
fluidsynth on uniflex (Windows) only sounds flat and dull compared to when the same file and 
samples are played using jOrgan on a Mac.   Some of this may be to the fact that midi 
controller 7 and controller 11 is not part of uniflex.

As I noted Apple uses 'core audio' to render the waves.  Core audio has the highest task priority 
in the OS and when it was called quicktime on the old Mac, it was tied to the vertical retrace on 
the monitor.

I could take one of the 'proprietary' jOrgan MIDI files and render each SF2 'note' as the sum of 
the individual wave loops parsed from the SF2 files.  This could be printed graphically (like the 
soundtrack on cine motion picure film) or converted back to another wav file.   I think the rest  
of what would be a result of the DAC that the computer has when the sampled file is played.   
Again modern signal processing does all sorts of things to the sound based on FIR filters and 
such.   The wav file could also be rendered directly to something called SPDIF which is frame 
based temporal digital audio.    Which is what I use here at home as I use toslink to optically 
link the digital signal to the amp or monitor.

I have intentionally not mentioned stereo effects in the above.  That adds a whole different 
level of complexity, doubling the data creating in the mind something called an 'Acoustical 
Hologram' where the phases of the sounds create an illusion of sound coming from a given point 
in the room.   Phase relates back to that whole finite infinite thing where the frequencies are 
summed using the imaginary number circle.  Actually it is quite fascinating how one can turn sound 
into images and vice versa.  The old 1970s program creates the classic organ pipe wave from the 
sum of a large (if not infinite) collection of sign waves.   I was able to make soundfonts out of 
the examples from the 1970s textbook, that were numbers once stored on punched paper tape, then 
printed as a graphic cut for the student to type in.  The exerises then were so they could compare 
an ophicleide to a french horn, to a diapason, trumpet, and mode locked garden hose.  The student 
was then given the opening chord to the right of spring and challenged to extract the bassoon and 
oboe from it. 

I know back when I was testing file formats like TIF and MIDI that people would sell programs that 
converted WAV files to MIDI files.  This was possible as MIDI files can contain WAV metadata for 
soundcards.  In theory one could be able to deconstruct the recorded sample of a pipe organ playing
 back to the events of which each pipe is turned on or off.  In practice this can not be done. At 
least outside a laboratory with a mono recording of a bell or a piano.  The infinities might be 
finite, but they do remain infinities.  It seems to me that if reverb is the room echo, then this 
is another finite infinity.  (A many to one problem with multiple solutions that give the same result.)

Anyway if anyone wants to play with one of my synthetic or postscript generated soundfonts let me know.



From JohnB on 2021-11-08 14:32

Julie, you covered so many particulars of related topics that it is difficult to know 
where to start to comment.   Soundfonts are one of my favorite subjects and I have been 
involved in creating organ sound soundfonts for twenty years.  Primitive additive 
synthesis, at first, with the capabilities of jOrgan to function as a synthesizer with 
a sine-wave based soundfont of organ footages, high quality, realistic pipe-emulative 
sounds are possible.
Several months ago, I discovered an application called "Sample Set Generator" which is 
available for download from the  website.
The basic algorithms are excellent and the program is fairly intuitive to use, although 
there are a few setup values that must be entered when using the program.  If you would 
be interested in using this program, I will tell you what some of the default settings 
changes are that should be made when using the program to create complete, wave file, 
sample sets.  The advantage of this program is that it eliminates ALL editing of the wave 
files with the exception of your preferred method of naming the individual files by organ 
voice and pitch.  It, also, performs autolooping when the wave files are generated, so 
that is not necessary to repeat when importing in Polyphone.   Once the basic footage 
values for the additive synthesis are set, you can, with one click, produce the complete 
compass of a rank of organ sounds. 
Also, in jOrgan, I created a jOrgan Additive Synthesizer Disposition which has individual 
soundfonts with sine wave footages and attacks edited for Open Flute, Stopped Flute, 
Diapasons,  Single Reed, Double Reed, and Strings.  When the footage and amplitude values 
for additive synthesis of an organ stop are entered, I use a midi sequencer to play a .mid 
file of specified pitches in the compass of the keyboard from midi note #12 to midi note #120.  
The output from jOrgan is recorded by Audacity and I edit each wave file to 6-seconds in 
length, usually, cropping the tail end.  Since release times are settable in Polyphone 
(I used to record releases and have separate release instruments in the Instrument Pool of 
Polyphone and added these to play at key release of the notes of the instrument), I no longer 
bother with release wave files. 
With regard to Reverb and your question "Specifically, what is Reverb?",  Reverb is the effect 
of an acoustic space with objects and walls which baffle, direct and limit the movement of sound.
It is reproduced, digitally, by an impulse response recording (wave file) of a sound generated 
in an acoustic space (church, cathedral, etc.), the measurements of which are interpolated, 
digitally, and variable by the elements of ROOM (space) WIDTH (size) DAMPING (baffling or 
limiting) and LEVEL (the perceptible loudness of the cumulative effect of the first three 
The problem "with the current digital implementations of it" is the use of amplitude modulation 
in the LEVEL (volume) of the cumulative effect of the values of ROOM(Space), WIDTH (size) and 
DAMPING (limiting or dulling or tamping down).  The symptom of the problem of amplitude 
modulation in the LEVEL of REVERB is a pitch-frequency-relative, speed variation of the 
looped wave files in the soundfont which increases as note pitch increases or as polyphony 
is increased during playing.  The effect is annoying and is noticeable a bit above the 0.05 
value setting of the LEVEL.
REVERB is not synthesized.  It is the effect of interpolated measurements of a sound in time 
and space.  Only the actual wave file of an instrument sound is "synthesized."
I think, ironically, that the fact that the recorded, wave file is the fundamental activator 
that is acted upon (by parameter settings to achieve some effect, modulation, attack, release, 
chorusing or reverb), is the unavoidable, but basic problem, with regard to midi and digital 
Wave files of recorded pipes capture the total, speaking, length of time with and in the 
natural reverberation of the acoustic space in which an instrument is located.  So, 
technically, no artificial, digital manipulation should be necessary, again, technically 
speaking.   Such recorded pipe organs are, always, being played "in the acoustic space" 
in which they are located, even in a living room.
This is, really, "CD quality" sound, not related to the space in which a user organist 
is playing the recorded organ sample set. 
I believe the digital age has produced unnecessary capabilities that don't actually do 
anything of value.  That is, it is the difference between academic and practical.  Few 
of us understand the edition of an XML file, yet, all of us know that a disposition we 
created functions in the GUI of jOrgan and we can edit the GUI.
For all of the built-in capabilities of Polyphone and, for example, Sample Set Generator, 
your editing with Ghostscript is, really, outdated.   I import ten wave files for every 
rank/stop I want to create in the Instrument Pool and highlight all and click the Root 
Key which, automatically, identifies the root keys of each wave file.  These are what 
they are and are left as identified.  Then, I click Tools>Sample>AutoLoop, and all those 
wave files are autolooped.  Then, relative to the footage of the rank/stop I am creating, 
I select wave file-12 to wave file-72 for a 32' stop, 24-84 for a 16' stop, etc.
I highlight these wave files and copy and paste 12 instances of all into the Instrument, 
deleting 11 instances from the top wave file.  This fills the compass of the rank with one 
wave file for each pitch with frequency-relative parameter settings.   I have instrument 
"templates" with the set values for all the parameters of all the footages in the soundfont 
and it is a simple matter of copying the entire page of Instrument Parameter Values from Key 
Range to End Loop Offset and pasting them to an instrument of the same footage, depending on 
whether flu or reed. 
I maintain a system of Organ Stop Wave Files that use the same, midi note numbering system 
for identification, so I can swap wave files for an entire instrument or an entire soundfont 
in a matter of minutes. 
I have created soundfonts for all 220 of the Chart of Hammond Organ Registrations, using 
both the Sample Set Generator and my own jOrgan Additive Synthesis disposition and have 
dispositions using some or all of them. 
I agree with your assessment that the expression of dB is confusing.  I, often, use Audacity's 
"Analyze>Plot Spectrum" to determine the values of a recorded pipe sound's harmonic, upper 
This requires giving a relative amplitude value (0-8), based on the –dB value that is shown 
in the Plot Spectrum graph of a recorded sound.   Volume sliders in jOrgan have to be whole 
numbers 0-8, but counters (without sliders)  can involve decimals or fractions, for greater 
precision if, in fact, this is even critical.   I would like to figure out an exact 
equivalency table:   X -dB = +X amplitude. The results from estimation have been good. 
Swell box simulation is achieved with a slider/counter and MIDI programming language to 
effectuate a progressive high frequency damping by amplitude reduction by means of a 
continuous filter. It works well. 
John Beach


From JohnB on 2021-11-08 21:50                                  
Julie wrote:  
"It is well known that sounds can be printed as a wave forms and music represented as 
note on off events over time (Piano rolls/MIDI)  Internally the file formats for 
representing images and sounds are similar.  Even to the point where images can 
contain sound (as in the case of video files) and sounds as images (as in 
presentations or slide shows.)  A modern photograph taken with a mobile phone 
contains several kilobytes of what is called 'metadata' . This contains everything 
from the size of the photograph to the GPS coordinates and angle the camera is held.  
It can also contain arbitrary data such as the names of the people in the photograph 
(and where their faces are in the photo  If part of a video burst such can contain 
audio snippets.  This container format is known as IFF when binary and xml when 
ASCII or text."
Logically, music notation is the script that is used to "show and tell" by a "note" 
element, the pitch (frequency) and the length in time of a sound.  An "instrument" 
is the physical generator of sound waves having tone-quality identity.  The graphic 
representation of this sound is a wave form, visible, electronically,  by means of an 
oscilloscope.   In all digital or computer audio, the wave file is the fundamental 
unit having the highest quality file format and the activator which is acted upon by 
controller parameters which effectuate a physical modelling of the instrument 
producing the sound.
This is what makes the soundfont format so, exceptionally, high quality. 
Theoretically, a soundfont could or should be as, precisely, high quality as the 
recorded sounds that comprise the sample sets used in the commercial, virtual pipe 
organ programs such as Hauptwerk.   If it is arguable that they are not, it is only 
the difference between the known fact of, in situ (acoustic environment), wave files 
of recorded pipes of world famous pipe organs (instruments)  and the known fact of 
recorded wave files (whether synthesized or actual, recorded pipes of real pipe 
organs) the audible quality of which is prescribed by midi controller values, as 
parameters, which specify how a tone is produced by a physical, musical instrument 
which, in real life, produces that tone quality. 
Indeed, the nature and connotations of the word "record,"  really, capture the 
essence of the tone quality with the very notable exception of the effect of 
"reverberation" on that tone quality, which is, in fact, a noticeable, audible part 
of recordings of instruments in the spaces where they are located.   This latter 
fact is not a part of the "record" or "recording" of wave files that are synthesized 
by means of computer program-generated audio.  That is, they (wave files) are not 
the actual, real life instrument that produces an identifiable tone quality 
associated, uniquely, by that physical instrument.
So, if we admit that no synthesized, computer-generated sound is comparable to the 
sounds of real-life instruments, or that exact, computer-generated, physically-modelled,
 recorded sounds are NOT the exact same thing as the real life, instrument-produced 
sounds, when, equally, recorded,   we will never be satisfied with anything less than 
high quality, real life instruments in the best acoustical environments where they are 
known to be.   If we can enjoy CDs of real pipe organ music and consider it to be the 
sounds of the real life instrument, then, we just might be able to admit to the possibility
 that "CD quality" of the computer-generation of physically modelled instruments is an 
exact representation of the tone qualities of real life instruments, we can accept the 
quality of soundfonts but will object to the idea of physically modellable "reverberation" 
which attempts to pair two wave files; one the tone quality of the instrument and the 
other a record, in time, of the effect of the physical elements of a space which shape 
a sound as it travels through it (Impulse Response).  I don't like this latter term.  
The effects of a physical space are what they are and, likely, are not changed on 
"impulse."  So, we associate a particular grandeur of sound with particular spaces and 
their quality is, always, good.  Needless to say, this is not so with "space manipulation,"  
called "REVERB" which is an alteration of the wave file, electronically, which is a, 
practically, harnessed limitation of lesser quality than the free space of a building.  
How we, by computer-generation, electronically, "build" a sound is different from real 
life instruments, generating, by the movement of air through pipes, sound waves which 
are impacted by the baffles and walls or objects of a building. 
To my mind, "CD quality" sound for an organ would be the sound heard at the middle center 
of a space, in relation to front and back and sides, where the instrument producing the 
sound is at the front.
I know, practically, nothing about the recording of Impulse Response wave files, although 
I have read that they consist of the recording of a shot fired in a space for as long as 
the sound remains audible (to total decay and cessation of sound) in that space.  As to 
how many microphones, placed where, in order to achieve measurements of sound under the 
effect of time and space which are, theoretically, applicable to the super-imposition of 
those measurements on wave files by simultaneous reproduction (playback),  I don't know.  
However, the concept of amplitude modulation as the fundamental element with respect to 
LEVEL of REVERB (the cumulative measurements of space, size and damping), not only seems, 
but, is problematic.    If an acoustic space is envisioned as a "tuned circuit," perhaps, 
it is more understandable.  Tuned circuits consist of inductance, capacitance and resistance.   
A fixed, tuned circuit for one specific frequency has, mathematically, exact values for each 
of the parts, inductor coil in millihenries, capacitor in farads or micro, pica or nano,  
and resistor in ohms, all calculable.  When the resistor or capacitor is constructed to be 
variable, or tunable through a spectrum of frequencies, the interaction of inductance, 
capacitance and resistance, as reactive, are, ALL, interdependent on the instantial values 
of each, producing frequency.  Even the mil of the wire in the circuit must be determined 
as it has, by impedance,  an effect on the product.   Impedance matching networks enable
maximum transfer of power, the amplitude of a signal, not attenuated by
impedance factors.  Reverberation can not be conceived to be the gradual attenuation of 
sound by amplitude modulation in a fixed, tuned circuit.  It is the effect of a physical 
space and the objects in it which baffle, direct or limit to reflect sound.  So, REVERB 
might be described as sound and its reflection as perceived by any hearer at any particular 
spot in a building.  That is, more than likely , not reproducible electronically.  While 
it can be recorded, can an acoustic response wave file be "married" to a sound-wave file 
when the disparities of time and amplitude relative to each define REVERB as the disparities 
of time and amplitude relative to each?  Is space defined as the disparities of time and 
amplitude?  No.  Space is defined as the measurable area delimited by borders, walls, 
baffles, ceilings or other objects which confine sound and reflect it.
John Beach


From Graham W on 2021-11-09 18:10

I'd like to throw a few things into this mix which might help others who read this 


There are basically two types of reverb, Algorithmic and Convolution.  

Algorithmic reverb is the most common in software and in hardware.  It uses a series 
of delay lines and filters to SIMULATE a reverberant space.  Parameters like "Width", 
"Level", "Room size" etc just change the parameters for these algorithms.  Fluidsynth 
uses this type of reverb. (My hunch is the "phasing" we can hear is either a bug or a 
poor implementation of one of the filters but I could be completely wrong about that.)

Convolution reverb starts with an impulse response.  An impulse in this case is a very 
short, high energy burst of sound.  Think about shooting a starting pistol at the front 
of a space and recording the sound (reverb) that it produces somewhere appropriate in 
the body of the space.  This is the "Impulse Response".   Convolution takes your signal 
(the dry organ) and convolves* it with the impulse response to produce an output signal 
that sounds like your input (organ) is in the acoustic space of the impulse.

*Simplistically, think of convolution as taking the spectrum of the signal multiplied by 
the spectrum of the impulse, converted back to a new signal.

Convolution is processor intensive and to do properly has a latency equal to the time 
length of the impulse - useless for live performance.  There are fancy ways of speeding 
up the process so you get the latency down to playable.  

Fons Adriaensen has a good one at 
(jconvolver) but it is Linux only.  He also has my favourite algorithmic reverb - Zita-Rev1.   
Mathias Kronlachner ( has Mac OSX ports of both 
of these available and a link to JackOSX for Audio Routing.

On the related discussions re soundfonts, in my system, front and rear Channels are handled 
by good quality HI-Fi speakers.  Given "CD quality" samples, I believe they should be 
"played" through speakers designed for that.  PA speakers may be louder but they are 
nowhere near accurate enough IMO.

Having set up the speakers and amps in the room, I went and used Polyphone to tweak all 
the attenuations in the soundfont to match the speakers IN the room.  This is the analogous 
process to doing the final voicing on an organ after installation in the venue.  In my case, 
the speakers and the room interact to affect the sound and I voice the soundfont to suit.  
If I move the setup to a different room, I'll need to do it all again!

So a disposition that someone shares will need to be tuned to the room and speakers for best
results.  This is no reflection on the producer of the disposition as they will probably have 
done this for their environment.  They will also have done all that hard work processing and 
looping.  I could not have built my organ without the superb work of Graham Goode, Bruce Miles 
and John Tay among others.



From JohnB on 2021-11-09 23:16

GrahamW wrote:
"I'd like to throw a few things into this mix which might help others who read this 

Graham,  thanks for your explanation of the fundamental differences between the two 
kinds of reverb.  If we think of the individual wave file of a soundfont instrument 
as an inertial force with a specific shape, first in the confines of a pipe and, then, 
emitted from it,  into the acoustic environment of a building,  which is the outside 
force acting upon the sound (wave file), then, perhaps, we can better understand the 
concept of the effect of distortion (to a degree unacceptable in the current version 
of Fluidynth) that is occurring.   The electronic virtual is NOT the equivalent of the 
physical reality.

The problem with the electronic is the distortion of the sound, something that does 
NOT occur to change the identifiable quality of the sound in the real, physical 
environment of the acoustic space of a building. I have, previously, stated that a 
workaround is possible for users having a Creative Labs soundcard that has the EAX 
(Environmental Audio Extension) studio in which the parameters for Reverb can be 
adjusted to personal preference, but which have very usable presets of established, 
acoustic environments.   I, for example, do not use the Fluidsynth Reverb in jOrgan 
because, as we have discussed several times, there is a severe problem of frequency 
or pitch-relative, looped playback of the wave file as the LEVEL of REVERB is increased.  
The cycle of looping is heard, as if a tape recorder were playing the same loop 
repeatedly.  Add many stops and the effect is pretty bad.   Oddly, the length of 
the wave file in seconds does NOT matter.  The effect of increasing the LEVEL is 
objectionable.  This problem has existed since the release of version 2.0.0 of 
Fluidsynth.  I just noticed that version 2.2.3 release is available, but these are 
"maintenance" releases, so I don't think the problem has been addressed, but we do 
not know because the current version of Fluidsynth Portaudio backends is what I am 
using and there may be no benefit to releasing a new Portaudio backend because the 
problem would not be corrected.   Does anyone know if the Fluidsynth developers are 
aware of the problem with the Reverb or whether any monitor forums such as ours for 
issues related to their program?

Perhaps, Graham G. can weigh in on this. 
John Beach


From JohnB on 2021-11-10 01:20

The disparities of the treatment or effectuation of reverb in the various soundfont
-based programs which have it are, perhaps, best illustrated and visible in Audacity 
as the editor of wave files which I use, exclusively, to do so.  Theoretically, if a 
recorded wave file is that of a real pipe in the environment of a church or cathedral 
space, there should be no need for the use of, for example, Fluidsynth reverb.  That 
is, the reverberation is captured in the recording of the sound wave file of the 
individual pitch for the length of time to total decay or cessation of sound.  
In Audacity, if a wave file of an organ stop of particular pitch is opened for 
editing, Select> All, Effect>Reverb, Reverb=Your choice of Factory Presets or DIY 
(set the parameter values, if you know what you are doing).   If, for example, 
Cathedral is chosen from the Factory Presets and this is applied to the sound wave 
file (or files, if bulk-editing.....which is a great feature!), what is immediately 
noticeable is the huge reduction in amplitude (overall loudness) of the wave file.  
What is, also, noticeable is the very nice alteration of the attack of the wave file 
and the, nearly, two seconds of formative development to the "steady state" which lasts 
until the end of a six second-long wave file.  What is unrealistic is the reduction in
 amplitude.  So, it is necessary to effectuate a Select>All, Effect>Normalization, 
which will restore the amplitude (loudness) to the wave file while retaining the 
alterations made in the attack and formative development which are effectuated in 
the Cathedral Reverb parameters applied to the sound wave file.
I have no experience in recording pipe organ stops in church or cathedral settings, 
so I know nothing of the placement of microphones for, presumably, CD-quality recording 
of the individual pitches of individual stops within the ranks of families of pipe 
organ sounds.  It would seem, however,  that there is a significant difference between 
the perception of sound if the listener is in the Choir of the Cathedral or standing 
inside the rear foyer/narthex entrance to the cathedral.  Seemingly, to achieve a 
"happy medium" or definitive, industry-standard with respect to the placement of 
microphones is not really possible and, my wild guess would be that,  the best 
placement of microphones for CD-quality sound would be an array in the front of the 
altar platform.   This would avoid the clap-trap of pallet noise which might be audible 
from microphone pick-up in the Choir or any rasping of wind from pipes which, however 
realistic, is not a musical effect which adds beauty to the sound being produced, 
however essential to its generation.  The concept of CD-quality sound should be the 
consideration of what we expect to hear, in terms of musical quality on a CD, 
particularly, one of organ music.   I think good, solid, identifiable tone is the 
expectation.  We (the listeners) are looking for (and hearing)  the "resultant," and, 
perhaps, we don't need to know or perceive that it is comprised of the, obviously,  
identifiable 16' and 10-2/3' ranks,  sounding simultaneously, known and audible to 
the organist.
It is not a lot of work to bulk-edit all the wave files which are in the instruments 
of soundfonts and this might provide an acceptable solution producing realistic results 
of sound with reverb which will eliminate the need for the use of Fluidsynth Reverb.   
There is a lot to consider in this regard and, perhaps, one of the most important 
considerations is the difference between the sound of a single stop and the sound of 
multiple stops.  Since the individual pitches with reverb are what are the recorded wave 
files, is the cumulative blend a realistic sound or does it multiply, to an unrealistic 
degree, the effect of recorded reverb that has been recorded with each individual pitch 
of each stop? 
John Beach


From Chris P on 2021-11-10 01:22

Julie P wrote:
"Who these days is creating new soundfonts?"

HI, Julie

I am   :-)

Chris P


From Les K on 2021-11-10 04:12                                                                  

Graham W wrote:
 ".......Given "CD quality"samples, I believe they should be "played" through 
speakers designed for that.  PA speakers may be louder but they are nowhere 
near accurate enough  IMO.........."

I have used an Electrovoice 7300 PA system (200 watts rms/side) for my 3/23 theater 
organ almost since the inception of jOrgan.  The system had seen rough and tumble 
use playing with various Rock 'n'Roll bands and eventually all drivers were replaced 
before permanently installing it in music room which was built for (or around) the 
instrument.  A 150 watt 15" subwoofer system was added for the pedal stops. This is 
all that is needed in the size studio I have and I have not included 32' stops in the 

 I have essentially voiced all of my samples for use in this system using viena and 
other techniques, and I couldn't be more pleased with it.  Not appreciably different 
from a pipe voicer customizing the organ to the room it plays in.  I find "CD quality 
samples" played through music reproduction systems to be dry and upon occasion a bit 
tinny, or lacking in body and character, sounding artificial.  They also seem to be 
two dimensional, lacking in 'chamber depth.'

I can't take credit for how well this system sounds, I just stumbled on it, but there 
is a coloration (or lack of it) to the voices and just as important, a 3D quality or 
'chamber depth' I do not find other systems.

 My studio room is of moderate size, about 15' x 18', and I am trying to duplicate a 
studio or broadcast organ sound of about a 20 rank WurliTzer Publix I organ with the 
addition of the all-important Posthorn.  I'm not trying to kid myself that I am playing 
in a 5,000 seat movie palace!  My reverb is similar to what is presently being discussed 
in the forum:  Creative Labs EAX.  It is being used to create little more than chamber 
depth reverb, and it does the job perfectly.  I can actually sense rank placement (depth) 
in my 'chambers!'

 What I'm getting at is there are some PA systems out there with redeeming qualities, 
although many may be, as Graham says, not accurate. I may have just stumbled on a good 
one, but still had to do some revoicing to compensate.    I have been told that my instrument 
"looks, plays and sounds like the real thing."  To paraphrase an old saying: 
"Beauty is in the EAR of the beholder." 

Les Knoll


From Graham W on 2021-11-11 20:12

Graham W wrote:.......Given "CD quality"samples, I believe they should be "played" through speakers designed 
for that.  PA speakers may be louder but they are nowhere near accurate enough  IMO..........

Les K wrote:
"What I'm getting at is there are some PA systems out there with redeeming qualities, 
although many may be, as Graham says, not accurate. I may have just stumbled on a good 
one, but still had to do some revoicing to compensate."

Hi Les

You quite correct of course.  Re-reading that statement (which I made), it comes across as too 
dogmatic. There are some really good PA systems out there but you need to be choosy.  
I have a Fender system that has a much flatter sound than most PA's and would work well.  
I've also worked with some superb QSC stuff but it is way beyond my pocket.

Congratulations on having your system working so well. And as you say "still had to do some 
revoicing to compensate".  I think that is the most important thing to take away.



From Christian W on 2021-11-11 21:29

Just to throw in my 5c unasked ... 

I think the choice of the PA depends largely on the room you intend to use it in. I think 
it is crucial to find a vendor who offers the opportunity to test the equipment in situ ... 
We tried a few systems in our church (although not w/ jOrgan but with a digital Rodgers 588, 
the situation is comparable though) and stuck with a Hughes&Kettner Elias as supporting 
audio system – a PA that is designed for stage events, originally.

What we did is to add a 2x32 band graphic EQ in the signal flow; helps a lot for eliminating 
standing waves etc.
                                                                                MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


jOrgan to use open jdk instead of Oracle Java?

From Jonathan A on 2021-11-09 16:39

Question for all,

Given that Oracle has changed the java licensing for newer versions has 
anyone tested with the openjdk which is the open source core that goes 
into the oracle java. I think if anything we should start pushing people 
towards using that instead with jorgan.



From Graham W on 2021-11-09 17:20

I use OpenJDK but I'm on Ubuntu Studio so perhaps not relevant.



From Jonathan A on 2021-11-09 17:54

Hi Graham,

I think even though you are not on mac what are your experiences with jorgan 
and using openjdk as an alternative to oracle java?



From Graham W on 2021-11-09 18:27

Hi Jonathan

I've had zero problems.  Only thing to worry about is installing the correct version.  
(The Linux Package Manager offers you all versions that are available.)  

I'm using OpenJDK 11.0.11 from April this year with  
Ubuntu Studio 20.04.2 LTS.  
Hardware is 2014 Intel Mac Mini 64Bit.



From Jonathan A on 2021-11-09 18:35

Hi Graham,

Thanks for the feedback on this.

A question for all really, jorgan is there the option or 32bit or 64bit or is it 
just a single bit version just 32bit or just 64bit that is available for download?



From Graham G on 2021-11-09 19:07

The ONLY platform where 32-bit or 64-bit matters is Windows.

Linux and OS-X/MacOS are only ever one or the other, and the
Fluidsynth linkages with jOrgan for those platforms makes the bit-ness
is agnostic.


From JohnR on 2021-11-11 06:42

GrahamW wrote:
"I'm using OpenJDK 11.0.11 from April this year with jorgan_4.0.Beta1_amd64.deb"

Thank you for your report. I'm just a bit surprised to see that you are using 
jOrgan 4.0 beta1. Does that mean that you are using Fluidsynth version 2? I had 
the impression when we first discussed this new version that you found that 
cyclic modulation in its reverb totally unacceptable. Just a bit puzzled.

JonathanA wrote:
"Given that Oracle has changed the java licensing for newer versions has anyone 
tested with the openjdk which is the open source core that goes into the oracle java. 
I think if anything we should start pushing people towards using that instead with jorgan."

Could you please share with us your reasons for thinking we should do that?

Best wishes,


From Jonathan A on 2021-11-11 06:50

Hi John,

Regarding your question Oracle Java we are going to stagnate and not update to 
newer versions as well as things have changed with how they licensed it.

Now with Open JDK is the open source foundation which Oracle use to then turn it 
into the closed source version

the other thing is that if there is a feature that would benefit jorgan someone 
who is technical enough and can program can hack on the JDK and work towards it 
being added to the Open JDK.



From JohnR on 2021-11-11 08:27

JonathanA wrote:
"things have changed with how they (Oracle) licensed it."

Hi Jonathan,

Thank you for your reply, which raises a number of issues, some of them quite sensitive, 
I feel. It was the details of those licensing changes I was wondering about, which you 
still have not yet really helped us with.

The Oracle FAQ page re licensing may be of interest to people:

However, for people for whom open source is important, your mention of open source is 
indeed significant - although whether Oracle can be accused of transgressing those 
principles either now or in the future is something I am not really qualified to have 
an opinion about.

Your statements about whether jOrgan may stagnate, or whether people with technical 
know-how can contribute to its development, identify issues which trouble many of us, 
I suspect. To my mind, jOrgan is a remarkable program which (for my purposes, at least), 
delivers results superior to anything else. What is more, it comes to us free of charge, 
due to the generosity of Sven Meier - to say nothing of his ability to create the 
program in the first place! In these circumstances, it means that further developments 
or even upgrades to deal with changes in any related programs cannot be taken for granted, 
and we may at times have to wait patiently until those upgrades can be made - if at all!

In the meantime, I continue to enjoy the sounds which jOrgan is allowing me to hear.

Best wishes,


From Graham W on 2021-11-11 11:08

JohnR wrote:
"I'm just a bit surprised to see that you are using jOrgan 4.0 beta1. Does that mean 
that you are using Fluidsynth version 2?"

Hi John

Yes, FS2 sound is good. Reverb is turned OFF. 

Because mine is a theatre organ, I run one instance of FS per rank and one for 
each tuned percussion plus a traps rank. Each has a dedicated soundfont. JACK 
patchbay takes care of remembering all the connections.

Audio is routed with JACK to Carla, which hosts a plugin version of Zita-rev1 
to provide the reverb.

GrahamW                                                 MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


Call for mac users re jOrgan downloads

From JohnR on 2021-11-09 14:35

Julie Phas emailed me about what she considers to be serious deficiencies 
in the jOrgan 3.21.1 file for download. If she is correct, it means that the 
installation instructions I give in the jorgan Discovery website are totally wrong. 
My guess is that if the 3.21.1 dmg file is faulty in the way Julie believes, 
then the same could be true of the 3.21 one.

It appears that the latest mac release (osx Big Sur) has so many significant changes 
that it is unlikely that jOrgan will work on it, along with an unknown number of 
other programs.

I need a report from mac users on which jOrgan download files they have had success 
with, and on which fairly recent mac OS's, please.

Best wishes,


From Marc A on 2021-11-09 15:55

Hi JohnR...
                   ...I am currently testing 3.21.1 on OS X 10.13.6 High
Sierra and 10.14.6 Mojave.  I have jOrgan functioning on both... but OS X's
have their different points just like Windows etc.

The files... no matter how downloaded... must be copied into another folder
in someplace like "Public" and then they work.

I am testing several OS X's and several versions of jOrgan.  My interest
with jOrgan right now is Mojave because Qsynth with fluidsynth 2.2.1 works
superbly with jOrgan... and the Reverb can be adjusted very easily to sound
good also.

I actually use a keyboard attached to a Mac Mini then network the Keyboard
Midi to another Mac Mini running jOrgan and a Win10pc running jOrgan at the
same time.

I have been beta testing Win11 for some time... but have not done any Organ
testing with it yet.

Cheers to everyone who loves the Organ.


From JohnR on 2021-11-09 16:30

Marc-Paul wrote:
"I am currently testing 3.21.1 on OS X 10.13.6 High
Sierra and 10.14.6 Mojave.  I have jOrgan functioning on both..."

Hi Marc-Paul,

That's great news! Thank you for such a prompt reply. It's clear that you will 
in time have more information for us.

It's clear that things aren't as bad as Julie feared. What has me puzzled is why 
in my instructions I steered people away from jOrgan 3.20. It may have been 
because it won't work if Java Version 11 is installed. But that is true also of 
3.21 . However, I have the impression that Apple are not in a hurry to install 
new versions of Java the moment they are released. Any other guesses, anyone?



From Jonathan A on 2021-11-09 18:35

Julie I have missed parts of this thread i think and just read into the technical 
side of things given my IT background. What issues are you encountering really as 
I would like to see if I can replicate them on my mac book air.



From Dominique M on 2021-11-09 20:09

Hello everyone. 

I am one of those weird people who work on Mac and speak French. (I'm kidding !) 

I am using jOrgan on three Mac computers and have stayed on "old" OS: 
- Macbook 2008 with Lion OS 10.7.5, which works very well. 
- Macbook and MacMini from 2012 with Mojave 10.14.6 without problem. 
For reasons of compatibility with other software, I have not yet adopted the 
following versions of OS. 
The installation of jOrgan 3.21 had been difficult but now works fine. 

I am not comfortable enough with the English language to understand all the 
technical data that you are putting out on this user group. 
I regret that jOrgan is not performing well enough on the Mac when I use a 
large number of software which are equivalent on all systems ('Audacity', 
'MuseScore' and many others. Note that 'GrandOrgue' is not very stable). 
Unfortunately I don't have the technical skills to help and improve things. 

A random call: if a jOrgan user is French speaking, I would like to establish 
contact to discuss how this software works, which I really like. 

Good day everyone from France. 



From Kevin J K on 2021-11-09 22:00

I was able to use 3.20 easily on Catalina.
At the moment I'm using Hauptwerk but will try jOrgan on my other i5 Mac on 
High Serria too.



From Jonathan A on 2021-11-09 22:10

Kevin J K wrote:
"I was able to use 3.20 easily on Catalina.
At the moment I'm using Hauptwerk but will try jOrgan on my other i5 Mac on 
High Serria too."

Hi Kevin,

Is there any reason why you have not upgraded to the latest version of the Mac OS?



From JohnB on 2021-11-09 22:25

Since jOrgan, in Windows, requires the Java Runtime Environment to be installed, it is 
the bit-matching between the JRE and jOrgan version which must be ONE or the Other, but 
the same for both.  In other words a 64-bit version of jOrgan will NOT run in a 32-bit 
version of JRE.  Apparently, some people, having a 64-bit operating system, can and do 
install a 32-bit version of JRE and a 32-bit version of jOrgan and have run it 
successfully. This has been discussed when this problem of having mismatched the bit 
versions of JRE and jOrgan was a mistake by a user.

Puisque jOrgan, avec Windows, exige que Java Runtime Environment soit installé, il faut 
que et la version de JRE et la version de jOrgan soient des mêmes versions de bit, 
soit 32 ou soit 64.  L'on ne peut pas les mêler, la 32 avec la 64.  Quelques gens, 
ayant un système de Windows de 64-bit, ont réussi à installer une version de JRE et 
de jOrgan sans problème de fonctionnement.  L'on recommende, cependant, que toutes les 
versions s'accordent.

John Beach


From JohnB on 2021-11-09 22:40

Just a suggestion about possible translation of the technical aspects of jOrgan.  
Given the fact that Dave Tripponey, the author of Polyphone, has a breadth of 
knowledge in programming, MIDI, Soundfonts, the use of (apparently) a fluidsynth-based 
REVERB addition in Polyphone, as well as a good working knowledge of the English 
Language and has, also, recruited speakers of other foreign languages to translate 
the documentation for Polyphone in those other languages, perhaps, we might find 
among them a user or two of jOrgan who would be willing to translate the documentation 
for jOrgan into those languages.  To my knowledge, other foreign language-based 
versions of jOrgan, except in Sven's native German language, have not been developped, 
which may account for lack of interest or widespread use of jOrgan, comparatively.   
Dave has, also, contributed, on occasion, to the jOrgan user's list forum.

We, at least, need to make available specific, detailed information concerning the 
proper installation of jOrgan in the various operating systems that are in current 
use so that new users can be encouraged that jOrgan does, indeed, work well when 
properly installed on a system having sufficient resources.

John Beach


From Jonathan A on 2021-11-09 22:31

JohinB wrote:
"Since jOrgan, in Windows, requires the Java Runtime Environment to be 
installed, it is the bit-matching between the JRE and jOrgan version which 
must be ONE or the Other, but the same for both.  In other words a 64-bit 
version of jOrgan will NOT run in a 32-bit version of JRE."

Hi JohnB,

One thing not mentioned here you can actually have 32bit and 64bit java installed 
side by side as the JVM's are completely separate from each other.



From Jonathan A on 2021-11-09 22:43

Hi John,

I think translations go further than just the documentation what about translating 
the various elements and menus in jorgan into other languages?



From JohnB on 2021-11-09 23:42

Jonathan, while it would be nice, for example, to have the entirety of the 4 volumes 
of tutorials of Bill Skees  translated in other languages, it would be a massive amount 
of work and users need to be able to get a version of jOrgan installed and operating 
so they can enjoy playing it.  The technical aspects of soundfont development, homemade 
dispositions or other personal preference or "wishlist" things are, really, extraneous 
to the need to be able to have a well-functioning version of jOrgan installed on whatever 
operating system a user may have.   So, initially, at least, there should be a focused 
concentration on the translation of installation information.
Sven may want to make some comments about this since he, already, has the experience of 
jOrgan in German for German users and, as the developer, knows what essentials need to be 
translated for new users. 
John Beach


From Kevin J K on 2021-11-10 07:02                                              

Jonathan wrote:
"Hi Kevin,
 Is there any reason why you have not upgraded to the latest version of the Mac OS?"


my iMac will not support the very latest Mac OS.

Kevin                                           MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


XML and parsing internal structures

From Julie P on 2021-11-11 13:06

John Beach wrote:

>I believe the digital age has produced unnecessary capabilities that don’t actually 
do anything of value.  That is, it is the difference between academic and practical.  
Few of us understand the edition of an XML file, yet, all of us know that a disposition 
we created functions in the GUI of jOrgan and we can edit the GUI.

The last few days I have been working with my jOrgan XML parser/generator.   I have not 
looked at this code for over two years.   For me XML is what I find the most useful in 
jOrgan.  I think Hauptwerk also uses XML, but I have not taken any time to look at that 
as the full ODF is not released.  I did look over the weekend at some of Hauptwerk 
documentation on custom organ definitions.   That is something more down the road,  
It may be that I could modify my scripts for that system.  I find it curious that there 
are suggestions that users are expected to edit the XML by hand in their user groups.

The built in graphics editor for jorgan, I find to be frustrating.  When I work with 
graphics, I like sub pixel accuracy.   As I also work with theater organs  I also like 
to see the tabs laid out in as a they are in the horseshoe format.   To this effect  I 
have a template, where one can 'fill in the blanks'  The program then generates the code 
that fills in the stops.   

Most modern programming tends to work with what is called the key, value, observer inputs 
to a database.  This is often called KVO programming.   What is nice about postscript is 
that it does have its own database which are called dictionaries or dicts for short.  
These are fully recursive to the limits of the implementation memory.  Such ways of 
representing data lend quite practically to XML type representation. 

Another area of interest I have is in preserving Organs, and the music that was recorded 
on them.   My decades old interest came about when I was given a floppy disk that 
contained the definition and recordings of an organ that was in a local pizza restaurant 
known as the 'Bella Roma'  Where performances of those no longer alive were recorded.   
This organ no longer exists and was parted out.  (I actually have some wire from that 
instrument in my own console.)     Yet the music it played still exists.

A case in point.   I have a collector friend, who has a hall in Northern california.  
He put together a nice 16 rank Wurlizer, which is used for concerts.  There are also a 
number of instruments that decorate the side walls.   To complete the 16 rank Wurlitzer 
my friend wanted a rank of pipes from a second instrument, that had belonged to a mutual 
friend.  The extra two manual console was placed in the lobby of the hall.  That console 
has a lot of history and is now in my basement.  It is said that George Wright nicknamed 
this organ Myrtle, when it was across the river from where I live.   The reason for this 
was my friend got another console that was salvaged from a pizza restaurant (Pizza Joynt/San 
Francisco Warfield) and had been badly burned.  We started to restore this,  and got the 
burned out console into shape, where another collector was able to complete the restoration.     

Without a decorative console, my friend thought the lobby looked bare.

Sadly some of these old instruments are no longer as popular.  The prices have fallen a lot, 
and homes are sold and downsized.  My friend found, after looking, a console from the organ 
of one Dr Dapolito.   I am told the pipes went to Australia, when the house was sold.    
This used a strange relay called a S'andelco.  Nothing could be found online other than an 
article in 'Console' Magazine.  (September 1981)  What is interesting is that the Oakland 
Paramount also has a S'adelco relay (which is being upgraded to uniflex.)  

Since I maintain Uniflex hardware  (most of the actual non virtual organs I work with have 
unifex relays)  I upgraded the 'Myrtle' VTPO to Uniflex, using Hauptwerk as a box of ranks.   
This left the Arduino MIDI interface available to allow the Dapalito "Hollywood" console to 
become a VTPO in the lobby.    The S'andelco relay multiplexes the keyboards.  I was able 
to convert this to simple MIDI and set up Hauptwerk4 in a limited way to test the interface.

Re enter the 'Bella Roma.'  As I already had the jOrgan definition for it, I put that on the 
mac connected to the Dapolito or 'Lobby' console.   Now I can play the recordings from the 
'Bella Roma' on it.

This is all because I have a script that can convert the XML from one disposition to another.   
A result of decades of research,  I noticed that the website I use the most is called 
'savevirtualorgans.'   Another organ I work on is a similar Robert Morton.  Which is where 
I got most of the soundsamples/soundfonts I use.   I also figured out how after months of 
study; learned to code activators and such so that the MIDI recordings can accurately control 
the VTPO  (the goal is to make the combination stops and led indicators move.)  The Pizza 
organs also had spotlights and other effects, which are recorded on the old tracks.   In 
theory One can display this information on the console screen.  (at the moment) I use the 
simple LED indicators (but any skin graphic can be used.)   



From Marc A on 2021-11-11 16:07


...I admire your programming skills and dedication to the Organ. 

I was on the crew that converted the NY Paramount Wurlitzer organ to a computer relay... 
in short for Lyn Larson to record one of his albums.  I spent many hours learning how 
the software worked.  And also spent many years working on keeping the organ made in 
1926 playing for 3 public concerts a year.  We reduced a 3000 wire cable to a ribbon 
cable and power.  I also spent 10 years playing in public now and then for background 
music and a hours concert here and there. 

jOrgan and Hauptwerk let me continue to evolve as a musician and technician and I am 
really grateful for all of us that contribute to our understanding of how things work. 

Kindest Regards


From Graham W on 2021-11-11 20:02

Julie P wrote:
"The built in graphics editor for jorgan, I find to be frustrating.  When I work with 
graphics, I like sub pixel accuracy.   As I also work with theater organs  I also like 
to see the tabs laid out in as a they are in the horseshoe format.   To this effect  
I have a template, where one can 'fill in the blanks'  The program then generates the 
code that fills in the stops."   

Hi Julie

Completely agree with this.  I design the screens for Miditzer and I can assure everyone 
accuracy is essential.  Almost everything on those screens has to be rotated to individual 
angles and (often) perspective added.  I don't need SUB-pixels but even a single pixel 
misalignment is noticeable.

I would imagine that adding rotation to jOrgan stops could be a nightmare.  (Miditzer 
does it by having an "on" image and an "off" image and essentially "masking" areas to 
show or hide.)

The way I "adapt" jOrgan graphics is to use my Miditzer260SP screen as a background. 
(Link  to draft image if you are interested )

The jOrgan "stops" overlay the matching stop on the background.  They are small, 
partially transparent circles for the on state that look like a small spotlight 
on the stop.  The off state is completely transparent.  Means you can't click 
"anywhere" on the stop, just a small circle at the tip. Since I have pistons and 
eventually stop rails, the screen is for "development" at this stage.  As I won't 
be able to physically fit all the stops on my stop rail, having the screen will 
allow me to set registrations on pistons that use things I don't have on the stop rails.

I tried driving jOrgan as a box of ranks for Miditzer running in WINE but WINE ran 
out of steam handling MIDI once I added expression pedals.  Other than that, 
it worked well.



From JohnB on 2021-11-11 23:34

From the very onset of MIDI, humanization encountered the exigencies of precise, 
computer calculations which demanded that the "sum of the parts equal the whole,"  
no ifs, ands or buts.
An applicable analogy might be, why is the present subjunctive objected to by 
the present indicative when the construction requires the present subjunctive?  
Because one is a mood and the other is a tense.   The "snap to" (the line) feature, 
with respect to pixels, does not, really, allow for the creation of curves in 
circles which are a contiguous straight line.   So, seemingly, sub-pixel accuracy 
might require fractions thereof in order to achieve a smooth curve.  The algorithm 
of point-to-point, without the element of an "arc" or "arch," or "curve," always 
a straight line, illustrates the difference between graphic image files (which can 
be perfect circles), as activators, and their placement on the matrix of the rows 
and columns of pixels.  

This aspect of the XML file is what, for me, has made the creation of a home-made 
skin for my dispositions difficult to achieve.  I have not been able to successfully 
edit a photo I have taken of colored wood and substitute it for a "console" element 
in the skins folder of jOrgan. To say nothing of creating the entirety of elements 
in the skin folder.
No one has ever set down the specifications or dimensions for skin elements and, 
then, how to edit the skins.XML so that the whole thing was accepted by jOrgan.   
I have, previously, suggested that we need a tutorial on how to craft skins and edit 
the skin.xml file. However, no one with the knowledge has done so.  Other users have, 
to their credit, produced some really nice skins!  So, we know that the knowledge is 
out there.
If there is a positive aspect to this, it must be the discipline--- which is 
educational---required to achieve a proper goal.
John Beach


From Mark B on 2021-11-11 23:50

Graphic Elements can be edited, sized and position changed from jOrgan itself without 
the need to touch the xml file at all. You can do this by going into construct mode. 


From JohnB on 2021-11-12 00:09

Dr. Mark,  true and we do these things without ever looking at or seeing the xml file, 
which is being edited as we use the GUI of the Console to create a disposition.   So, 
although we do not "touch" the xml file at all, it is saving the changes that we make, 
including placements of elements


From JohnB on 2021-11-12 00:50                                          

Regarding how detailed the xml file is, the classic skin (xml/xsd) contains 1385 lines.  
The disposition that I use, regularly, has six divisions, approximately, 540 stops, 
and the total lines in the xml file are 63289.   My guess is that the xml file begins 
with information concerning the Keyboards, in Customizer, in jOrgan, since they include 
the 'input' which is only specified in the Customizer.   I would not know how to edit 
this file to achieve visible changes on the GUI Console, that is, the inverse operation 
of how we, in Construct Mode, create a disposition.   Seemingly, there would be no 
advantage to doing this.  Knowing how to edit what, in order to achieve the acceptance 
of graphic image file elements which are the skin xml xsd  is more necessary and useful.
John Beach


From Graham W on 2021-11-12 17:54

Hi All

I'll have a go at taking on the challenge of "skin xml 101"

The structure of the skin.xml is defined in the .xsd file.  You don't need to have anything 
to do with this one except to read it to find out what values are allowed.  For example, 
the "fill" is defined:

<xs:element name="fill">
         In which direction to fill this layer when it is smaller than the overall size.
      <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
         <xs:enumeration value="NONE" />
         <xs:enumeration value="HORIZONTAL" />
         <xs:enumeration value="VERTICAL" />
         <xs:enumeration value="BOTH" />

So you can see there are four values allowed for "fill".  The .xsd defines everything 
you will find in a skin.xml file  This info might be useful in a summary table if that 
doesn't already exist.

Now we can have a look at a couple of examples from the classic skin xml file.  I'll add 
comments along the way.  They will start with *** and will NOT be in the xml, just in 
this explanation.  First is the way the "console" (background) is defined.

*** the skin starts with

<skin xmlns="" xmlns:xsi=""
        xsi:schemaLocation=" ../../jorgan-gui/src/main/xml/skin.xsd">

*** and ends with

***the first style is for the console

<style>                                            *** start of this style
      <anchor>CENTER</anchor>   *** anchor the console image to the centre of the window
      <fill>NONE</fill>                       *** use the image as is
      <width>0</width>                      *** don't change it's size
      <padding>                 *** do we want space around the outside of this style element?
        <left>0</left>          *** (NB stops will have at least 2 layers- one for when the stop is on 
        <bottom>0</bottom>      ***   and one for when it is off.)
      </padding>                   *** not in this style
      <layers>                     *** here is the single layer for this style  
                                          *** finished the image
      </layers>                                    *** finished the layer
      <name>console</name>           *** what is it's name in the gui
    </style>                         *** that's the end of the style definition for 
                                     *** the console background image.

***Here is the second example.  A stop draw knob  I'll break up the sections by adding 
***     space and only comment to highlight the differences from the console example


        <button>    *** this is going to be an on/off thing
          <binding>active</binding>   *** yep - active.  Will respond to a click


            <composite>            *** here we start the "composite" of layers for the "Off"



                  <file>stop0.png</file>    *** here's the "Off" image file

                <text>                    *** this section styles the text on the stop face when "Off"
                  <binding>name</binding>   *** the text used is the name you enter for the stop                   
                  <alignment>CENTER</alignment>       ***    in construction mode
                              *** there is a text and image layers now defined for this "composite"
              </layers>       *** remember </ means the end of a section

            </composite>           *** this ends the first "composite" of text and image

            <composite>                                    *** now we get the "On" section



                  <width>75</width>                  *** stop gets bigger when "On"
                    <size>13</size>                      *** text is one point size bigger
                    <red>80</red>                        *** text also changes colour slightly
    </style>                                    *** that's the end for that style!


I don't know whether this will help anyone.  I hope it's near enough correct.  Please 
correct me if I've made any boo boos; I'm far from expert.  I can imagine it would be 
possible to write a dedicated editor for skins, I can visualise how it might work but 
I know next to nothing about Java programming.



From RickW on 2021-11-13 08:00

Hi Julie

I am always interested to read your posts.  I am also involved with a couple 
of local Theatre Organs. 

Do any of the instruments you are involved with have a Z-tronics relay and/or 
capture/MIDI system?

I have been able to get jOrgan to replicate most of the function of my local 
Christie/Z-tronics(MIDI) system, however I am stuck trying to get the Swell 
control working. 

The Z-tronics MIDI system encodes all Console functions as Controler Change 
messages, effectively used as a Digital signal (On/Off) rather than an Analogue 
signal graduated 0-127 we are more familiar with. 
A Stop On/Off signal in jOrgan MPL looks like this:
Pedal Octave 8, On - Activate MPL: equal 185, equal 81, equal 8
Pedal Octave 8, Off - Deactivate MPL: equal 185, equal 80, equal 8

I have stops functioning in jOrgan from the real console MIDI files.
equal 185 denotes Channel and CC function 
equal 81 denotes ON
equal 80 denotes OFF
equal 8 is the specific stop (range 1 to 64 for each MIDI Channel)

What I can't work out how to get working is the Swell control. 
The Console has 10x Reed Switches for each of Main and Solo chambers 
Each reed switch is activated by a magnet on the respective Swell shoe
Each reed switch triggers the Z-tronics driver board to open a Swell shutter 
Each reed switch is encoded just like a Stop outlined above. 

My question to anyone is:
In jOrgan, how do I link 10 steps of MPL to gradually step the Continuous 
Filter function?

Thank you. 


From Ron B  on 2021-11-13 08:07

In Uniflex each shutter can be assigned an analog value, and when that step 
on the switch is reached, it changes the analog value to the new value. 
Can you implement something similar?

Ron B


From RickW on 2021-11-13 08:07

My only success in modifying jOrgan files has been to simply 
substitute .jpg image files in the .zip package. 
I have not altered the code of the reference file in any way. 

I don't know how to add an extra image, just simply substitute an Active 
and Deactivated image in a working file. 


From RickW on 2021-11-13 08:55

On Sat, 13 Nov 2021 at 07:08, Ron B wrote:
"In Uniflex each shutter can be assigned an analog value, and when that 
step on the switch is reached, it changes the analog value to the new value. 
Can you implement something similar?"

Thanks Ron

Ok, next step of working through this.

The current functioning "Continuous Filter" Element in my disposition has 
the following two lines of MPL for Main Swell:
Change: equal 191, equal 11, lessEqual 126 | div 126 | get value
Engaging: set 176, set 11, set value | mult 0.8 | add 0.2 | mult volume 127

Let's say the Main Swell messages from the Z-tronics system were this:
equal 185, equal 81, equal 1
equal 185, equal 81, equal 2
equal 185, equal 81, equal 3
equal 185, equal 81, equal 4
equal 185, equal 81, equal 5
equal 185, equal 81, equal 6
equal 185, equal 81, equal 7
equal 185, equal 81, equal 8
equal 185, equal 81, equal 9
equal 185, equal 81, equal 10
equal 185, equal 80, equal 10
equal 185, equal 80, equal 9
equal 185, equal 80, equal 8
equal 185, equal 80, equal 7
equal 185, equal 80, equal 6
equal 185, equal 80, equal 5
equal 185, equal 80, equal 4
equal 185, equal 80, equal 3
equal 185, equal 80, equal 2
equal 185, equal 80, equal 1

In jOrgan, do I use an "Activator" Element to somehow link the two?
Where do I "put" each "Activator" if that is what I use?
What "References" "From" and "To" would each Element have?

Thank you


From Ron B on 2021-11-13 09:03

With jOrgan, I have always used pre-made dispositions, done very little 
with messages. How would you do it if you were sending midi messages from 
0-255 or a smaller range? In Uniflex the purpose was to use values that 
would mimic midi values from a pot such as steps of 20 or so, rather 
than 1 to 10.

Ron B


From JohnR on 2021-11-13 11:51

RickW wrote:
"In jOrgan, do I use an "Activator" Element to somehow link the two?"

Hi Rick,

Perhaps I am missing something quite basic here, but my guess is that all 
you need to do is play with the MPL.

What about changing the top line to this for UP:
Change: equal 185, equal 81, lessEqual 10 | div 10 | get value

and this for DOWN:
Change: equal 185, equal 80, lessEqual 10 | div 10 | get value

Just realise I am no expert in this.

Best wishes,
JohnR                                                           MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD



From JohnB on 2021-11-13 02:49

At the link below are some articles on the different types of reverb (artificial).  
Under the 5 types listed, there are two hyperlinks, one, to Spring and the other, 
to Plate.  

The article on "Spring" reverb discusses Hammond's invention of Spring reverb for 
the organ.  The main article deals with the particular parameter settings of reverb 
        elements (not identifiable in Fluidsynth Reverb or, specifically, adjustable, given 
the limitation of the four elements, Room, Width, Damping and Level).   

In all of the articles, the same graph is presented which depicts Reverb as the 
sequence of the onset of a source signal of loudest amplitude progressing in 
diminishing graduation to decay tail.   What is termed "Reverb body" occurs, 
approximately, half-way in the decay period.  It seems that this perception is 
what substantiates the concept that "amplitude modulation" is the parameter relative 
to "LEVEL."  Given this fact, the question I have is whether the problem of 
frequency or pitch-relative, cyclical looped playback of the wave file is due to 
the size of wave files in a soundfont or whether the concept of "looping" is, 
in fact, the problem.  Looping is used to produce a steady state in digital sound 
production and is, of course, NOT a factor in real-life instruments.   

So, while the theory relative to the application of reverb is correct, the fact of 
fixed-length, looped wave files, for the purpose of achieving a steady state is 
distorted by modulation, not amplitude.  I consider amplitude to be fixed degrees 
(levels) of loudness whereas, modulation has to do with the cyclical change in 
frequency, effecting warp and woof. 

The problem with Fluidsynth Reverb LEVEL is that modulation frequency is increased 
as amplitude is increased.  These two should be completely separate, but are not.   
I tried removing the MOD and VIB LFO Frequency settings (MOD LFO Freq. was 4.981 
and VIB LFO Freq. was 14.285) in one specific stop, a Blockflute 8',  and tried 
playing a single note of the stop with Fluidsynth Reverb LEVEL adjustments.  The 
change of the values of MOD and VIB LFO to 0  did not put an end to the annoying 
effect.  I, then, set Fluidsynth Reverb LEVEL to Zero and used the Cathedral Preset 
of the EAX Console from Creative Labs.  There is a perfect steady state with no 
annoying modulation of the tone such as with Fluidsynth.   So, the problem has 
been isolated to the LEVEL element in Fluidsynth Reverb and is NOT caused by any 
parameter settings of the wave file in the soundfont.   I hope this information 
informs our perceptions and that something can be done to change the Fluidsynth 2.2.0  
LEVEL algorithm, since that is, definitely, the problem.
John B                          MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


Editing Skins (was XML and parsing internal structures)

From Graham W on 2021-11-13 15:16

RickW wrote:My only success in modifying jOrgan files has been to simply substitute 
.jpg image files in the .zip package. 
I have not altered the code of the reference file in any way. 

I don't know how to add an extra image, just simply substitute an Active and 
Deactivated image in a working file." 

Say, for example, you wanted to add an new, extra stop image...

Open the skin.xml in a text editor
Find the code for an existing stop (Hint: its image filenames will point to 
stop knob/tab images)
Copy from <style>  to </style>  (include the style tags) for the stop
Paste into a new line after </style>.  You now have a DUPLICATE of your original stop.
Make sure your new images are in the folder and rename the image filenames in the new 
pasted section to your new images
Find the <name>....</name> in the new section and change the name.  
Save the xml file

(I don't zip my skin folders)

In my Wurli skin I have red, white yellow, black for ordinary stop tabs and redbr, 
whitebr and blackbr for back rail tabs



From Julie P on 2021-11-13 16:22

I have no experience with Z-tronics other than I know the name.

Most of my work is with Uniflex,  Which started out as devtronix.   That is a 
proprietary system, and well worth the investment. 

I also worked with the Obsolete Emutek system which was upgraded to Uniflex a 
decade or so  back.  Emutek had no record/playback  so before the upgrade I 
created record/playback for Emutek.  I used the surplus Emutek boards to create 
a simple Wire to MIDI translator.

Emutek was basically what is called a Programmable Logic controller.  Normally 
these are used for industrial control.  The bus is based on rs485 twisted pair.  
Older apple users will know this as Appletalk.  It was fairly easy to figure out 
the frames of the Emutek as these were clocked at 500000 baud.  The frame time 
was something like 25.4uS.  Each hardware board in the frame started with the 
high bit set.  The designer seems to base it on MIDI.  There are 16 possible 
input boards.  All daisy chained as a large shift register.  The first key prefix 
is 90 and the last is 9F.  There are 16 bytes that follow, which correspond to 
128 bits of data.  0x9F is a special case.  This channel sends data to the 
chambers in a sort of program logic language.  The roms were not protected, so I 
reverse engineered the simple logic language.  I re-wrote this to run using an 
Arduino processor.
There was a simple Windows DoS basic program which created these tables.   
I find this runs fine under DOSBox.

What the program, did, was it created a bit mask for each 8 bits.  These were 
then converted into something like MIDI notes through a rotating bit mask as the 
data is not always byte aligned.  By design or coincidence, there are 'Arduino' 
examples and tutorials that work much the same way, using the same '165 and 
'595 hardware chips where shift registers are explained.

To record the organ, I simply captured each frame, which used a token 0xC0  
(again I think a MIDI reference.)  Playing the song was as simple as playing the 
frames.  I did not bother to do the conversion in real time.  Instead I wrote a 
program that took the raw binary streams and converted that either to a Uniflex 
track file (using the devtronix format.)  To make something that could play I 
converted the binary to jOrgan MIDI with the stop names as text.

Expression became a bear to deal with.   Something I have only really been able 
to work with in the last few months.   Old consoles use banks of contact switches.  
These in effect are simply on and off switches.   The implementation is either as 
a knife switch or a roller with an angled wire.  Where the problem comes is that 
none of this is linear.  There may be 24 or 32 contacts on the roller, but only 
six shade blades.   So only 6 wires may connect to the 24 pins.   Devtronix is 
clever in that they can read a POT and give it weighted values.  I have seen swell 
shoes where resistor ladders are connected to the contacts to give a semblance of 
a cheap D2A and a single analog voltage out.

My conversion code is full of rotating bit masks, weighted lookup tables as well as 
quantization thresholds. I think some of this is close to an AI or expert database, 
which I have sort of trained with data from a whole bunch of organ definitions.  
None is really satisfactory.  For the most part it does work, but it takes trial and 
error to find the step points.  

The whole arduino sketch is about 400 lines.  If there is interest I can go into more 
specifics how the raw bits from the shift register are converted to MIDI controller 
11 or MIDI controller 7. 



From JohnB on 2021-11-13 18:23                                                  

I suspect that the fact that my edited photos for image files, placed in the 
skins folder, did not work was due to some miniscule, size difference in the 
dimensions which did not conform to the description in the xml file.   Not 
knowing how to edit it to make it accept my image files, I gave up.  
The older we get, the more acceptant we are of the "path of least resistance."  
What has been provided in terms of classic, classic-modified, modern, modern-
modified, theatre and Hammond skins, are inclusive of everything that is 
necessary to good functionality. 
What I thought would be useful in terms of a tutorial for editing skins was a 
complete document of the requirements of dimensions for the elements and how to 
edit the skin.xml.  This has never been made. 
John Beach


From Julie P on 2021-11-15 07:51                                                        

I had completely forgot that the jOrgan skins also use an XML structure.   I can see 
from my code scripts that at one time I had worked this out.

Recently on another project  (Decoding NASA mars images from 1971) I needed to read 
and write PNG files directly with postscript (So I could read and parse the metadata.)  
I see that the icons in the skins are all PNG files.

One of the real failings in a theater aka vTpo.  Is the lack of a way to rotate the 
tab on the layout.  I was not aware that MidiTzer could do this.  

It could be done easily with postscript as text can follow an arbitrary 'path.'   This 
is done through something called a spline curve.   There are two flavors once cubic one 
quadratic.   These in turn use a concept called knots or control points.  I suspect 
digital audio filters do similar things, in a three rather than two dimensional space. 

When the curve is rendered it is divided into line segments.   The number of these 
segments between the endpoint determines how many straight lines are drawn using 
plxels.   This is also how fonts are stored.   Most graphic libraries contain these 
spline primitives for creating fonts.   At lower resolutions these fonts are converted 
to bitmaps (called hints)  Even the simplistic drivers for embedded control displays 
like used on 'Arduino' have such primitives.  These primitives are also used for 
drawing non Romanized western texts.

To place a letter onto a page something called an 'Alpha' channel is used.  This is a 
bitmask, what is transparent to the background.    GIF and PNG support this when 
treating the graphic as an ICON.

I see the skins use TrueType fonts.  I tested these at Apple decades ago.  Amazing 
what one can forget after a few decades.

In postscript (and the related Apple Quartz rendering system)  there is a graphics 
primitive called a transformation matrix.  This does all the rotation and scaling 
of the graphic (or text.)   The coefficients of this matrix are from a set of well 
defined linear equations.    Really all the user is concerned about are location, 
scale and rotation.  location is usually in world coordinates. Scale, is done from 
0 to 100 or 0 to 1. Rotation in steps of 90.  If negative numbers are used, mirrored 
or upside down text is produced. 

What is seemingly magic about these matrices is they can be combined.   This is all 
done in the GPU hardware.

There are two ways to determine if a mouse click has taken place on text or an Icon.  
(abstractly they are the same.)  The more common way is to use a region.  This is an 
outline of the graphic as expressed with line segments.  One simply traces this outline 
and checks if the point is inside or outside the box.  If there are holes in the outline, 
it makes a difference if the steps are done in a clockwise or counter clockwise order.  
This method works really well with raster graphics as one can step from pixel to pixel 
creating the 'region chain.'   This could be a case where the transform matrix is unity, 
where world coordinates are the same as device coordinates. 

The other method (which is harder to follow, but fast in hardware) is to reduce the 
graphic in scale to a single pixel at the device location using the transform matrix.   
(Note this pixel is a finite infinity, all the information is still there, it is just 
lower than the resolution of the display)  The transform is also applied to the mouse 
coordinates.  If the mouse is in that pixel, then the icon or text is selected.   
This works better with device resolution independent graphics.   I find this much 
harder to debug.  Especially when working with screens, windows, lines or blocks of text 
and graphics, all which have their own transformation matrix. 

I am not sure how jOrgan (and the underlying java) does the rendering and hit testing.  
If It can deal with hit testing inside or outside the alpha channel mask then it might 
only be a matter of creating the right PNG with a rotated alpha mask.

Dealing with the Truetype text that overlays the stop tab graphic might be a bit more.

Fonts are rendered to the display by using the transform matrix to create a bitmap where 
one side is one pixel high and as wide as the glyph is to be rendered in pixels.  This 
forms a line buffer.  (when rendering a page the whole line is buffered.)
This transformation matrix is then applied to the page as a window and the page drawn 
into it.  Such might seem slow as the font, glyph or page has to be drawn as many times 
as there are pixels high.  In practice this is all done by hardware acceleration.   
I suppose if arbitrary text rotations can not be done, then such could be created where 
the stop and the rotated tab are overlaid in the bitmap aka PNG space.    Such would also 
break the device independent nature of the display interface.

Using PNG graphics for each tab would restrict the editing as the text would be bound to 
the background for rotated tabs.  Still such might make for an interesting experiment.

I do agree that there really should be better documentation for the skin XML as there does 
not seem to be a GUI editor for such.   For those of us who do work with XML  the format is 
easy to figure out.  There is a lot of repetition in it.  Where the keys have a one to many 
relation or vice versa.  I see that I automated a lot of this in my code.  In practice all 
of this is simply what is called a "relational database"   jOrgan and it's internal 
structure basically acts as a syntax checker.

Typically an XML will have a template that describes this syntax.  (I know MIDI XML does 
and that is where I first ran across these templates.)   The first comment in the XML header 
is supposed to be a reference to the website where the format of the syntax is defined  
(why this comment usually starts with the word com.)   I see that the jOrgan XML does not 
do this.  I also see that the skin.xml does not have the XML version control tags either.

At one time I was going to write a jOrgan skin XML parser,  I may have done so and never 
finished it as I needed to fix my PNG parser first.   I never finished the MIDI XML parser 

It would be trivial to add tags to the skin XML for a rotation and bounding clipping region 
(which can be created from the Alpha channel of the PNG) and text rotation.   There already 
is an anchor point.   So all one would have to do is set a transform matrix to this anchor 
point and apply the scale and rotation.   This could also have the advantage that the 
background images can be selected or even rendered on the fly for the best resolution that
the current display screen can handle.

Most of this is Academic.  I have more things to do than I have time for.  (Like help my 
Dad setup Hauptwerk VI we installed yesterday so he can play Christmas music on the 

-julie                                                                  MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


new user 

From RickW on 2021-11-19 22:29

Hello List

There is a chap, Lee Harworth, posting on jOrgan on Facebook.

I have suggested he email the list, but he says he has not been approved to join?

He seems to be a new user trying to work with a disposition file for which I suspect 
he doesn't have at least the Skin file, possibly more missing.

Today he has posted saying that he can't add references to his disposition and that 
someone has told him he will need to write code.

Can we at least get him on the list, then see if we can help?

As I recall, there is no coding required in jOrgan to create a disposition?
I am pretty rusty, it has been more than 10 years since I have done any deep initial 
disposition work. 



From JohnR on 2021-11-20 06:57

On 2021-11-19 22:29, RickW wrote:
"There is a chap, Lee Harworth, posting on jOrgan on Facebook. I have suggested 
he email the list, but he says he has not been approved to join?"

Hi Rick,

He sent an email to the List on 10th January 2021. It comes up in a search of the 
Mailing List archive. That may not prove that he is a member - it depends on whether 
Sven got notification of his post (as an unregistered member) and decided to let it 
through. His name there appears as "Lee Haworth". Perhaps that was a typo. But I can 
say this: that archive entry seems to give him the email address"mayfield_deltic@ho..."  
You can guess the rest. If you try to engage him about registration, you should ask 
him if he is trying to use that email address, or some other one.

I may have had a brief email correspondence with him at the time. Or perhaps I saw his 
mention of a problem registering on the Facebook Group, and tried to help him with it. 
I read your very patient assistance to him there re his trouble with that disposition, 
which I think was one of BCA's.

There certainly is no need for a jOrgan user to do any coding. I think that Lee is 
someone who tries to do things without putting in the work needed to find out how 
to do it.

Best wishes,


From Lee H on 2021-11-20 08:01

This is not a case of "I could not be bothered" to learn programming, I have 
tried to get on a course to get the skills to be able to do it but the course 
providers were extremely selective about who could participate and I was not 
able to do the course. As a result I am not able to write a config to make the 
parameters and dependencies recognised by the host software before trying to 
assemble the interface which was the approach recommended by software 
programmers as it eliminates any potential issues with other problems 
emerging. Going off the instructions there were other items under the 
elements tab that did not appear after I had added the skin and the soundfont 
file, I can't use the configuration from another disposition as there were 
none for that soundfont so the ideal way would be to manually write the 
configuration to make sure all the dependencies are listed. But as I am not 
qualified to do that, I have had to rely on JOrgan to list them but this has 
not been the case as the box to add references constantly shows up empty every 
time I try to add any references.

As for the issue with Hauptwerk that had no MIDI connection and none could be 
established, I had asked for advice on how to get it to work but the recommended 
midi connection software only contained support for consoles and not for general 
raw midi signals. I searched for a connection patch but this apparently cost 
extra money. This was not a case that I could not be bothered to add it, I did 
not see why I had to pay extra money on something I had already paid for that was 
not working after the update.


