A comparison of different expression devices in pipe organs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the introduction of the orchestra crescendo at the end of the 18th century by the ‘‘Mannheim school,’’ the ability to play the organ expressively like an orchestra was one of the organ builders’ greatest concerns. Soon, both the wind swell and door swell came into fashion, and later another swell system, the crescendo wheel, was introduced. While both door swell and crescendo wheel can be successfully applied to all types of organ stops, the wind swell only works well with free reeds for tuning reasons. In this investigation, all three swell systems were measured on various instruments and compared to each other. In addition, two free-reed pipes were measured at the Northern Illinois University using a laser vibrometer. The crescendo wheel was found to be most effective, and for frequencies around 2 kHz the increase in sound-pressure level could be up to 50 dB between the softest and the loudest adjustment. The maximum dynamic range for the wind and the door swells is approximately 10 dB in the same frequency range. While the dynamic range is lower for the wind swell and the door swell, their advantage is the continuous variability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".