Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The pargraph about the method must be added including research desing, questions and hypothesis. It is improtant for the scientific character of the study.
2. All the graphic, photo and scores examples (Figures) should be described with information about their author and source.
3. There is a mistake in the name in Bibliography: there is: Kądziołka Tomasz, Kowalski, Słwomir, should be Kowalski, Sławomir.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review!

Naturally, the errors will be corrected, thank you for pointing them out.

My only concern is in regards to #1, as there is a very simple hypothesis: the organ in its traditional form lacks of many possibilities in terms of sound effects and means of artistic expression but these can be achieved through the use of a special control system which I have designed, built and programmed. I thought it was too obvious and too simple to need a specific description, it follows directly from the sole title of the article. Although, following your advice, I will try to form a few hypothesis-like sentences for clarification.
Also the methodology and research design are extremely simple: several organ works (including improvisations) have been recorded with the use of newly discovered means and these recordings were subjected to perceptual analysis, as well as a simplified spectral analysis (for "scientific" proof of their factual existence). I decided it was too simple to describe separately. If it is an issue, again: I'll add a very simple description.

Again, thank you for your valuable opinion on my work!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is difficult to make a final assessment of the result of this project as it relates to the sound of the instrument which is not available for review. Whilst there is limited research regarding the effect of organ actions, it is very relevant to this project. The fundamental flaw on which the project is based makes it difficult to follow the recommended format closely.

This review is divided into two distinct sections:

1. A review of the organ as it currently exists
2. A description of the proposed Mechatronic key action.

The organ as it exists.

The organ has existed in a recognisable form for six hundred or more years, and arguably reached a degree of maturity in the Baroque era. The instrument at that time was purely mechanical in operation for the simple reason that there was no alternative. Early organs have survived largely intact because the mechanism is simple and reliable, and can be maintained relatively easily by a competent person. There was a limit to the size of instruments because of the need to keep the forces at the key within acceptable limits although it had to accepted that a large instrument resulted in key forces that would be considered unacceptable in a smaller organ. With the advent of the industrial revolution, pneumatic actions became common and allowed the console to be removed from the main part of the instrument and allowed for lighter key forces. They remained relatively simple and readily repairable though less so than a purely mechanical action, although any failure during a performance could be problematic. The discovery of electricity was rapidly applied to the organ allowing for almost complete flexibility in layout. The early electric actions relied on electromagnets which had limited availability. Modern actions tend to use standard components from a number of well-established supply houses, and maintenance is fairly straightforward. Whatever the simplicity or complexity of the action, it’s purpose is to sound pipes repeatably, reliably and predictably when a key is depressed.

The Author states at lines 107-110 that “the goal of aforementioned mechanisms was to enable control over the displacement of the pallets (reinstating the main advantage of the traditional tracker action, brought nearly to perfection in the Baroque period)”. This is incorrect, and basing the whole project on this statement renders it fundamentally flawed.

There are two main reasons why the pallet of a mechanical action organ cannot be controlled:

1. When a note is not sounding, the pallet valve (1 in Fig 4) is held shut by a wire compass spring (2 in Fig 4) and also the force of the compressed air in the wind chest on the bottom of the pallet which has atmospheric pressure air above it. As the pallet starts to open, the pressures above and below it equalise and the force at the key reduces. Comfortable key forces are considered to be 60 to 80 grams to key the key depressed and an additional 60 to 80 grams to start it moving. This phenomenon is called pluck because it is analogous to the feeling of plucking a string on a harpsichord. It has also been likened to pushing a finger through a thin sheet of ice. The sudden reduction in key force makes it virtually impossible to control the movement of the finger beyond the pluck point. It also reduces the risk of playing adjacent notes accidentally due to the initial higher force. A slow key movement may result in the pipe sounding later but will not affect the transient although the effect of the timing difference may well be audible and misinterpreted. Computers etc have artificial key click to aid accurate keying (tactile feedback and reduced risk of moving adjacent keys). To understand the effect of pluck further, try stopping a finger from the hitting the key bed where there is significant key click. Variations in key movement do not affect what appears on the screen. A very light key click tends to lead to a lot of mis-keyings.

 

2. The key is connected to the pallet by a series of linkages – trackers, stickers squares and rollers along with associated bushings of various materials - which have to allow for a comfortable force at the key and, except in the very smallest organs, therefore cannot be total rigid. When a key is depressed, the components twist, stretch, compress and bend etc until enough energy is stored to overcome pluck. This can be up two thirds of the way down the key travel. At this point the pallet suddenly opens due to the reduced force on the bottom of the pallet due to pluck and “catches up” with the rest of the action thus removing any possibility of control of the pallet by the key.

 

The Organ Reform Movement in the early 20^th century urged a move back to some of the perceived advantages of organs from the Baroque era. The return to mechanical action was reports to be one of these as it was widely “believed” that it allowed the player to control the transients and that this was “fundamental to organ playing”. Measurements have been taken of Doctoral performance students playing a reproduction of a large Baroque organ in a number of styles that they were convinced were affecting the transients. The results showed that there was no difference measurable at the pipe but there were very distinct variations in rhythm and timing in order to introduce a degree of expression. The only difference in pallet movement occurred between the finger starting in contact with the key or from slightly above it. Even then the difference was not always audible when reproduced even to the original player. Aspects of the construction of Baroque organs indicate that players always played with their fingers in contact with the key and the Reviewer has been unable to obtain any evidence that transient control was recognised in the Baroque era. The players are taught to use systematic rhythmic sequences in order to introduce expression.

There have been a number of fully proportional action over the years, both pneumatic and electric. Henry Willis patented the Floating Lever in 1884 although it was not widely adopted. In this Reviewer’s experience, many of the installations of recent electric variants also have artificial pluck superimposed on the keys, as is common with simple electric keyboards. As explained above, this immediately negates the effect of the proportional action as the key suddenly drops uncontrollably through the ’pluck’ point. The lack of success of proportional actions may be that they attempted to introduce something that had never been a characteristic of the organ and produced undesirable sounds.

Many recent large “mechanical action” organs have subsidiary electric actions for a number of stated reasons. The curators invariably report that the electric actions are almost exclusively used.

Pipes are voiced for a specific stable speaking pressure and the organ as it has evolved must be considered to be a fundamentally inherently inexpressive instrument. Where possible on small organs slow transients are often subjectively considered “unmusical”.

What is subjectively very clear is that, within limits, pluck gives players good tactile feedback and mechanical actions still work very well in smaller organs.

Expression is achieved by separating the organ into several divisions with separate keyboards, different types of pipes producing different sounds, different pitches of pipes in order to build up a chorus according to the harmonic series, tremulants and swell boxes. The player can use rhythmic and timing variations as noted above.

On large early organs, stops were changed by human Registrants sometimes one on each side. The advance in technology led to mechanised systems being introduced and even on modern mechanical key action organs computerised stop changing systems are sometimes used in order to aid expressive playing. The issue is that whereas the playing action might have a life expectancy of one hundred years, the computer systems will have to be replaced every ten years or so at significant expense assuming that the hardware and software is available. If the computer operated system simply assists a conventional stop control system, then the effects of failure may be reduced in the short term.

In the 1930s, Henry Willis introduced the Infinite Gradation Swell Pedal in order to ensure that that the swell shutters could be firmly closed. The pedal determined the speed of movement of the shutters rather than their position. It radically changed the way the organist had to play and was not widely used.

The layout of the computer keyboard goes back to the early days of the typewriter and was intended to slow the rate of typing to prevent hammers getting jammed. If designed today it would be different and more efficient but the current layout is so well established that it would be exceedingly difficult to implement. National differences between keyboard layouts cause problems.

Whilst it has always encompassed new technology, the organ has reached a degree of maturity that allows players to move between instruments with minimum relearning (position and layout of keyboards, combination aids and swell pedals etc), as is the case with the majority of musical instruments. Organs are expected to last for a hundred or more years and have to operate reliably and maintainably over that period.

The Mechatronic Programmable Key Action Control System

This project relates to variations of the sound of the organ. Audible samples are not available for assessment. The Author presents graphs that show that variation is taking place but it is not possible to make any subjective view of the result.

It is, however, possible to make general comments about the content.

As explained above, transient control is not a characteristic of the traditional pipe organ in any form despite widely held beliefs, indeed transient variation is generally considered “unmusical” because pipes are voiced for steady speech. Organ music to date has been written on this basis and, whilst one might speculate about how music might have been written with access to such a system, this is a new interpretation of the composers’ work.

As this form of transient control has never existed before, the author is proposing an entirely new musical instrument with fundamental characteristics that have never been available before. This is not in itself an issue as there have been many new instruments over the years.

The issue is concentrating its introduction on combining it with an instrument where these characteristics are alien and incompatible.

The author does not speculate on life expectancy of the electro-mechanical elements of the system but general experience suggests ten years maximum and assumes a long- term supply of the components. These are likely to be expensive unlike the standardised and (relatively) cheap and widely available magnets currently widely used in electropneumatic and electric action organs. No cost is indicated.

Double touch keys have used on many cinema organs in order to allow a solo to be played on the same keyboard as an accompaniment. They have never been applied to classical organs where solos are played on a separate division.

The system is connected to a traditional windchest and pipe system. This is expensive and has a life expectancy of, say, one hundred years. There is, therefore, a large difference in the life expectancy of the two major elements of the system.

There is no obvious reason why the system should be limited to one musical instrument. Perhaps the way forward is to use digitally generated musical sounds of a wide range of musical instruments, which can include the organ. Then, rather than using mechanical hardware, the effect can be produced entirely by software. This will reduce the cost of both elements of the system substantially and also align the life expectancy of the elements. The resultant sounds may also be more musical than playing organ pipes or other instruments in a way in which they were never intended to be played.

The literature suggests that the organ is experiencing a difficult time in terms of the number of new classical instruments being produced. In order to survive against competition from much cheaper alternatives the way forward may be to simplify and standardise it’s mechanism and construction methods without sacrificing any of it’s traditional qualities, thus significantly reducing costs.

The Reviewer considers that this paper describes a potentially very expensive curiosity that has little musical value in its currently proposed form.

Line 285 – replace ‘Then’ with ‘The’. The paper is written clearly in very good English.

Author Response

My reply to the review should begin with an explanation: many of the reviewer's statements suggest misunderstanding of the major idea on which my research is based and its exact matter. It is understandable since there were no audio samples provided, although it was not intentional - the internet reference (URL) to the audio recordings in fact has been included by me in the article but it turned out to be removed / redacted due to the fact that the link, as well as the file names, comprised my personal information, which naturally should be concealed for the review process. This was my oversight, although I wasn't aware of it as I wasn't informed that this fragment should be corrected and that the essential data has been removed. Alas, this led to the reviewer's misunderstanding the main idea and recognition of my assumptions as generally flawed. In my opinion, my general idea is not flawed but naturally it is difficult to describe it and understand it thoroughly without audio recordings as a reference. This lapse resulted from my oversight and poor information flow during the editorial process.

The reviewer provides a brief analysis of the instrument as it exists, which I find irrelevant to the topic, as my project is an experiment which led to discovery of novel means of artistic expression in organ music / sound never achieved before, not an attempt to improve existing artistic means / existing methods of instrument construction. There's a claim that the pipe organ "arguably reached a degree of maturity in the Baroque era", which in my opinion is only true if certain scope of the concept is being considered - it can't be understood as an universal outlook because the instrument, after Baroque era, was evolving further as it is still evolving today; always in accordance with the requirements of respective style and, on the other hand, incessantly providing facilities for the organist and new possibilities in music creation which to some extent lead to evolution of organ music itself.

The review says: "The Author states at lines 107-110 that <<the goal of aforementioned mechanisms was to enable control over the displacement of the pallets (reinstating the main advantage of the traditional tracker action, brought nearly to perfection in the Baroque period)>>. This is incorrect, and basing the whole project on this statement renders it fundamentally flawed." - this reviewer's statement suggests a misunderstanding of my idea and the article text at this point. First, it is unclear WHICH part of my statement is allegedly incorrect, whereas all the parts seem to be in fact correct: precise control over the pallet displacement *is* generally considered an advantage among organists (although I sincerely doubt that the tracker action provides such control - it seems to be more like a psychological effect than a true physical phenomenon; but it is not a matter of my research), the proportional action *does* "try" to reinstate it in modern non-tracker organs (perhaps even in a "better version" - I don't really believe in the success of it either), and the tracker action *has been* brought [nearly] to perfection in the Baroque era (however it's a relative concept requiring exact scope definition). Second and finally: the quoted fragment is NOT a description of base of my project, it is an introduction which describes already existing so-called "proportional" as a comparison to my completely new idea which is totally different in its assumptions. I personally consider the "proportional" action an unnecessary gimmick, maybe except for the fact that the pallet can be closed much more rapidly than with the use of a "traditional" spring; but again - it is not a subject of my research and my opinion on it is completely irrelevant in juxtaposition with the article's topic. However I agree that I should have emphasized that the mentioned "degree of control" in tracker action is a common, popular opinion, not a scientific fact. This clarification should and will appear in my text for clarification and to prevent the spread of false beliefs. The example here can be the research of Mr Alan G. Woolley which I quote often, I'm familiar with and I totally agree on. The results show that the alleged transient control provided by tracker action is just a myth. I certainly should have mentioned that in my article. I will correct this mistake.

Furthermore: my claim "the goal of aforementioned mechanisms was to enable control over the displacement of the pallets" is correct, because the purpose of such type of action is to re-enable the degree of control which is [believed to be] natural to the mechanical (tracker) action but has been lost in electromagnetic systems; the goal of proportional action's inventors was to preserve two very desirable features: high degree of sound control (from the keyboard level) and the detachment of the organ console - features that could not exist simultaneously before. The question whether the tracker action REALLY provides such control that the effect would be audible at all is of course valid but it is not the subject of my research. The proportional action is not my invention and assumptions quoted above are not mine, to determine whether they're based on facts or on false beliefs is not the matter of my considerations.

It is worth to emphasize that the proportional action (or its derivatives) is NOT a base of my idea, quite the contrary, as I intentionally give up on a "dynamic" keyboard - in my invention, the precise control over the pallet displacement is REALLY achieved, because it is assigned to the autonomic mechatronic modules which guarantee sufficient step resolution and repeatability of desired (designed) sound effect; all with no effort from the organist during the performance.

The reviewer then explains why high degree of sound control is impossible in tracker action. I agree with all the observations but I don't find this quite large fragment necessary here, as my goal was to overcome all the mentioned problems and I successfully achieved it. My project involves precise, rigid control through the use of stepper motor modules located immediately to the pallets. A fine adjustment of each pallet can be done in order to establish the 'zero point' and eliminate any linkage backlash. The step resolution allows for maintaining gaps as fine as 0,5mm at the frontmost edge of the pallet. With such a narrow clearance a significant pressure loss occurs (of course with at least one stop enabled) and the effect is very clearly audible. It is especially distinct for example in the Ligeti's Etude provided in the additional materials which I will of course include again in a proper form. To conclude: regardless of the discussion on the existence of precise keyboard control over the pallets in the Baroque organs and regardless of my or anyone's opinion or common beliefs, the fact is that such control is NOW possible and results in very interesting audible effects, a few of which I described in my paper.

"Pipes are voiced for a specific stable speaking pressure and the organ as it has evolved must be considered to be a fundamentally inherently inexpressive instrument." - this is the reviewer's personal opinion which I think should not appear here. As an artist, I don't recognize "a must" in art. If it were a fact or a rule, research, inventions and experiments would be prohibited, as well as music for prepared instruments, yet such music is well known and there are many enthusiasts of this style. A piano is inherently an instrument in which expression is achieved through the use of hammers - if this were a must, compositors such well known and respected John Cage would be prosecuted for destruction of property instead of praised for experimentation in the field of musical art. Of course, organ pipes ARE voiced and tuned for a specific and stable pressure - I do not argue with that! Moreover - that is *exactly* what I exploit in my project - breaking the stability in a controlled way (with freely designed ADSR-like envelopes) leads to extremely interesting effects that can be used as full-fledged means of artistic expression, some of which I present in my improvisations (based on these effects) as well as I propose for Baroque music (not just any in a thoughtless way but carefully 'crafted' vocal effects as an implementation of some musical performance rudiments described by Baroque experts such as Mattheson, Quantz etc.).

"Where possible on small organs slow transients are often subjectively considered “unmusical”." - that's because in a traditional organ they result from a design flaw and aren't accurately controllable or aren't controllable at all - this is opposed to my idea which is based on exact, automated and programmable control not demanding any unusual technique from the player. For example: Ligeti's Etude begins with an instruction how to prepare the instrument which involves (sometimes far-reaching) modifications of the wind supply system EXACTLY in order to achieve abnormal sound - it seems not only I come up with the idea of utilizing those normally unwanted phenomena. With my system no modification is needed - the pallet controllers do the job flawlessly and provide more control over the dynamics (still based on transients). It is clearly audible in the recording.

"The issue is that whereas the playing action might have a life expectancy of one hundred years, the computer systems will have to be replaced every ten years or so at significant expense assuming that the hardware and software is available." - with all the respect, this statement proves lack of understanding the technology I use in my electronic and mechatronic designs. I find it very difficult to reply to this because that claim is very far from reality (perhaps it's based on the reviewer's experience with really badly designed electronics). First of all, none of the electronic devices in my projects should be called "computer systems". There's a definite difference between a computer system and an embedded system (used mostly in industrial applications, with no operational system or with a simple real-time OS). I have no idea where the "ten years or so" expectancy could possibly come from... I professionally design, physically build and create software for organ control systems for over 15 years now, my systems run many organs (including the first wirelessly connected organ ensemble in my country) and I have never had to replace any of them, nor there was any major failure that would disable the whole instrument (all of a few minor failures resulted from lightning strikes or unauthorized interferences in the system). It is an industrial-grade design with low-level written embedded software (sometimes even in assembly language), not a home computer running a common unstable operating system. I.e.: unlike all companies I know, for combination memory I NEVER use "flash" chips because they tend to wear out within years, I use ferromagnetic non-volatile RAM instead due to its reliability and estimated data retention of over 100 years. Also what does "high expense" mean? First, it's again a relative notion, second: the hardware itself is not expensive when cleverly designed (and it shouldn't be, I financed the project from my personal savings). Due to intellectual property rights, I cannot disclose specific examples, however I can assure that the opinion of low life expectancy and high cost of electronic elements in organ is either incorrect or based on really bad examples. About the availability of hardware: my systems utilize a very, very common microcontrollers and extremely common TTL chips which are available since 1970s and (despite the evolution of their technology) are still produced today and WILL be produced for a long time because they are fundamental in all digital electronics. I use no custom integrated circuits. About software: all my clients are provided with a backup of compiled firmware with the rights to replicate it when needed after 10-year warranty period. Again - the reviewer's personal opinion on the issue apparently is not based on sources including proper reliable designs. I strongly disagree with it.
Regardless of all of that, I consider any statements about costs, life expectancy of the systems or their complexity / availability completely irrelevant to the topic of my research. None of those should interfere with research in art - my goal was to achieve new means of artistic expression in a pipe organ, not to invent new ways to optimize costs or reliability of organ building technologies.

"If the computer operated system simply assists a conventional stop control system, then the effects of failure may be reduced in the short term." - the first prototype system that I designed was just like this - to assist, not to disable the organ in case of a failure. But there was never a failure... Again - even if the devices were prone to failures, it does not affect legitimacy of any research of new musical possibilities.

"In the 1930s, Henry Willis introduced the Infinite Gradation Swell Pedal in order to ensure that that the swell shutters could be firmly closed. The pedal determined the speed of movement of the shutters rather than their position. It radically changed the way the organist had to play and was not widely used." - Does it mean that Willis shouldn't have even tried to improve the instrument? Does it mean that he did not achieve interesting results in terms of musical means? I think this idea was valuable in terms of the field development, as well as is every other experiment / research concluded with an interesting result.

"The layout of the computer keyboard goes back to the early days of the typewriter and was intended to slow the rate of typing to prevent hammers getting jammed. If designed today it would be different and more efficient but the current layout is so well established that it would be exceedingly difficult to implement. National differences between keyboard layouts cause problems." - I don't find this example relevant - again, it's a personal, biased opinion. I know people who use Dvorak layout because they can, because they find it more interesting, or just faster, more comfortable... Whatever the reason - SOME people use things that deviate from the standard. Research and development do not rely on following majority and repeating estabilished patterns. I'm not sure of the reviewer's intentions but one can get an impression that in their opinion it is highly inappropriate to make any progressive changes in any fields because it would break standards or could make majority confused. I disagree with such attitude and I still think of my research as legitimate.

