Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-sally.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!crandell
From: crandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Random stuff...
Message-ID: <2846@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 04:12:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.2846
Posted: Mon Sep  9 04:12:13 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Sep-85 04:13:02 EDT
References: <253@argus.UUCP> <7000005@petrus.UUCP> <1345@hound.UUCP> <1264@teddy.UUCP> <1349@hound.UUCP>
Reply-To: crandell@sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell)
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 21

In article <1349@hound.UUCP> rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) writes:
>I, for one, don't get up tight, when misquoted and misinterpreted.
>Those who wish to listen to organ music at 85 db or less are perfectly free
>to do so.  I, and probably most others, will continue to reproduce it at the
>original levels, when possible. These are frequentlt well in excess of 90 db.-

You're referring to the Royal Albert Hall organ, of course.  [:-)]

Down to brass tacks (NPI), a realistic level depends on the particular
instrument, not to mention the position of the listener.  I well remember
having to stuff cotton in my ears while regulating the Great Superoctave and
Mixture -- buried deep in a swell box (on the rear wall, in fact) -- of
an old and extensively kluged Austin.  Such a horrendous screeching I've
never before or since heard in an instrument of that period (ca. 1918).
But the sound in the church was another matter entirely; oddly enough,
it wasn't bad at all.  Incidentally, nothing on that small three-manual
organ came to anything like 90 dB from the congregation's vantage point.
-- 

    Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin
               {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell