Comparing the relative advantages of pneumato‐ and electroacoustic sources for organ tone radiation in churches

Abstract

The variety which exists within church architectural design, in liturgical forms of worship, in the relative location of church organs and the worshippers, and even in the structures (or lack thereof) which organ builders have provided in the immediate vicinity of the organ tone radiators, suggests that there is probably more than one aesthetically acceptable means for radiating organ tone into worship space. Yet some adherents to the traditional maintain that there is only one acceptable means for radiating organ tone, i.e., pneumatoacoustic. This analysis assumes (1) that equivalent room acoustics and tone source locations are provided for either pneumator‐ or electroacoustic tone radiators; and (2) that electrical input signals are provided to electroacoustic tone radiators which include the transient, spectral and modulation contributions to the tone by the traditional air stream interaction with a pipe resonator. What acoustical advantages and disadvantages remain for the two different types of tone radiation means?