From JohnR on 2021-11-20 10:53

On 2021-11-20 08:01, Lee H wrote:
"the box to add references constantly shows up empty every time I try to add any 


Thank you for posting. I think the fact that it got through immediately indicates 
that you ARE registered with the Mailing List, and that if you have had problems 
with the SourceForge log-in or with sending posts, you may have been using some 
other email address at the time. I am pleased to hear that you are prepared to put 
in effort to get things to work, and the wrong conclusion I had drawn has been 
corrected. Realise that email or Facebook communication is very poor at enabling 
us to identify what is really going on.

Regarding adding references in jOrgan, when you are in Construct Mode and are using 
the References view with an element selected, and you then click on the ADD icon, 
you will (potentially) be provided with TWO boxes - one for references TO and one 
for references FROM. Some elements will require both kinds of references, and some 
others will require only one. Sven has designed the process so that if the element 
in question requires only one type of reference, the other box will be empty. You 
can access either box by the clicking on "BACK" or "NEXT". Please try this and then 
let us know whether this has solved one of your problems.

Best wishes,


From RickW on 2021-11-20 11:21

Hi Lee

Good to see you have made it to the list. 
Here there are more active jOrgan users who can contribute to your questions 
in different ways. Some may click better than others. 

As I understand what you are trying to do, I think your first step should be to 
"import" the Soundfont. This will automatically build the "sound" connections 
and give you some initial Elements to Reference. 

I would suggest you need to be very comfortable with using a working jOrgan 
disposition before trying to build your own. 


From RickW on 2021-11-20 11:22

This is not a Hauptwerk forum.


From RickW on 2021-11-20 12:33

I would be fascinated to know what course you attempted to attend?

I can't overstate it enough, that you MUST start with a currently working jOrgan
 disposition, and preferably supported by its builder still active in the jOrgan 
Until you know how to connect a console via MIDI and use the common features in 
jOrgan, you will not have the technical base on which to build a custom jOrgan 

On top of that, you will need a traditional organ builder's understanding of an 
organ "relay".

jOrgan is the only virtual organ software that gives you the tools to build your 
own virtual organ without coding, but you still need very solid fundamental 
understanding of the workings of a real organ and be a competent user of already 
built jOrgan dispositions before embarking on building your own.

This link gives a listing of available functional jOrgan disposition packages, 
many still supported by their creators. 
Until you can master a few of these you have no hope trying to build your own 

Pick one to start and ask as many questions as you want. 


From Julie P on 2021-11-20 15:54

I myself got a bit carried away last week.

As said this is not a Hauptwerk forum.  However the same MIDI hardware can run both.  
One system can also be used to enhance the other, or create additional stop jams or 
split things into multiple touch screens or physical interfaces.

I like to use the Arduino Leonardo to scan the stop and keys.  There are many 
tutorials on You tube that show how to do this.  Especially for drum kits.   
Arduinos can also be used to create display indicators and control Stop action 
magnet coils.

If programming arduino is too complex xny old MIDI keyboard will work.  Stops are 
a bit more tricky.

Most modern OSs have what is called inter application MIDI.   I am not as familiar 
with the Windows world calls this.
Mac have a built in control panel  called "Audio MIDI setup."  Under utilities.   
There is a real nice free download for something called rtp MIDI that works on 
Windows and gives the same interface as the mac.
Linux uses a program called Jack.  I believe there are versions of Jack for both 
Mac and windows.   

It is important to understand MIDI 'channels.'  There are 16 of these.  This is not 
enough, so on the hardware side there is something called 'Ports.'  On the playable 
file side there is something called 'tracks.'  "Tracks" are really no concern here.
Ports can have one to 16 channels.  Ports can be physical or virtual  depending on 
the hardware.  The 5 pin connector is physical.   USB, Ethernet, and Firewire can 
have multiple 'Ports'    A physical MIDI has 3 bytes of data per message.  Virtual 
MIDI have 4 bytes of data.  Sometimes the port is called cable number.  Much of this 
terminology is left over from when wires were physically connected to a switch board. 

There is also the concept of something called a 'Patch' or 'Bank'  This is a 
collection of 16 memory slots.  Each of these slots contain an instrument or 
sound.  There is a collection of 128 sounds called General MIDI,  this is made 
of 16 banks of 16 sounds with specific voices.  The first one is always piano.   
Bank number 128 is a special case for drums.  These are usually on track 9,10,or 11.  
To a programmer MIDI numbers start with zero 0 and are often written in hexidecimal 
notation.  A user sees a decimal number that starts with one 1.   jOrgan handles all 
this internally matching Banks and channels through a special midi programming 
language (MPL)   The only time a user needs to understand channels is when they 
connect hardware.

Typically each keyboard is on it's own channel.  This is usually set by a switch on 
the keyboard.  Sometimes a special manufactures program is needed to change this.

Stops can be done with hardware.  More practical is to use a touch screen. (or click 
on the icon with a mouse.)  That way one only needs to connect a keyboard.

There is another way to control stops.  This is called a Non Registered Parameter 
Number or NRPN.   Most of these are proprietary, which is why they are not 
registered.  However it is possible to figure these out.  Allen and Hauptwork use 
this system.  There are hardware add on boards that can encode and decode NRPNs to 
create a combination action that actually moves.  Finding these can be tricky, but 
the charts for most common organs do exist.   It is also possible to get these by 
activating the switch or recording it, then viewing the resulting MIDI file with an 
events editor.  NRPNs are made from 3 3 byte midi messages and are 14 bits in size.  

There is also something called a System Exclusive.  These are arbitrary blocks of 
tagged Meta data.  In theory the manufacturer is supposed to document them.  In 
practice they do not.  Microsoft handles sysex differently than does other systems.  
They can contain any amount of data including images like TIFF or JPEG.  They can 
also contain WAV audio samples.  Most MIDI can be represented in 3 or 4 bytes.  
Microsoft chains these 3 byte blocks to store the Sysex.  Other systems allocate a 
buffer of the size of the raw data. jOrgan does not use system exclusives unless it 
needs to control hardware intended for Hauptwerk.

A Sysex can also represent a binary map of what stops are on or off.  This sort of 
system is  rare.  I think Rogers consoles do this.

Stops can also be represented by MIDI 'notes' on one of the 16 channels.    This way 
a simple 'keyboard' decoder can be used.   It is possible to get an old scrap midi 
keyboard and replace the switches with double acting tabs.   These usually use 
something called a 'diode matrix.'  So one has to be careful to keep the diodes, 
and make sure they are in the right direction.

Once the hardware is set, then it is simply a matter of connecting things together.

Above I mentioned "General MIDI"  . This is 128 sound samples.  Most VPOs map the 
ranks as close as they can.   Each instance of fluidsynth can define 128 sounds, 
but only 16 can play at the same time.   Again jOrgan does this internally.   
All the user needs to know is the bank number for a given 'Rank.'

This can be found by reading the definition in the construct mode.  The MPL will 
indicate what this is when the 'Messages' window is open in the construct mode.   
The numbers are in User MIDI and start with one.  The number that follows 176 is 
the bank or instrument,  the number that follows 192 is which of the sounds are used.   
In jOrgan these can be added, subtracted and multiplied.    There are also some 
predefined variable 'database keys' like pitch and volume(expression.)  Sadly this is 
not well documented, but the 'language' can be figured out reading multiple 
dispositions and comparing them.

The number 144 is an important one.  This is what plays a given note and how loud 
it is.  In hex this is 0x90.  The second part of that number in hex tells what 
channel the note is on.  So 144 is channel 1 and 145 is channel 2.   The nice thing 
about jOrgan is that this can be setup through a wizard, where one simply toggles 
the switch and it reads and calculates the MPL which can be viewed in the 'messages' 
window frame.  No programming needed.

This information can also be found in the XML and copied from one organ to another.  
It is important though that only the data that is shown in the messages be copied.  
The rest of the xml is how it all connects together.  This is better done in the 
definition editor 'construct' menu.   There is a many to many relation between a 
'rank', a stop, and a keyboard.  Which is why it is best to use the construct menu,

If a 'skin' is used then it is best to open the 'skin' window.  This displays the 
choices graphically.   Creating and editing the skin internals, can take months if 
not years to work out all the relationships.   Many of these graphics are shared 
between the VPO apps as they are simply PNG files.  Usually there is an active 'on' 
version and an 'off' version.  Some also have animated 'frames' like pedal or swell 
shade indicators.  Much easier for most to simply click and drag them around.

Typically no real programming is needed.  In practice the only coding that is done 
is to find the database keys and what values they affect.  Once the relationship is 
understood,  it is mostly copy and paste, or search and replace to change or create 
a new organ definition.

-julie                                                                  MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD



From Jan F  on 2021-11-20 17:52                                         

Hi all, 

According to  the "freedictionary"  Velocity = Rapidity or speed of motion; swiftness.
MIDI translates that to attenuation, volume, gain or whatever you may call that. 

What about a mechanical wind driven pipe organ?
Does half pressing a key and leading less wind to the pipe also not involve pitch, 
probably even more than attenuation?

Fully pressing a key result in full attenuation.

So velocity for pipe-organ exists, but also how deep do you press a key. 

How to translate that? 

Today I am not always at home. So excuse me if response delays. 

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From JohnB on 2021-11-20 23:20

Jan,  if you have ever disassembled a "velocity-sensitive" midi keyboard you will 
see a single mechanism of  two rubber things that look like inverted, fat funnels, 
one taller than the other, so that when the key is depressed, there are two pressure 
measurements taken as the key is depressed.  So, "velocity," in this case is, really, 
a pressure measurement, force,  whether it translates to attenuation or volume, is 
debatable.   To some extent, you might compare the action of a mechanical tracker-
action organ to the "velocity sensitivity,"  but once a key is fully depressed, 
the wind flows, full-force, into the pipe and achieves the full volume or loudness. 
John B


From Jan F on 2021-11-21 02:32


Thanks for your explanation. Velocity using keyboard as you state works like a Piano.  
Your remark: "To some extent, you might compare the action of a mechanical 
tracker-action organ to the "velocity sensitivity,"  but once a key is fully depressed, 
the wind flows, full-force, into the pipe and achieves the full volume or loudness." 
Needs a remark. When you press a key in very much slow motion and the key is fully 
pressed volume will be zero. That is the way a Piano acts. That is the way our 
keyboards act. As you state a fully pressed key on a mechanical wind driven pipe 
organ gives always full volume. 

Because we cannot see how deep a key is pressed there is one way we can use velocity 
emulating wind driven mechanical organs:
Velocity can be related to the speed of reaching state fully pressed and defines 
duration of the attack? 

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From King Hedonist on 2021-11-21 05:40

For a mechanical tracker organ, "velocity" is related to the intensity of the attack. 
A high intensity attack will open the pallet more quickly, causing a different initial 
speech than with a slower attack, yes?



From Jan F on 2021-11-21 07:22

Hi all, how to emulate that?
Kind regards, Jan Fl.


From Tom C on 2021-11-21 07:30

That's what the tracker backers would tell you -- but in over 60 years of playing and 
building organs, I have found very little incidence of that - to the point where the 
idea is almost mythological.  (preparing for attacks because of what I just said).
It would seem to some people that a slow attack with the fingers would bring a slow 
attack in pipe speech -- but the fact is, that the instant the pallet seal is broken, 
the rush of wind into the channel pushes the pallet completely down, thereby negating 
any type of note regulation.   Organists will swear that it does, but that is all in 
their imaginative heads.
The one advantage to tracker action is longevity.

Tom C


From Marc A on 2021-11-21 07:56

Hi Tom..

       may years of Pipe Organ servicing... including tracker instruments...  
agrees with you.

Your analysis in my opinion is correct.




From RickW on 2021-11-21 09:21

The "velocity" factor of a MIDI keyboard is timing, not pressure. The slightly different 
heights of the two silicone pads gives a separation of the contacts as the key travels 
down. There is of course some factor of force involved in the movement and the physical 
resistance of the silicone, but the electronic measurement is time delay.

Electronic measurement of force would be factors more expensive per note.

MIDI Aftertouch is different again


From Roy Radford on 2021-11-21 09:36

Hi, Rick,

              Many moons ago I used to design oscilloscopes. Some of the shift controls 
worked on a 'press harder, go faster' basis. This was done quite cheaply with a series 
of rings in the tracks of the PCB, progressively bridged by a conical piece of conductive 
rubber, the harder you pressed the more rings it bridged, sending a stronger signal to 
the shift circuitry.

      Have fun,

            Roy. (UK)


From Tom C on 2021-11-21 10:10

Marc A wrote:
"my may years of Pipe Organ servicing... including tracker instruments...  agrees with you.
Your analysis in my opinion is correct."

Thanks, Marc -- it is amazing how many odd ideas abound in the organ world.  I have discussed 
this with organists over and over again -- and, being one myself, have tried to see if this 
is indeed possible.  Yes, if you hold the key between your thumb and finger, and prevent the 
key from depressing immediately once the seal is broken, some sort of variation in speech may 
be realized.  The variations do not, in any sense of the word, remain equal from key to key, 
so cannot be predicted.  Further,  the organ is not played in that manner.  Nevertheless, 
there are many who swear they can hear or feel the difference.  I admire their tenacity, but 
long ago learned simply to discount their accuracy.

Enjoy a great Thanksgiving.


From Jan F on 2021-11-21 19:32

Hi all, 

So the use of velocity does not make sense emulating a mechanical wind driven pipe organ. 
Your midi device records the moment of note off and note on and therefore the intensity. 
The attack part of your sample represents speaking of the pipe. 

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From Jan F on 2021-11-21 19:40

Hi all, 

Indeed the only point -except attack, speaking of a pipe- can be delay. 
This delay is recorded by your midi device and can even be negative as shown below: 


     19265  1  --    144    36    50    1  C  2 Note On
     19900  1  --    144    38    80    1  D  2 Note On
     19978  1  --    144    36     0    1  C  2 Note Off
     20609  1  --    144    38     0    1  D  2 Note Off  

Or positive:


     19265  1  --    144    36    50    1  C  2 Note On
     19900  1  --    144    38    80    1  D  2 Note On
     19978  1  --    144    36     0    1  C  2 Note Off
     20609  1  --    144    38     0    1  D  2 Note Off 

So, perfection does not exist. 

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From Chris P on 2021-11-21 23:01

I'm going to look at the sample recordings I made of a tracker action organ, when I can 
find what I did with them. I recorded both slow and fast key presses, but at two different 
places in the church, whether this makes a difference, I don't know.

Chris P


From Marc A on 2021-11-22 07:48

Greetings Tom...

                              ...I thought that perhaps one further observation might 
be interesting. 

Any pipe chest with a "expansion box" on top of the pallet ... to my ears... makes for 
cleaner pipe speech than a, say, direct electric action. 

I would be interested in your thoughts.



From Daniel D on 2021-11-22 05:55

Tom C wrote:
"the instant the pallet seal is broken, the rush of wind into the channel pushes the 
pallet completely down, thereby negating any type of note regulation."

Thank you for your response. This makes much more sense than what I've been told.



From Tom C on 2021-11-22 09:19                                          

Marc A wrote:
"Any pipe chest with a "expansion box" on top of the pallet ... to my ears... makes for 
cleaner pipe speech than a, say, direct electric action."

Yes, that's true.  I installed AEolian-Skinner organs for several years, and those chests 
had expansion joints between the top of the chest and the bottom of the toe board, which 
helped quite a lot with speech.  I still use them in my organs to this day.

                                                                                                        MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


Thomaskirche Leipzig Sauer Organ VPO Disposition 

From Chris P on 2021-11-22 06:45

Hi, All

I have create a new disposition of the Sauer organ in Thomaskirche, Leipzig.
The console I have laid out in "English" style as I am not familiar with Sauer consoles. 
Perhaps somebody could explain them for me!
At the moment there is only a Jack back end disposition.
It can be downloaded from

Chris Pearson


From JohnR on 2021-11-22 07:53

Chris P wrote:
"I have create a new disposition of the Sauer organ in Thomaskirche,

Hi Chris,

Thank you for this new disposition. This must involve a large download. Could you please 
tell us the size of the soundfont download? Also, are they Sauer samples which you have 
used, or is it a case of reproducing the stop names but using other sources for the samples?

Best wishes,


From Chris P on 2021-11-23 00:32

Hi, John

The sf2 file is 566,201 KB. I will compress it if anyone has a copy of sfArk, 
or knows where I can download it, (lost my copy). It appears to be no longer 
available for download, although there are a number of decompressors.

The soundfont contains a number of ranks from Piotr Grabowski's Skrzatusz Sauer 
organ samples with his kind permission , which I have processed. The remainder 
are from freeware/shareware samples.

Chris Pearson


From Pascal C on 2021-11-23 07:04
Good afternoon, i'm using this disposition (with jOrgan beta 4.0) and added reverbertian to it. 
Drawback is latency.
Interested with this update, many thanks to provide us this.
There is a version of sFarck there : ""

musical regards


From Chris P on 2021-11-23 22:01
Hi, Pascal

Thank you

I don't have any detectable latency, using jOrgan v3.20, other than I would probably 
expect from my experience of years of playing a badly maintained tracker action organ.

The link for sFark is broken. :-(

Chris P


From Denis on 2021-11-24 02:31
Hi Chris

I can't seem to get the sound font file to download - all the other files downloaded 
without issue. Maybe it's a size issue. I tried two different browsers, same result.



From JohnR on 2021-11-24 07:01                                                                               

Chris P wrote:
"The link for sFark is broken. :-(  "


I did a Google search on Apponics, and there were poor ratings mostly, regarding trustworthiness. 
No ratings that I noticed actually called it a scam site, but it certainly wasn't promising. 
Have a look for yourself. It may be a good idea to do a security scan on your computer if you 
tried to download the sfArk Setup.

I prefer not to use sfArk these days in compiling the jOrgan archive, as it is becoming unknown. 
7-zip does a good job of compressing soundfonts, although not as good as sfArk. It is free, and 
is available for Windows and Linux.


From Chris P via jOrgan-user on 2021-11-27 00:50                                        

Hi, All

I have had it drawn to my attention that the sf2 file for this VPO could be improved! 
And rightly so. Thank you, Jan.
The Aeoline rank needed cleaning, so after it's come back from the launderette I've 
uploaded it on it's own, for those who are familiar with Viena/Polyphone just replace 
the original with this.

More information can be found here for this rank,

For everyone else, I have uploaded a complete revised sf2 file, both compressed (sfArk) 
and uncompressed.
The link is

This is the link for sfArk and it's decompressors for both Windows and OSX.

Chris P


From JohnR on 2021-11-27 14:33                                          

Hi Chris,

I tried the new disposition, but I could not get the skin to work. I suspected there was 
something wrong with the zipped skin file, so I uncompressed it to view its contents, 
and what that produced was the unzipped folder which you have also provided. I installed 
that instead of the .zip file, and it now worked.

The simple solution is to modify the disposition file so that the unzipped folder is 
expected instead of the zipped file. Then save the disposition and upload it to replace 
the existing one. I suggest that you delete the .zip file from the download page, 
because as it stands it just will not work.

If you want to put up a correct zipped skin file, the only way I know of doing that is 
to open the skin folder, select all its files (holding down CTRL while you do that), 
then right-click on the lot and compress them into a zip file. I believe you will be 
given the opportunity to name that file appropriately. This is quite a bit of work, 
but it is the only way to bring your disposition into the standard jOrgan way of 
presenting a skin as a zipped file. In other words, my simple solution above is not 
really to be recommended.

It's good to see that you had success in tracking down a download site for the sfArk 
program. Do you know that it is possible to use sfArk to create a self-uncompressing 
.exe file instead of the normal .sfArk file? If you do that, all the user has to do is 
double-click on that .exe file, and they soon have what they need. We can't assume 
they will all manage to track down the sfArk download. (Of course they may 
understandably be wary of clicking on an unknown .exe file!)

JohnR                                   MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


Using Switch to monitor midi activity 

From Pascal C on 2021-12-07 11:09

I'm using jOrgan version 4 beta with a few dispositions with success and sound pleasure.
I would like to find how monitoring of midi message from a midi channel (equal a one of 
the keyboard of an organ) could be configured.
For example with JL-LCA-StNicolai-AAbenraa disposition, there are a"switch" named LED-** 
per keyboard.  When a keyboard send a message, LED on the image is flashing.   But the 
LED flashing is not the one of the corresponding keyboard.  When looking in the 
disposition, there are the following :
=> Where to locade the picture for the pedal
"  <console-locationReference id="65650">
=> image to use, in the case the picture of a LED and the condition to activate/deactivate 
the LED
 "<switch id="65650">
        <switch-activate>equal 145, greater 0, greater 0</switch-activate>
        <switch-deactivate>equal 145, greater 0, equal 0</switch-deactivate>
        <switch-deactivate>equal 129, greater 0, </switch-deactivate>

How is the midi channel of a keyboard identified ?

Thanks for the support


From JohnR on 2021-12-08 06:52

On 2021-12-07 11:09, Pascal C wrote:
"How is the midi channel of a keyboard identified ?"

Hi Pascal,

The MIDI Channel numbers go from 1 to 16, as you know.
But MIDI identifies these as 0-15.

Think 144 + X  (Note ON), and 128 + X (Note OFF).
So  144 would be 144 + 0  i.e. Channel 1.
And 145 would be 144 + 1  i.e. Channel 2.

So your Pedal MIDI Channel is Channel 2.

Best wishes,


From RickW on 2021-12-08 10:01

This appears to me to be html script direct from the raw disposition file?

To me, the greatest benefit of jOrgan over all other virtual organ software is 
the GUI (Graphical User Interface) not just for playing a jOrgan disposition, 
but also for analysing, editing and creating dispositions (Construct Mode).  
Having created what I consider to be a fairly complex jOrgan disposition 
(effectively 4 manuals + Pedals & 270 Stops albeit highly unified), I have 
never needed to look at the raw html.

Are you able to find this "Element" its "Properties" and "References" in 
jOrgan "Construct" Mode?
All this you have shown here should be easy to find visually, and any editing 
you do would not need worry about missing any of the syntax characters or layout.

A trap for young players is that the jOrgan inbuilt MIDI monitoring of MIDI 
messages shows the MIDI code numbers with channel numbering starting at 1, but 
the activation codes that need to be entered into the Disposition need to be 
numbered with Channel 1 as 0.

Rick                                                                    MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


jOrgan 4.X 

From Les K on 2021-12-08 00:55

I have just successfully ported over my large theater organ disposition from 
jOrgan 3.20 on an Win7 machine to 3.21.1 on a Win 10 machine. (More on what 
I encountered and the fixes later, in case others are doing the same or are 
just interested).  I have seen that a 4.0 Beta is available and might like to 
try it, but don't want to get rid of my 3.21 which is working well.  If I 
install 4.0 Beta, will that wipe out or replace 3.21.1?  I've been doing this 
long enough that I should know, but I'm checking to make sure.  New computer, 
new OS and new jOrgan version is a lot to swallow at once! BTW What ARE the 
differences/improvements in 4.0? (Sorry I don't follow ALL the posts)

Les Knoll

From JohnB on 2021-12-08 12:10

Les, the thing you have to be careful about with 3.21.1 is the benefit of  
Fluidsynth reverb in that version.  Some think it is the better version, 
and upgrading to 4.0 Beta with Fluidsynth 2.0 might not be an improvement. 
John Beach


From JohnR on 2021-12-08 16:35

Les K wrote:I have just successfully ported over my large theater organ disposition 
from jOrgan 3.20 on an Win7 “ machine to 3.21.1 on a Win 10 machine.

Hi Les,

I was going to send in a post saying much the same as JohnB has said about 
jOrgan 4.0. However, the fact that you are using Windows 10 may alter the 
situation. There is a very long thread on the jOrgan-User Link webpage 
( which discusses “Problems with Fluidsynth 
Backends on Windows 10”. (That is the thread title).  To save you from 
wading through all of that, here is an excerpt from one of my posts there:The one clear result I came up with in these recent tests is that for this 
particular entry-level computer that I was using, if one wants to use a 
backend instead of the native dsound, the only version of jOrgan I could 
get to work was 4.0 Beta 1 (released only in 64-bit). JohnB and RickW had 
slightly more success, namely with jOrgan 3.21 or 3.21.1 , but that success 
would still have to be called “patchy”, and does not seem to line up with 
what GrahamG was expecting.

There is Windows 11 just around the corner. I feel that with any Windows 
version later than 8.1, the only safe way to run jOrgan and be confident 
of having good latency, is to use a computer with a very capable CPU, 
and not depend on the backends at all. Or if backends cannot be avoided, 
then jOrgan 4.0 beta 1 (or later) should be used, but with no guarantee 
for multi-channel audio except the normal 2-channel stereo.”

Best wishes,


From Les K on 2021-12-10 01:19          

Thanx to Dr. Mark Bugeja, John Reimer and John Beach for their informative answers to 
my questions about versions 4.X and related matters.  As far as back ends go, I only 
recently learned that they are intended to reduce latency only and do not boost sound 
quality as such.  I thought that might have been true when I did an A-B comparison with 
Dsound.  It was mentioned in posts that the best way to avoid latency issues without 
resorting to back ends is to have a strong computer.  I have always built and used gamer-
level computers for the organ since I originally used Hauptwerk and was led to believe 
it can be very CPU intensive.  Latency is no issue on this organ. It easily handles the 
Widor Toccata or more likely for me, some really quick blues riffs or Rick Wakenam solos 
from the Progressive Rock group Yes. I can't outplay it, maybe Cameron Carpenter could, 
but I don't think he's coming over any time soon :-)

3.21.1 is working just fine for me now, so I think I'll stick with it.  I do want to 
mention some pitfalls I ran into when transferring a disposition from 3.20 to 3.21.1 as 
others may run into the same things:

1.  The designation for inputs and outputs in elements such as Fluidsynth sound, 
connectors, swells, generic sounds, SAMS controllers and the like are different than in 
3.20.  They now have numbers after them.  What was Audiobox USB 96 in 3.20 may now be 
Audiobox USB 96 #12.  The problem arises in that BOTH old and new nomenclature appears 
in the selection dropdown boxes.  You may think you have the right selection, but if the 
name of your selection does not have a number after it, you will get problem messages such 
as device not available.   

2. I did have a great deal of latency when I first brought the disposition over to 3.21.1, 
but that was taken care of by lowering the Audio Buffer Size in the Fluidsynth Sound 
element to 512.  It was set way higher in the 3.20 version on Win 7 but somehow that 
worked.  512 works fine for version 3.21.1.

3.  When setting registrations, I found that not all the stops I selected would come on.  
If I played an MF registration (9-10 stops) and added a Glockenspiel, for instance, the 
Glock would not come on.  The same would happen when I added chorus reeds.  I increased 
the number of channels in the Fluidsynth sounds from 8 to 64, and that took care of it. 
Strangely enough, the number of channels reset itself to 8, but all the stops come on 
anyway, go figure.  

So everything is now OK with the new installation with a new OS, new computer and new 
jOrgan version.  I have also changed MIDI/Audio interfaces and since I am no longer using 
Creative Labs interfaces, must go with an outboard reverb.  That is in shipment now, can 
hardly wait to hook it up.

