This Site receives reader comments, some that agree and others that disagree, with posting photographs of different digital organs.  These comments have been posted on this site.

An email has been received from an individual who indicated he is an organ adviser.  The email complained about product comparisons included on the Site.  In addition, he complained about the Site not explaining that it is hosted by Allen Organ Company.

The email’s  author comments would have been posted in full for the benefit of all readers, but the author refused permission for the posting.  It is hard to understand this lack of transparency.

In response, offered to correct any inaccuracy the writer could point out.  Curiously, he offered none.  Further, his complaint about transparency is not correct.  This Site clearly states that it is hosted by Allen Organ Company.

Unlike many products that follow industry standards or governmental regulations, digital organs have no such standards.  The purpose of this Site is to inform consumers of the different qualities digital organs include.  Should the industry or organ advisers make this type of information available to consumers in a transparent manner, would not be required.

A church organ needs to be judged on the quality of its musicality.  This is typically demonstrated to customers in organ presentations.  Organs also need to be built with quality and have long-term support if the instrument is to serve for decades, a commitment implied by most that sell church organs.  Objective comparisons of the issues educate consumers in making sound choices.

One thought on “ Reader Comments

  1. Compared to your photo and story on the Noorlander Hauptwerk based organ,…the photo above shows,…and demonstrates,…REAL quality and workmanship. Allen all the way!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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