Viscount has recently released a video promoting their organs with Physis technology.  The narrator, in the video below,  states that Viscount has “analyzed real pipes” and “modeled that into the computer. What you are hearing is more reflective of a real pipe organ.”  Yet, at no time during the nearly four-minute video with a dissertation on the merits of this technology, and its ability to reproduce pipe organ sound, will the listener hear even a single pipe organ sound.  Those that view this promotional video can draw their own conclusion as to the reason for this glaring omission.

10-16-18 Addition – One Blog reader sent in a You Tube video of a Viscount Physis organ being demonstrated, posted below.   We leave it to listeners to form there own opinions on the tonal results.

 

19 thoughts on “Viscount Promotional Video

  1. Not impressed at all with Viscount. The “Physis” technology has no merits at all. “Analyzed real pipes”,…really? “Molded them into the computer”,…hmmmmm! Allen’s technology is FAR superior to Physis in every way.

  2. You’re right,..at no time during the video did I hear ANY pipe organ sound! Not impressed!

  3. It is just three minutes and forty five seconds of a personal “explanation” with a commercial “music” Trax backing which commences with piano and then moves to orchestral. If the instrument is “so great” where is the example of the sound which it produces. Isn’t it a copy of a “pipe organ”? Yet why no “selling” points other than “made” to AGO standard (as is most “organs” made these days).
    I searched YouTube and found a “type” of explanation of their “Physis” system but it tries to “explain” by confounding the listener with technology, including using visuals from computer screens. Basically I felt it has “all the problems” of an older Pipe Organ, including varied wind pressure, and “demands” on the instrument when more “stops” are added — not the ideal situation.
    Did not impress.

    1. I wasn’t impressed with the video,either,Paul! Your assessment of the video was spot on as well.

  4. I noticed right off the bat that in the promotional video there isn’t a single sample of the Viscount organ being played. It’s all generic background music. No organ music at all. That’s a red flag. Not impressed at all with the home organ demonstration in the 2nd video. The sound I heard is equivalent to a Casio Keyboard.

    1. You’re both right. I didn’t hear a single sample of the Viscount organ being played,either! Ted,…you’re also right in saying that home organ demonstartion is the sound equivalent to a Casio keyboard!

  5. As I am sure many readers of this site are aware it is sponsored by the Allen organ company (see footer below) who for some reason I can not begin to fathom have chosen to criticise all their competitors in priority it seems to promoting the virtues of their own instruments. No doubt we all make mistakes in our marketing material from time to time and I agree that the Viscount Video that does not include the organ sound is a ‘foot in mouth’ own goal! However there is much material out there, professionally made, that does its best within the limitations of internet broadcast to convey as honestly as possible what all manufactures products provide. Thank You David Mason Viscount Organs UK Ltd

    1. Posted above are comments from a UK Viscount representative. Its link to a promotional video was removed as it goes beyond the scope of this site.

      Mr. Mason expresses concern that some organs might be viewed negatively given information included on this site. However, that information includes un-doctored photographs of organs and installations. If they reflect negatively on the products they offer informative information to consumers.

      Digital organs are unique products. They include advanced technology and wood cabinetry. Given that these organs’ heritage comes from pipe organs they are expected to last for decades, not possible with most high-tech products. Only if these organs are built to commercial grade quality will they meet this unique longevity demand. Unfortunately too many organs have become unserviceable in much shorter time frames. Education is the consumer’s best protection.

      1. It is disappointing that you do not allow this site to direct readers to the professionally made content I provided. If education is indeed your genuine motive then you should not have a problem with letting people see this? As you also choose to pick out an amateur video made by Matt you clearly seem to demonstrate bias to material that serves the purpose of criticism but true education would look at both sides of any story.

        1. As a salesman your point is understandable. Are you indicating that the “amateur” video is an unfair representation of the organ played?