Les Knoll


From JohnB on 2021-12-10 02:57

Les, you stated, "1.  The designation for inputs and outputs in elements such as Fluidsynth 
sound, connectors, swells, generic sounds, SAMS controllers and the like are different than 
in 3.20.  They now have numbers after them.  What was Audiobox USB 96 in 3.20 may now be 
Audiobox USB 96 #12.  The problem arises in that BOTH old and new nomenclature appears in 
the selection dropdown boxes.  You may think you have the right selection, but if the name 
of your selection does not have a number after it, you will get problem messages such as 
device not available.  "
What you describe is, actually, controlled by the checkbox in View>Configuration>Preferences>
MIDI> "Cache Devices" or "Enumerate Devices."  With "Enumerate Devices" checked, you will get 
the specific # next to the name of a device.  This can be a bit confusing since the devices 
may show with and without a number, or with two different numbers. 
Also, on upgrading a disposition from one version of jOrgan to another, it may be wise to save 
an original copy under the previous version of jOrgan used since, once upgraded, it is not 
possible to open the upgraded disposition in the older version of jOrgan.  I'm not sure why 
anyone would need to revert to using an older version of jOrgan with a specific disposition 
that they don't want to upgrade, but it is possible, I guess.
Sorry to hear you have abandoned Creative Labs.  I recently purchased an Audigy RX (5.0) and 
it has soundfont capability and the complete studio for Reverb.  It sounds phenomenal!  It cost 
about $70 USD.   I have, also, mentioned that anyone having an Audigy 2 ZS soundcard can use the 
drivers and software suite for the Audigy RX (5.0).  The trick with the driver is to unzip the
downloadable driver package from Creative Labs and, MANUALLY, install the Windows 10 WDM driver 
from the "Audio" folder.  Also, you can install the ctgame driver which works in Windows 10 with 
the old DB-15 MIDI connector that is on the Audigy 2 ZS.  The sound quality from these two cards 
is, really, unsurpassed and the ability to use the Audigy RX drivers extends the life of the 
Audigy 2 ZS for the foreseeable future.   I have not allowed my PC to do an automatic upgrade to 
Windows 11, yet and am not sure that I will since it has worked so well for 6 full years. 
By the way, if anybody could test the latency on your setup, Cameron Carpenter, surely, would!!! 
Best wishes, 
John Beach


From Les K on 2021-12-10 05:33


I am not voluntarily abandoning the Creative Labs audio interface.  I also have an Audigy 5RX 
with a great sounding reverb application (EAX).  The problem arises in that my organ computer 
is now a laptop and you can't fit a Creative Labs soundcard in them!  They currently have 
outboard units available, but I don't believe that that EAX software suite we both like so 
much is available any more.                                                                             :-(

I am using a Presonus Audiobox USB 96 as my two-way MIDI interface (I have a full moveable 
combination action in my console-jOrgan controlled, hence the need for two-way MIDI) and an 
audio out is right there and available, so why not use it?  It sounds great, very clear.  
The MIDI interface was changed because I have had one too many driver problems with Midiman.  
The Presonus is state of the art and designed to work with Win 10.  It is also free from any 
latency. A 3 manual organ with manuals, stops, pedals, two swells and a register crescendo 
PLUS a programmable percussion sequencer which drives a separate Fluidsynth instance (home 
designed and built-Arduino based) is a lot for an older MIDI interface, but the Presonus 
handles it without breaking a sweat.

Les Knoll                                                                       MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


jOrgan pup live usb not showing midi devices. 

From Kevin K on 2021-12-10 18:46

Ok I have an older jOrgan pup distro on Linux.  It contains about 20 organs preinstalled 
on a live CD/USB. I find it very useful. I haven't used it for sometime though as I've 
been playing with Hauptwerk.

Today, I booted the USB and the desktop opened and I started jOrgan. However, it only 
shows Virtual MIDi. I cannot see my connected Casio or M Audio. They are connected via 
midi usb ( printer style) cables. They work fine with Hauptwerk and a midi app on iPad. 

Any ideas? 

I'm wondering if I need to use Puppy installer to install the distro to my hard drive 
then update the drivers.



From GrahamG on 2021-12-10 20:50                                                

Hi Kevin,

Does JACK show any of your MIDI devices?

Standard MIDI devices, like the Casio and M-Audio usb MIDI cables
should not need additional drivers. What happens if you plug the
cables out, and then plug them in with Puppy running but before you
load jOrgan?

Kind regards,


From John Beach on 2021-12-10 22:07

Kevin,  in View>Configuration>Preferences>jOrgan>Midi-Merger, make sure you check 
the box for each of the MIDI devices that you want to use.  jOrgan lists all the 
available instruments, but you must mark the checkbox for each that you want to use.    
That should take care of the problem.
John Beach


From Kevin J King on 2021-12-10 22:31

Thanks everyone. I'm at work so can't test this until later. I've always just found 
the device in customise, but I'll do delve a little deeper later 



From Kevin J King on 2021-12-15 02:03

Update - still no further forward. jOrgan loads and I'm able to play the notes 
on the on-screen keyboard, but no sign of any devices in the midi merger.

My hardware setting in the Linux menu shows 2 midi keyboards connected. It's a 
real mystery.

Kevin                                                   MOST RECENT POST IN THE THREAD


suggestions mixtures polyphone? 

From Jan Flikweert on 2021-12-10 22:08                                          

Hi all, 

I managed again to create mixtures using Polyphone Oktaaf 4 based.  In this case I used 
the soundfont of Burea. Of course there are others base stops possible. 

A list of specs I attached.  (Below)
Are there any suggestions/ideas about these specs? 

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert


Cymbel II (prestant)
36-47   1/5     1/6     
48-53   1/3     1/5
54-59   2/5     1/3     
60-65   2/3     2/5
66-71   4/5     2/3
72-77   1 1/3  4/5
78-83   1 3/5  1 1/3
84-96   2 2/3  1 3/5

Ruispijp II (Prestant)
Gehele klavier 36-96   2   1 1/3

Sesquialter II (Prestant)
Gehele clavier 36-96   2 2/3   1 3/5

Scherp IV (Prestant)
36-47   1       2/3   1/2   1/3
48-59   1 1/3 1      2/3   1/2  
60-71   2       1 1/3  1    2/3
72-96   2 2/3   2     1 1/3  1

Mixtuur II-VIII (Prestant)
36-41   36-47                       1 1/3  2  
42-47   48-59                1     1 1/3  2  2 2/3  
48-53   60-71         2/3  1     1 1/3  2  2 2/3  4  
54-65   72-77   ½   2/3  1     1 1/3  2  2 2/3  4    5 1/3
66-77   78-83         2/3  1     1 1/3  2  2 2/3  4    5 1/3  8
78-89   84-89                1     1 1/3  2  2 2/3  4    5 1/3  8  10 2/3
90-96   90-96                       1 1/3  2  2 2/3  4   5 1/3  8  10 2/3  16

Carillon III (Gedekt of Prestant)
36-96   4   1 3/5   1

Carillon II (Gedekt of Prestant)
36-96   2   4/5

Cornet V  (Open Fluit)  36-96   Added in Update.
Bourdon 8
Open Fluit 4
Nazard 2 2/3
Woudfluit 2
Terts 1 3/5

From Jan Flikweert on 2021-12-12 18:00                                  

Hi all, 

As a attachment I added an update from my mixtures to this mail.  (See above)

Inspired by the beautiful 1 1/3, 1 3/5, 1 1/7 Scharf and Cymbel orchestra of the Burea 
soundfont I created them based on montre on my own gig files/disposition. The goal is 
to keep the attenuation as low as possible. To illustrate I played ( not perfect) 
Silent Night from Jan Zwart with a Cymbel III.. 

Jan Zwart advises a 4 ft. But for this purpose I used the Cymbel. 

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert


From Jan Flikweerton2021-12-15 00:55

Hi all,

Is this a permitted mixture:

36-41 ______________1 1/3__2__2 2/3__4__5 1/3
42-47 ___________1__1 1/3__2__2 2/3__4
48-53 ______2/3__1__1 1/3__2__2 2/3 
54-59 __1/2_2/3__1__1 1/3__2 
60-65 ______2/3__1__1 1/3__2__2 2/3 
66-71 ___________1__1 1/3__2__2 2/3__4
72-77 ______________1 1/3__2__2 2/3__4__5 1/3 
78-83 _____________________2__2 2/3__4__5 1/3__8
84-89 _________________________2 2/3__4__5 1/3__8__10 2/3
90-96 ________________________________4__5 1/3__8__10 2/3__16

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From JohnBon2021-12-15 03:05

Jan, I believe the best source for a complete listing of mixture ranks is to be 
found in the two-volume work, "The Art of Organ Building" by George Ashdown Audsley. 
He sets forth, similarly to what you show, the footages and note compass for 
the ranks comprising mixtures for both the manuals and pedals. In constructing a 
homemade, "wishlist" of stops disposition for jOrgan, consisting of soundfonts of 
the various tone families (Diapasons, Flutes, Reeds, Mixtures and Strings), for 
the Mixtures, I used a Dulciana for the soft mixtures and a fundamental diapason 
for the other footages of ranks comprising the mixtures. I constructed ALL the 
mixtures that Audsley showed in the section on mixtures in "The Art of Organ Building." 
I think the most complex is a Plein Jeu which is constructed with a 7-rank Cymbel and 
a 5-rank Fourniture, 12 ranks in all, but the concept of "breaking back" requires 
special attention to detail. It was worth the effort. The Mixtures total 55 
different ones, including cornets. The Mixtures are constructed in the Preset Pool 
from the rank footages in the instrument pool. I have never used Polyphone's 
feature of creating mixtures. I have done them all, manually. So, I don't know 
how well Polyphone effectuates mixture creation. I think the mixture concept is 
too complex for a program, such as Polyphone, to be able to construct a particular 
type of mixture with the proper break-backs, automatically.

I am systematic with respect to the creation of soundfonts, using a wave-file 
identification system which allows for easy importation and substitution of one 
wave file or the complete set of wave files which comprise a group of footages of 
a particular organ voice. So, for example, for the mixtures, I could substitute 
a different set or quality of diapason or dulciana, wave files affecting the entire 
soundfont. It is very efficient.

John Beach


From Jan Flikweert on 2021-12-15 04:15


I can create a test mixture with Polyphone and place it on Google Drive. I will use 
the octave 4 from Burea. I believe that has no problem with copyright. 

And will have a look at the books of George Ashdown Audsley. 

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert


From Jan Flikweert on 2021-12-15 04:37


I imported  octave 4 files. I let polyphone apply the corrections it calculates an create 
an instrument. On that base I created the mixture. Download here: 

Kind regards
Jan Flikweert

From Jan Flikweert on 2021-12-15 20:25

Hi all, 

I removed the source instrument and samples Octave 4 from this soundfont.  The new file 
can be downloaded here: 

I did not clean the source with SPEAR and the attenuation can be lower. Mostly I 
normalize to -30 db. 

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert


From Jan Flikweert on 2021-12-15 23:25

Hi all, 

I placed a short video on Google Drive how to create mixtures with Polyphone. 
It can be downloaded here: 

Unfortunate the video recording crashed. Af the moment of crash the preset, instrument 
and samples of the mixture are created and can be saved. 

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert


From Chris Pearson on 2021-12-17 03:21

Hi, Jan

I have used this as one source of information when building mixtures in Viena  (one n).
Chris P


From Jan Flikweert on 2021-12-17 07:18


That is a really rich organ. I think they fill repeating ranks with base ranks. Which unit 
do they use for ranks?  F.e. 

SCHARF IV-VII                     337 Pipes
22 -      26 -      29 -      33 =  6 notes 

What does 22-26-29-33 mean? 

Kind regards,
Jan Flikweert


From JohnB on 2021-12-17 13:24

The 22nd is the 1 foot rank, the 26th is the tierce above that, 4/5', 
the 29th is the 1/2' octave and the 33 is the tierce above that 2/5'. 
John Beach


From Jan Flikweert on 2021-12-17 16:24

Hi all, 

Thanks. And in Polyphone you can choose fiftheenth and all other theen. 

Kind regards,
Jan Fl.


From JohnB on 2021-12-17 19:27

Jan, in English, our ordinal numbers (first, (exception, second, NOT  twoth as zweite ) 
third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, etc., derive the form 
from German;  erste, dritte, vierte, fuenfte,  etc.   The second may derive from Latin/French, 
although the French distinguish second (deuxième, cardinal) from Segond,  and a seconde, 
in time.
It was all the contributing factors of the Romans, Celts, Angles and Saxons, Danes and 
Normans that make English an absolute nightmare to figure out.  It is good to be a native 
speaker.  But, to this day, when I hear or read errors in English grammar, I can not help 
noticing them immediately.  I suspect that is an altruism of most native speakers who have 
been taught the grammar of their languages correctly.   Although I have much Dutch heritage, 
I had great difficulty with a course in Dutch from Radio Hilversum more than 60 years ago.  
I can read a bit, but it is too different from either English or German to intuit it without 
John Beach


From JohnR on 2021-12-17 22:33

On 2021-12-15 00:55, Jan Flikweert wrote:
"Is this a permitted mixture:"


The make-up of Mixtures is a complex subject, and a five-rank Mixture such as you have 
suggested would, I think, be very uncommon, partly on the basis of its very regular 
patterns. I make this statement quite apart from any "undesirable" features which 
certainly would be questioned by many pipe organ builders. The II-VIII rank Mixture 
which you have included in your first post illustrates this. It certainly has very 
regular patterns, but it applies them in surprising ways - two ranks only in Octave 1, 
and eight ranks in the top octave. There must be some reasons for this, and whatever 
they are, I suspect that your suggested Mixture does not take account of them.

I do not know of any authoritative source that lays down rules for Mixtures. I searched 
in two or three of my books, and did not find any reference to such a source. However, 
I read enough to show me that your scheme does have what many builders would regard as 
"undesirable features", namely the presence of the 5 1/3, 10 2/3, and 16 foot ranks. 
Because the Mixture would normally be used along with at least one 8' stop, the 5 1/3 
rank would produce a soft resultant at 16' pitch. (This would not matter if a 16' stop 
was also drawn along with the 8'). But in the case of the top octave, the 10 2/3 foot 
rank along with the 16', would produce a soft resultant of pitch 32'!

I can assure you that such resultants are audible. It happens on my BROADWAY disposition, 
where I simply followed the scheme used by the builder. But when one plays from notes 
below the section where such ranks are introduced, through into notes of that section, 
it can be noticed.

At times your scheme has three off-unison ranks (such as 2 2/3, 1 1/3, 2/3) along with 
only two unison ranks (such as 8, 4, 2, 1, 1/2). I got the impression from one of my 
books that such a situation should be avoided.

Best wishes,


From Jan Flikweert on 2021-12-17 23:51

Hi ,


Due to size limit sent personal.


I found these things:


Cavaille Coll Notre Dame Paris Fourniture Harmonique II-V










5 1/3


10 2/3

2 2/3


5 1/3



2 2/3


5 1/3



2 2/3





2 2/3


Cavaille Coll Notre Dame Paris Cymbale Harmonique II-V









2 2/3

2 2/3

2 2/3

2 2/3