"Whilst it has always encompassed new technology, the organ has reached a degree of maturity that allows players to move between instruments with minimum relearning (position and layout of keyboards, combination aids and swell pedals etc), as is the case with the majority of musical instruments. Organs are expected to last for a hundred or more years and have to operate reliably and maintainably over that period." - again, the example of a prepared piano: is it expected to last for hundreds of years? Or is the relearning / player's convenience an argument against experimenting and discovering new musical possibilities in the instrument? Some of my clients themselves requested interesting features not seen in any other organ - I don't think forcing everyone to restrict to the standard is the right thing to do in arts as well as in science.

"As explained above, transient control is not a characteristic of the traditional pipe organ in any form despite widely held beliefs" - I agree that a clarification should be made - I described the transient control as a fact but I should describe it as a common belief, however it is an important belief that, among others, led to the invention of the "proportional" action.

"Indeed transient variation is generally considered “unmusical” because pipes are voiced for steady speech. Organ music to date has been written on this basis and, whilst one might speculate about how music might have been written with access to such a system, this is a new interpretation of the composers’ work." - I agree with this opinion and that is what I intended - "vocal" effects used in Bach's choral preludes are based on my *speculations* which originate from Baroque treaties; naturally, it's a form of an experiment, not a claim that anyone must or should now perform Bach's music with this (new) interpretation.

"As this form of transient control has never existed before, the author is proposing an entirely new musical instrument with fundamental characteristics that have never been available before. This is not in itself an issue as there have been many new instruments over the years." - if the reviewer sees mechatronic-action organ as an entirely new instrument, then each device in organ building history that provides new sound effects makes a new instrument, i.e.: the invention of tremolo, swellbox, adjustable pressure windchest... Yet, I have never heard anyone discriminating organ-like instruments upon VARIOUS features they have. Despite of fundamentally new characteristics of the action I proposed, I don't agree the instrument is entirely new, as it operates in "traditional" mode as well, according to the organist's will. It just has new possibilities that can be utilized or not. Moreover, the technique does not change at all either - the pallet displacement envelope has to be designed BEFORE the play and does not affect the use of keyboards. Only the envelope time-base can be adjusted with, let's say, a standard pedal or a roller just like "echo" or "crescendo".

"The issue is concentrating its introduction on combining it with an instrument where these characteristics are alien and incompatible." - I find this opinion definitely unjustified. This line of reasoning implies that using tremolo is also alien to organ, as well as playing staccato, for example. The mechatronic action allows just this but automated, with no effort from the player. When a flutist uses modern techniques (such as multiphonics, whisper tones, wind tones etc.) to make a sound that is "alien" to the style "everyone" is used to - is it considered an issue or making a new instrument? The reviewer's extraordinary reluctance to search and the desire to end the pipe organ development history once for all is striking but definitely not objective - therefore I explain my point of view and I will hold on to my opinion that is: pipe organ is an instrument that is not completed in its evolution and there is still much to discover; no breakthrough should be discredited as "alien" just because something wasn't possible before or something wasn't designed to work the new way; things that were considered flaws don't necessarily have to be avoided, instead - sometimes they can be exploited in order to achieve new possibilities. 

"The author does not speculate on life expectancy of the electro-mechanical elements of the system but general experience suggests ten years maximum and assumes a long- term supply of the components. These are likely to be expensive unlike the standardized and (relatively) cheap and widely available magnets currently widely used in electropneumatic and electric action organs. No cost is indicated." - Once again: the life expectancy DOES NOT AFFECT the findings in the field of musical means. Not to mention - ten years is definitely not a general experience, unless one only deals with extremely bad quality products, which is quite alarming... I can assure that my devices comprise high quality and widely available parts (as a company we estimate the MTBF of our systems for at least 40 years, excluding externally caused failures). It is a common knowledge that stepper motors are very reliable and basic standard parts are extremely easily obtainable - it's a matter of design principles and any person reading my article can know that - I included some of the technical data in my article. But first of all - none of those practical or economical factors are topic of my considerations (otherwise I wouldn't apply the paper to the ARTS magazine) nor they should affect any of the research. This is not a commercially oriented paper, it is about discovering new means of artistic expression in organ music.

"Double touch keys have used on many cinema organs in order to allow a solo to be played on the same keyboard as an accompaniment. They have never been applied to classical organs where solos are played on a separate division." - yet still cinema organs are called 'organs'. Regardless - the fact that something has never been applied widely has absolutely nothing to do with legitimacy of research. Let me repeat - the purpose of my research is not to conquer the market or create a new standard. It is about new ways the pipes can sound in pipe organ, no matter whether anyone "buys" it or creates music for it or makes a standard out of it. It is just a research on sound and means of expression.

"The system is connected to a traditional windchest and pipe system. This is expensive and has a life expectancy of, say, one hundred years. There is, therefore, a large difference in the life expectancy of the two major elements of the system." - my rhetorical question would be: what is life expectancy of elements made of leather in a pneumatic organ compared to their windchests? Anyway, even if the life expectancy of my system was merely a month but I still made discoveries - does make these discoveries invalid or does it make the research groundless?

"There is no obvious reason why the system should be limited to one musical instrument. Perhaps the way forward is to use digitally generated musical sounds of a wide range of musical instruments, which can include the organ. Then, rather than using mechanical hardware, the effect can be produced entirely by software. This will reduce the cost of both elements of the system substantially and also align the life expectancy of the elements. The resultant sounds may also be more musical than playing organ pipes or other instruments in a way in which they were never intended to be played."
Primarily I am an organist and, like many other organists, I consider ideas such as "better go for a digitally generated organ" personally insulting. A digital organ IS in fact a completely different instrument because it has no pipes and it should not be called "pipe organ", maybe an emulator at most! 
The analogy would be "instead of research on acoustic instruments, let's make digital audio equipment because it can provide more effects, it's cheaper and easier to program and it's convenient - people won't have to go to philharmonic for concerts".
My field of research is NOT algorithms for sound processing but PHYSICAL acoustics in this case and the very gist is *exactly* to demonstrate how pipes sound when controlled in a way they were never intended to be played because it produces interesting results. Just because transients have never been controlled and sounded bad, doesn't mean they will sound bad when properly controlled thanks to a device that someone finally designed, built and implemented.

"The literature suggests that the organ is experiencing a difficult time in terms of the number of new classical instruments being produced. In order to survive against competition from much cheaper alternatives the way forward may be to simplify and standardize it’s mechanism and construction methods without sacrificing any of it’s traditional qualities, thus significantly reducing costs". I strongly disagree that refraining from research and standardize everything is the way of surviving the crisis, quite the contrary: for many years I was experiencing the phenomenon of building organs from standardized parts and sadly, I observed their deteriorating quality (mostly from two leading European manufacturers - from which one went bankrupt quite recently); each of the instruments looks similar, sounds similar, has no individual character and is extremely boring, especially for the player. Of course, some factors should be standardized, such as console dimensions (such as established by AGO od BDO), voltages used for magnets or actuators, system polarity (low-side or high-side drivers), blower flow, motor wattage, angular speed or slip etc. but one of the most important traits of pipe organ is their individuality, which would be killed by excessive standardization. In context of this - the idea of Orgelpark in Amsterdam would be totally nonsensical, yet one can call it a research facility.
In context of the crisis in organ-building craft, research and inventions like the one described in my article are a chance, not an imminence. The remedy would be making organs more interesting and individual, not more standard, similar and boring.

The Reviewer considers that this paper describes a potentially very expensive curiosity that has little musical value in its currently proposed form.
- the stepper motor module (base of the project) is quite well described in the paper - it's not difficult to prove that the cost of a single module can be comparable with a standard pallet magnet (i.e. obtained from Otto Heuss GMBH) or at most insignificantly higher, which in my opinion the reviewer should have estimated before forming such a statement. My project is in fact a curiosity which it was meant to be - I'm glad that a lot of curious results came out of the research on it. "A little musical value" is a subjective opinion, especially if someone didn't have the opportunity to listen to the recordings (I sincerely apologize for that - this mistake will be repaired).

To sum my reply up - I'm grateful for bringing to my attention two essential problems with my article: no clarification on the beliefs associated with tracker action and lack of the recordings which are crucial in this case. I will do my best to correct my work. I will also allow myself to stick to my opinion regarding the nature and the purpose of my research, as well as the interpretation of the results.

Thank you for the review!

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary:

This paper presents a creative and engaging exploration of what have been considered until recent years to be the limits of the organ’s expressive capacities, limits that arise from because of the separation between the control the key strike and the organ’s air supply.  Through analysis of a mechatronic key action system, the author explores how altered mechanical behavior at the key level can influence airflow, and by extension, musical expression. The paper’s cental contribution lies in proposing new ways of facilitating sound changes through performer gesture and the means of sound production themselves. Overall the topic is relevant to intersections between current discussions in organ building, performance practice, and applied engineering.

Comments:

Because the expressivity of the organ is the paper’s central concern, the material in lines 832-839 could be located at the front of the paper to better orient the reader from the outset and establish the artistic/musical stakes of the research, even though the paper requires a heavily engineering-based vocabulary to express the artistic means of production.

While the language is strongly engineering-based, which raises a question about the intended audience of the journal, the conceptual ideas themselves are compelling. However, several conceptual and terminological issues currently limit clarity at present, but these appear resolvable and do not undermine the underlying work.

1. The use of “automation” throughout the paper seems at odds with the musical intent of the work. In current NFC and AI contexts, “automation” typically implies fixed or predetermined behavior, whereas the paper appears to describe modes of adaptable performer influence. In this sense, “control” may be a more accurate term, especially in lines 40-41 and 122, for example.  
2. Similarly, the term “envelope” appears to function here as “motion profile.” From a mathematical and physical standpoint, “motion profile” more clearly describes embodied mechanical behavior while “envelope” carries multiple non-physical meanings and distances the reader from the intended mechanical action.

I also have questions about the practical demands placed on the performer. The distinction between fixed mechanical behavior with “regular” touch and expressive behavior with “lighter” touch raises concerns about physical feasibility for a player over extended playing. When other orchestral effects like frullato, pizzicato, and melodic sub-coupling are introduced, it seems unlikely that touch can reliably control all these expressive dimensions simultaneously.  Some degree of mechanical or system-level pre-settings might be needed to support consistent musical outcomes.

Finally, a few specific additions would strengthen the paper’s claims. Figure 10 should include a spectrograph example of the unmodified tone for direct comparison. Also, links to sound recordings are essential to illustrate the described sonic differences.

Overall, the paper opens the door to intriguing expressive possibilities for the pipe organ. Future study might explore mechatronic action on expressive possibilities within enclosed divisions, where the enclosure mechanisms themselves could become additional expressive devices. Once the semantic issues are clarified and recordings are included, this has the potential to become a compelling contribution to the evolution of the expressive devices of the pipe organ.

Author Response

Thank you for your discerning review!
I am very glad that I managed to arouse curiosity with my ideas, the more that the project in a whole is a work of my own (design, construction, electronics - both schematics and PCB, even soldering, programming etc.) and its origin is my own need for new means I could use as an active performing organist.

"Because the expressivity of the organ is the paper’s central concern, the material in lines 832-839 could be located at the front of the paper"
- I totally agree, this definitely clarifies the structure of the paper! I have made this correction.

"The use of “automation” throughout the paper seems at odds with the musical intent of the work. In current NFC and AI contexts, “automation” typically implies fixed or predetermined behavior, whereas the paper appears to describe modes of adaptable performer influence."
- I understand that in the overall context, the term "automation" may seem ambiguous. However, I would leave that as it is, because using the term "control" everywhere instead of "autmation", in my opinion would introduce even more ambiguity. The pallet behavior in my system is indeed automated / predefined: the player first "plots" the profile of the motion as "ADSR envelope"-alike curves, then plays the division in a standard, traditional way using a normal binary-mode keyboard. The factor that can be controlled (by anything, a wheel, an additional console pedal, roller like in crescendo, even a breath sensor) is the time base of the profile <- that's the one of the possibilities; another one is to control the limit to which the pallets can open (used i.e. in the Ligeti Etude). Anyway, the keyboard technique stays the same, identical to organists are used to. The movement of the valves is, in fact, predetermined.

"Similarly, the term “envelope” appears to function here as “motion profile.” From a mathematical and physical standpoint, “motion profile” more clearly describes embodied mechanical behavior while “envelope” carries multiple non-physical meanings and distances the reader from the intended mechanical action."
- thank you for this advice, the proposition is perfect! It describes the phenomenon way better than "envelope". Although in this case "envelope" and "motion profile" are very closely related or even analogous, I agree that "envelope" is a broader (even strictly undefinite) term and its connection to problems I describe may seem unclear for some readers. I used the term "envelope" because the "motion profile" (as you propose to call it) is divided into identical phases as envelope in the sense of sound "loudness". However I think your proposition is much more precise for the subject I describe in my article. I've altered that throughout the whole document.

"I also have questions about the practical demands placed on the performer. The distinction between fixed mechanical behavior with “regular” touch and expressive behavior with “lighter” touch raises concerns about physical feasibility for a player over extended playing."
- I'm not sure how to describe this more clearly but in the prototype there is no "analogue" control from the keyboard. Not to complicate the demands, I decided to utilize MIDI as input and its velocity parameter to distinguish between two states only: under-the-treshold and over-the-treshold (the treshold was adjusted empirically, here: somewhat near the value of 48). The purpose of this is very simple: playing "hard" on the keyboard, the player "commands" the system to move pallets in a standard, binary manner: fully close / fully open just like in a normal electromagnetic action, whereas playing "soft" tells the system to drive particular pallets in the "automated" mode (according to the predefined ADSR-like curve). This is useful for example when playing cantus firmus in a chorale prelude, when a "vocal" vibrato (or ribatutta) is needed but olny for the last tone in a phrase. This is clearly audible in the recordings (which I have provided but I missed the fact that the file names, as well as the URL comprised personal data and the editor just erased it - I wasn't aware of that but this time I'll provide an 'anonymous' archive for downloading).
Of course, if time and funds had been sufficient, I could have implemented more sophisticated control. I hope for that in the future. Now, the point was to prove that "automation" makes a lot of new artistic means possible and easy for the player to achieve. Considering limited cost and time, I think it was enough.

"Finally, a few specific additions would strengthen the paper’s claims. Figure 10 should include a spectrograph example of the unmodified tone for direct comparison. Also, links to sound recordings are essential to illustrate the described sonic differences."
- unfortunately I have no possibility to make new recordings for the analysis, since the prototype is now dismantled because of the reconstruction taking place in the church where it was located). However, I think that such spectographs of "unmodified sounds" are very easy to imagine and obvious - speaking colloquially: if there is a vibrato and the line is wobbly, it's quite clear that without vibrato, the line will be straight. I hope the lack of such spectograph is not a big issue.
I completely agree the recordings are essential! As I mentioned above, The links were provided but edited without my knowledge. They will be available now, as I corrected the file names and the URL.

About the last paragraph: thank you for your very intriguing idea of combining dynamic qualities of mechatronic devices with the qualities of enclosed divisions! I will definitely examine the possibility, as my prototype will be soon constructed to its "target shape", which is: 3 manual + 1 pedal sections, one of the manuals enclosed, everything based on stepper-motor drivers, so there's hope for room for further research in a year or two.

Again, thank you very, very much for your invaluable review, pertinent comments and interesting ideas!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Though your enthusiasm is inspiring, your manuscript lacks relevance in two respects:

1 you do not refer to the development of comparable technologies over the past 15 years, although they are easily accessible and shared in literature and symposia. This applies to at least two tracks of this development: that of the innovations by organ builders Rieger and Klais, and that of the hyperorgan, involving organ builders like Orgelpunkt, Decap, and Sinua. All these technologies aim to make the pipe organ more dynamic.

2 you do not give clear criteria for your qualitative research: your test organ, the musicking of the musicker, and the listening are not properly problematized.

The fascinating aspect of your invention is the adjustable rod between the actuator and the valve; it seems that this might be a solution for the problems Wooley identified in the ISO magazine, as the rod may keep the valve in position, independent from wind behavior.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the review!

Ad 1.
Indeed, I do not refer to the development of similar technologies and this is intentional, since the idea of the article is not to compare such technologies but to describe my project and its effects. My project is entirely original - I do not rely on any of existing systems not I base my designs on any of their elements. I was absolutely not inspired by inventions of other people / companies. My project is based on my knowledge about automation, electronics design and embedded systems programming, as well as on a 25-year experience as a performing organist and improviser. I also designed the system in such a way that I could afford all the parts.
Although, thank you for pointing that out, I will mention this fact briefly in the article, as it is an opportunity to show that a single person can create a system that enables automated control over the organ pipe airflow, providing novel means of artistic expression in the pipe organ music, perhaps even less limited than those built by wealthy companies.
I would like not to refer to other technologies for reasons mentioned above and also because the article is already quite long and such text would not introduce any essential information explicitly related to my invention.

Ad 2.
The test organ is in fact described quite thoroughly in the article as well as its mechatronic key action itself. Providing more details, in my opinion, would be irrelevant to the topic and could possibly create a risk of intellectual property theft. I'm not sure what would "musicking" mean but I assume that it is unclear how to play such an organ. The technique does not differ from traditional manual playing, there is only one requirement: the organist has to plot the desired "envelope" or ADSR-like motion profile for pallet drivers. It can be stored in combinational memory if needed. There is also possibility to modify the time base of the "envelope" during the play - any imaginable controller can be used, i.e.: a wheel, a standard echo pedal, even a breath sensor. Simply: the organist plays the keyboards just like in every standard organ. I think all these facts are mentioned in the article and essential information is not ommited. About listening: there is really nothing to describe, as the analytic material is just a normal audio recording of the music performed on my test organ.
However, there was problem with the article: the URL to the recordings was redacted as it comprised personal data (file names and URL itself). I didn't notice this mistake (everything must be anonymous for review) and I was not informed that the link was removed. I corrected this mistake in the revised version.

I'm very glad that you found some elements of my project fascinating. Indeed, the linkage between the actuator and the pallet is stiff and thus immune to pressure changes - it is the essential thing that makes exact control over airflow (according to the motion profile) possible. I think it is the simplest and obvious mechanism to design for that purpose.

Again, thank you very much for your review!

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response to Arts 2025 revision

This document replies to two documents which overlap leading to some repetition:

1. Response to revised paper
2. Response to Cover Letter

Revised paper

The text of the revised version does not differ fundamentally from the original and the original response is still valid and will be partially repeated and expanded on here where this reviewer considers it necessary.

Music is an art, albeit governed by scientific principles, and is thus largely subjective and this reviewer makes no apology for expressing opinions based on good evidence. Music is expressed through sound and can only ultimately be judged on that basis. The original paper, extraordinarily, did not contain any sound files and it was therefore impossible to make any judgement about whether the author’s aims had been achieved. There was however overwhelming (my opinion) evidence to suggest that these aims were not fundamental to the organ as it is currently established.

Little has changed. Sound files are now presented but only of the music with the modified action in use and not with the same music played without it. Without this comparison it is impossible to make any judgement as to its effect. The perception of music is affected by the voicing of the pipes, the tuning of the pipes, inharmonicity in the music, room acoustic effects, rhythmic changes made by the player, rapid notes in the music, effectiveness of the wind regulator, resonances in the wind trunking etc. Previous work cited by the author demonstrates that players and listeners bend their perception towards what they are expecting to hear. This reviewer is not convinced that, on listening to these performances using the new action in isolation, they can immediately hear anything notable about the underlying sound. A comparison might be an artist repainting the same scene over a painting that the viewer had never seen using some different techniques and asking them to judge whether the new version is better than the old.

The variation of the pipe speech is actually due directly to the variation in pressure of the air entering the foot of the pipe and only indirectly to the movement of the pallet. Given the potential effect of the wind system on the correlation between the two, this reviewer would expect to see measurements of the pressure variation and how it relates to the pallet movement and the sound.

The obvious way to demonstrate the effects that the author describes would have been to provide sound recordings of a single pipe in isolation with and without the pallet movements.

To say that there is ‘no definite standard of the pipe organ’ is over simplistic. The instrument has existed in a recognizable form for several centuries. It is the opinion of this reviewer that if J S Bach sat at the console of all but the most eccentric of recent organs he would be playing music in a very short space of time. The keyboards both manual and pedal would be instantly familiar, the means of stop control would be instantly familiar, the split into divisions albeit not necessarily along the same lines that he was used to would be instantly familiar, the use of various types of pipe albeit with some unfamiliar names would be instantly familiar and the buildup of choruses would be instantly familiar. He might appreciate the lightness of the key action, the position of the console where he can actually hear the instrument that he is playing, the ability to press a button to start the blower and not have to rely on employing humans to operate the bellows, the ability to instantly change stop combinations without employing human registrants etc. A large organ could require ten people to operate it. Technology has generally been applied to resolving fundamental practical issues rather than changing the fundamental tonal characteristics of the organ.

Two of its inherent characteristics are rapid and consistent transients, and indefinitely and stably sustainable notes.

The reason that there was a long and detailed explanation of why transient control was not possible with mechanical actions is that this was put forward as one of the main advantages of mechanical actions. This is not correct despite being widely ‘believed’ and is still put forward as a justification for this project. Line 159 “To enable control over the displacement of the pallets (reinstating the main advantage of the traditional tracker action, brought nearly to perfection in the Baroque period). The detailed explanation in the previous review as to why this is not true stands intact. This is the statement that the author is querying in paragraph three of the covering letter and does not appear to be open to misinterpretation.

It should also be borne in mind that, whilst elements of the design of Baroque organs have merit (simplicity, tactile feedback, free speech into the auditorium, developed choruses), the use of mechanical actions was not because they were considered the most ‘musical’ option, there was simply no alternative and their limitations had to be accepted in even the largest instruments. The problems with large recent mechanical actions and the almost exclusive use of subsidiary electric actions, when provided, emphasise this.

As stated previously, attempts to produce proportional actions have not been successful. This is probably because it has never been a characteristic of the organ and when possible, as in some very small organs, is generally considered unmusical. It is nevertheless surprising that the author states that he has not studied these. One fundamental difference between proportional actions and the author’s proposed action is that the proportional action remains within the direct control of the player’s fingers at all times, or at least it would if organ builders did not introduce artificial pluck thus immediately negating its effect. Other unsuccessful innovations include the infinite gradation swell pedal which controlled the speed of movement of the swell shutters rather than their position. This not only fundamentally changed the way the swell pedal operated but also introduced mechanical complications.

If a major automobile manufacture determined beyond doubt that swapping the brake and gas pedals was preferable it would not be practical to implement it.

The organ is nevertheless an inherently inexpressive instrument and there have been successful attempts to address this beyond expanding the variety of pipes. These include the tremulant which produces a constant cyclical variation in the wind supply. It is however essentially a simple device that can be readily turned on and off and has no impact on the key or stop actions. Another is the swell box which, although somewhat more substantial, is essentially superimposed on the basic instrument with no impact on the key or stop action and can be incorporated into the façade of a werkprinzip case.

The author states that ‘the history of organ building is comprised (of) constant development and search for new possibilities such as: technical solutions facilitating musical performance, creating new sound effects and innovative means of artistic expression’. Certainly to facilitate musical performance but less so the other categories. There has to be compromise and the serious suggestion to this reviewer by a well-known conservatoire that if you really wanted to play Baroque and Romantic music you must have two separate organs is not practical for the vast majority of venues no matter how desirable it may be.

The author appears to agree that transient control is not, in fact, possible with mechanical action but then repeats his assertion that this is its main advantage and should be reinstated.

Anything that permanently changes the fundamental character of the organ could be considered as ‘new’. Temporary modifications to accommodate individual pieces of music may be acceptable so long as they are reversible.

 

Covering letter

This reviewer most certainly understands the major idea and nature of the project. As stated above, the sound files are still incomplete and do not give any information about the audible effect but are not necessary to identify fundamental issues.

The whole project is based on the reinstatement of control of the pallet when none has ever existed. Organists might think that control of the pallet might be an advantage but the failure of the introduction of proportional actions, which would fulfil this, suggests that this may not be the case.

This reviewer most certainly agrees that research into many aspects of the organ’s design is perfectly valid but the reason why the infinite gradation swell pedal, for example, didn’t succeed is that it fundamentally altered the way in which the swell process worked. In any case, it could only be successfully introduced if it could be instantly universally employed. The move from hitch down swell pedals to the current balanced swell pedal did not change the direct link with the foot but did allow the swell shutters to be opened to any extent without constant foot contact – an overwhelming advantage.

The comments about the Dvorak computer keyboard are valid but a quick on-line search suggests that it has not been widely adopted and I suspect that its users would have difficulty moving between it and ‘standard’ keyboards. I again suspect that if the musical keyboard was invented from scratch today it would look very different from the current design. It is, however, so deeply enshrined in the design of every keyboard instrument that it cannot easily be changed. That obviously does not mean that an individual cannot redesign the keyboard for their own use. Computer keyboards can be readily bought for less than $20 and easily interchanged. Organ, piano, harpsichord etc keyboards cannot.

The recent failure of one of the major organ component supply houses may indicate the general state of organ building and that survival may be more important than innovation at the moment. It is totally outside this reviewer’s brief to suggest that if there is a quality problem with the major supply houses the various industry trade associations should put pressure on them to resolve it.

Whether ‘prepared pianos’ are artistically valid is indeed a matter of opinion. The permanent change to a piano may be valid if it remains a working musical instrument but it may very well become effectively a new instrument albeit based to a greater or lesser extent on an established one. Temporary reversible change is irrelevant to the continued existence of any musical instrument and must be considered on merit. In this reviewer’s opinion, the destruction of a musical instrument in the name of art is not acceptable.

The discussion on electronics is outside this reviewer’s expertise but they are prepared to make the general comment that fundamental changes to a well-established instrument are risky unless overwhelming advantages result and, despite the author’s claims, this reviewer would suggest that the electronics and electro-mechanics involved will have a finite life span that can only be resolved by a continued supply of near identical components. It would be fair to point out that this is a problem with current organs that use extensive electronics – the full ramifications have not yet been felt but major replacements are necessary after a small proportion of the instruments overall life expectancy. So many Baroque organs still exist because they are mechanically simple. A $4 million organ cannot generally be expected to have to be replaced after a relatively few years.

The reviewer notes that the author does not consider that digital instruments are worthy of recognition despite their sales exceeding those of the real thing. It is interesting to note that despite the opportunity for innovation, digital ‘organs’ very closely replicate pipe organs.

This reviewer fully accepts that society moves forward through research. The author has failed to give a convincing case that the innovations proposed here represent a significant advance for the organ. At the end of the day the marketplace will decide whether this proposal has merit.

Author Response

The response:

The reviewer presented personal opinion which seems to be biased. My research was never aimed to be fundamental or not fundamental to the nature of pipe organ, it is simply not the topic of the considerations. My aim, as it is explicitly stated in the document, was to prove that new means of artistic expression in organ music / sound are possible to achieve and that it can be accomplished with the use of mechatronic devices capable of "generating" repeatable effects thanks to the possibility of "replay" of predefined / preprogrammed / designed pallet valve motion profiles.

The sound files presenting improvisations WITHOUT the new means are not presented and will not be presented for three main reasons:
1) it would make no sense while the pieces (performed in a special manner) and the improvisations in particular are MEANT to use these means of expression, they cannot exist without them as they are the BASIS here (as a musician I can't imagine improvising while thinking of an effect without using that effect)
2) presenting unmodified pipe organ sound is unnecessary as the sound is obvious for anyone who has ever listened to the organ music - it seems puzzling that the reviewer is unable to evaluate effects so prominent and described in detail with no reference to the standard "flat" sound of the pipe organ
3) the sound files and spectrograms are included not for comparison but as a proof that the effects really exist - what sense would it make to show lack thereof?

The reviewer suggested that the recordings "do not give any information about the audible effect" so listeners wouldn't be able to tell whether there is any effect at all - it is a quite suspicious opinion, as, for example, rapid note repetition or "vocal"-like tremolo (so-called ribatutta in vocal music) are very prominent sound effects that no one can miss. A comparison with paintings is somewhat mismatched: let's imagine that all the paintings in history up to some point did not include blue paint at all and suddenly someone invented it; if the artist uses a completely new (blue) paint, it WILL be noticed and the difference is obvious - it makes comparative samples unnecessary, especially since the artwork is not repainted but new and original, aimed for new color (reference to the musical improvisations recorded).

The reviewer expects detailed research on physical properties of the wind system in reference to the sound effect. Obviously, there is a misunderstanding about the main subject of my article, the goal of which is to show a new approach to the organ's action mechanism design and to show what type of means it enables in the first place, rather than to analyze the effects themselves in detail. Its character is more preliminary, to present the emergence of a new idea. I do not rule out an idea of research on the physical phenomena related to the wind behavior in mechatronic key action in the future, when my system is more developed. This article, however, concerns a slightly different topic.

The arguments about reasons of technology application in pipe organ are still irrelevant. No matter whether my idea resolves practical issues or changes the fundamental tonal characteristics of the organ - the research is still valid. It seems that the reviewer's main criterion is - again - standardization and wide use in the construction of ordinary instruments, however it is completely unrelated to the idea of the research - it is not a paper about market, economy, the nature of pipe organ or the legitimacy of making modifications in the field. It is about a new idea regarding pallet valves motion in pipe organ action and about means of expression. As an inventor, I didn't care about resolving any issues. Even if my recording remains the only one use of the new effects in the history and no one is ever interested, it STILL doesn't make my research groundless or wrong. Heinrich Hertz never thought of practical use of radio waves that he discovered; when asked what the waves could be used for, he simply replied: nothing, I guess. Does make his discovery unjustifiable or irrelevant? It IS possible to discover or invent something new with no prior knowledge about the future use of the invention or without any aim to resolve any particular issue. I stongly disagree with such method of selecting criteria for a review - it makes quite worthless all the research which doesn't meet the reviewer's personal expectations in terms of solving particular problems or permanent adaptation in the field.

The line 159 mentioned by the reviewer contains, in fact, a dubious statement. Leaving it uncorrected is my oversight and mistake. It will be corrected immediately. I completely agree that the belief about transient control in mechanical tracker systems is wrong. The description in my article is very unfortunate as it leads to misinterpretation and logical contradiction. I will put effort to rephrase everything related to the issue. The mechatronic action which I designed and built enables such control by eliminating the need for the player to take care of this control - instead, precision stepper motors "do the job". Well-known mechanical tracker action, naturally, cannot be a basis of the idea here. Of course, the "proportional" action is also something very different (that's why I haven't deeply studies the idea - however, I also designed single-magnet PID driver which I tested in a special windchest... but it is not the topic of the article). It's worth to note that the mechatronic action CAN behave as a proportional action if desired. I did not take advantage of this possibility - let it be a proof that I agree with the reviewer on this: proportional actions don't make sense in pipe organ because the organist cannot control them accurately enough to produce any meaningful and useful effect (regardless of the question if it's characteristic or un/musical). The stepper motor modules that I designed, however, ARE able to displace the pallet very accurately (in the presented version it can be much less than 0.5mm at the end) and the motion is of course flawlessly repeatable. Thanks to that the sound effects are prominent and reliable, which IS well heard in the recordings.
My work is compared to "other unsuccessful innovations" by the reviewer. Again: there's a matter of criteria - in terms of achieving chosen goals my work IS successful, in terms of adaptation - it is probably unsuccessful but it has nothing to do with legitimacy of research and the right to invent, the more that I founded the prototype myself, not "wasting" public money. About the complications of the mechanism: it's worth to mention that the mechatronic action is mechanically much simpler than the tracker system in an average-sized organ.

The reference to automobile field is also not applicable here - conducting research I did not care whether it is practical or not. Research and implementation don't always need to be practical and - again - this does not impact the legitimacy of research. By the way - I mostly use my left foot for braking. It's not standard but it's practical - much faster in emergency.

The reviewer states that "Anything that permanently changes the fundamental character of the organ could be considered as ‘new’. Temporary modifications to accommodate individual pieces of music may be acceptable so long as they are reversible." The same can be said about all the moments in history of organ building when something major was invented, like a new kind of key action; it was not reversible but it has been adapted nevertheless. But even if so, the mechatronic action can be considered as "reversible" as the "motion profile mode" can be disabled and then motors operate just like regular magnets (slightly faster and more precise though).

The reviewer "notes that the author does not consider that digital instruments are worthy of recognition despite their sales exceeding those of the real thing. It is interesting to note that despite the opportunity for innovation, digital ‘organs’ very closely replicate pipe organs". It is again very clear and significant that the reviewer is oriented to matters regarding market, sales and commercial success, which should not (must not) be a primary criterion for research. Also, mixing the matter of acoustic and electronic instruments (genuine ones and their emulators) is strange. Digital organs are many orders of magnitude cheaper than genuine pipe organs, however the former can be considered as commodity, the latter shouldn't. There still are people who value music very high and want to interact with authenticity, I am one of them, therefore my interest concerns true acoustic instruments, not electronic substitutes regardless of practicality, costs, sales, market.

To summarize, marketplace success, wide adaptation, standardization, practical use etc. seem to be still the main criteria in the reviewer's mind while no market success or wide adaptation of my invention was ever my goal (I would like to emphasize that) and it never should be taken as or mistaken for purpose of the research. Although a functional prototype of my system already exists and will be used in the church for the liturgy as well as for concerts, I did not conduct research aiming for making widespread or permanent impact on organ building art / craft. It should not be a determinant of legitimacy of projects like this.

Thank you for the second review. Apparently there are some issues on which we will not reach an agreement, however any opinion is valuable and encourages reconsideration.