          1. I am just pointing out that you are applying editorial judgement to what you allow to be seen on this site. This discussion was started to infer that by not publishing organ music with its promotional video, Viscount had something to hide about its instruments. When I provided material that Viscount had produced, you decided to withhold that information. Matts video is what it is, a genuine attempt by a happy customer to share his enjoyment of his instrument to a wider public. To hold it up as representative of Viscount in any other way, be it playing or sound quality in comparison to more professionally produced material is just a little silly. I am all for better information to be available to all potential purchasers of musical instruments. If you are sincere in that mission you too should allow those manufacturers criticised on this site a fair right of reply. Clearly you don’t. Perhaps you could help matters by telling us all who you are instead of hiding behind a manikin image. That would bring far more credibility to this site. Regards David

          2. The above is posted in full as a conclusion to this exchange.

  6. I tried to post this even though I am NOT a robot I get an error. Anyway instead of you all condemning this site for pointing out what garbage is coming out of Europe how about get yourselves a used Allen organ and copy it’s quality you all have factories start making high quality that Allen is known for
    I have a HUGE Allen organ built in the early 80s and it is old technology but it sounds MUCH better than what I heard on this video. My Lowrey blows that organ away too. To be fair though I would love to see the innards of all these companies top of the line models. like a Johannus Monarke or the best Phoenix organ etc. I see the pictures and that Rodgers looks like pure garbage it’s pure JUNK.. it reminds me of Sullivan furniture and cheap audio equipment circuit boards The lowest line of Allen looks a million times better than the junk I have seen here. If you don’t like the truth and honesty presented here.. Go and start building quality and learn from Allen and all other top end companies’ philosophy and implement it No excuse for this jink I have seen and heard. If Allen can do it so can you. Do it and stop bashing truth. Truth sometimes is hard to digest but in the end will set you free

    1. My Bernhardt furniture is good quality but it doesn’t sound all that good when I stick it in a church and try to play it. Allen analog from the 1960s sounds better than their digital today – IMHO.

      1. This comment is likely marketing hype from an organ builder that does not meet Allen’s quality standards. First, while Allen’s 1960s analog organs were quite musical, the claim that they were tonally superior to Allen’s digital organs is not supported by history and facts. Tens of thousands for Allen digital organs have replaced analog organs of many types. Customer satisfaction is reality.

        Mr. Bernhardt’s quip about his furniture not be musical is obfuscation. First, it is an admission that other builders’ consoles are of lower quality, a fact backed by photos in this Blog. This is in contrast to the claims the builders use to market their organs.

        While an organ’s furniture quality is not related to its sound, it does indicate the builder’s quality and artistic philosophies. Those that take quality sort-cuts do so at the expense of reliability, longevity and artistic results. It helps explain why many of these organs have become unserviceable too soon after installations.

        Mr. Bernhardt comment about Allen organs now over 50 years old is telling. Yes, they still serve today. That is not the case with many competitive organs less than half that age. Yes, quality matters!

        1. You are so right in your response to George,…and may I say also that Rodgers is a PERFECT example of a company taking short cuts at the expense of reliability,longevity,and artistic philosophies. Johannus,and Viscount are also good examples of taking shortcuts as well,and as you stated,…it helps explain why those organs become unserviceable too soon after they have been installed. As for Allen,…their organs over 50 years old STILL SERVING today says a LOT about how well they were built,…and YES,…quality DOES matter. George’s claims about the analog organs being superior in sound to the digital organs I do NOT agree with,either. All one has to do is look at the photos,and you will see the inferior quality of the competition,..and the photos don’t lie about the much lower quality of the other builders compared to Allen.

    2. Tom,…I CERTAINLY agree with you 100%! Even a vintage Hammond B-3 would blow that Viscount in the second video away IMO. European organ builders SERIOUSLY need to step up their game when it comes to building their organs. If Allen can build a high quality organ console,…they can too. And you’re right about Rodgers,too,…TERRIBLE construction.

  7. The organ in the second video does not impress me at all. “Too electronic” sounding,..not much better than a Casio keyboard. Physis,..or physical modeling,…not very impressive,…if at all. True pipe sampling such as what Allen uses is much more realistic!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *