Pipe organs are always possible spacewise if there's a strong, unwavering commitment to it.
At one church where I was D/M, we installed a new pipe organ whose footprint (minus the pedals) was about the size of a large office desk.
It can be done.

What is your present instrument?
I have not heard enough hybrids to begin to form any opinion.
Email?

Here is my situation ...

1952 parish formed and church (seats 350) built with loft having 14-foot apex.
Probably the thought was "more than sufficient for one Bourdon and a few 8-foot ranks" organ,
which was never acquired. Other area churches similarly constructed;
their instruments where extant are Schoenstein and Moller versions of above, all rarely/never used now.

1994 parish installed Wicks pipes (17) with Peterson EMP guts and Walker Technical digitals (12).
Digital:
Swell: Celeste 8
Great: Fourniture III, Trumpet 8
Antiphonal/Choir: Spitz 8, Celeste 8, Clarinet 8, Chimes, Harp
Pedal: Subbass 16, Fagotto 16, Principal 16, Schalmei 4
Speaker size and placement successful.

2002 hired.
Wishes:
Sw Nazard (add 1-12, 50-61)
Sw Tierce (add 1-12, 50-61)
Sw Basson (add 1-12)
Ped Resultant (make digital)

noel: I agree. I try not to speak ill of any organ builder - pipe, digital, or combo. I have worked with many. I have played on quite a few. I have also played on many pipe organs, of various types by various builders, and I even play on a Yamaha Clavinova on a regular basis here. I have my preferences - some based on technical (objective) criteria, some on more subjective feelings. I will play for Mass on anything but a piano!

It is sometimes difficult to wear both hats - organist and organbuilder!

Adding digital stops to an existing organ is a bit different than starting over. The voices you desire are easily created digitally, but you may be stuck with some type of expansion of your existing system. Wicks chests are very well built and reliable. Peterson also makes good products. I've worked with them all. If something more comprehensive is desired, then the Wicks chests and pipes would certainly be usable with any contemporary digital/hybrid console/system - even any future such product.

Further discussion of options and preferences might not be so fruitful on a Forum, unless we're chatting in generalities.

Paix: I think you and your parish are on the right track, especially for your particular situation. My email is available on this Forum if you would like to discuss any particular ideas or aspects.

EFT: The current situation is that we have a Johannes digital organ which we did not even pay for. It is one of those "showpiece" arrangements. For a variety of reasons that I can't get into here, the parish may be terminating this arrangement and opting to purchase something.

I have been somewhat impressed by the sound of the current organ - but I also have serious reservations about it. The console doesn't appear to be extremely well constructed. There are minute electrical issues apparant to me - will they later become not so minute? Time could tell.

So we are researching from scratch - and all I can see so far is that it is all opinion. One person comes along and says "Allen is the best, hands down!" The next says "But Johannes uses the latest technology." Still a third, "But Virgil Fox played Rogers'".

So I am somewhat at a loss of what to make of it all.

I personally played an Allen before. Honestly, it's a tossup for me between the Allen and Johannes. Not a ton of difference to me.

I am a purist. Digital organs are a cop out and are a poor excuse for such an important part of the liturgy. Get a real instrument. Plan long term to raise the money fo the real thing. It will last 10 to 20 times longer than a digital and you will WANT to play it because it is a real instrument.

I'm sorry to disagree with both Francis and my old friend Jackson. The PIPE organ is all but dead, mainly due to the best being far too expensive, and the proliferation of really bad organs that just happen to have all pipes. This is the 21st century. Tracker organs especially are 17th century technology, which a few builders updated with some minor 20 century tweaks.

I will agree that the Church in general needs to pay more attention, and more money, to its music program. But that should come primarily in the form of hiring good musicians with the clear intention of keeping them. An organ, pipe or digital, can only provide music when played upon by a musician.

It's not selling short to utilize available technology. My point is that technology (the musical instrument) is not the only component.

There will always be some organ builders out there building stunning pipe organs.

My hybrid philosophy is that a solid (preferably beautiful) Principal chorus and a secondary Flute chorus is key to leading congregational singing. These pipes should be in a case to help focus the sound, not just exposed, in the open some where. String, Celestes, color-flutes and mutations, and especially reeds function just as well as digital stops, especially those stops traditionally enclosed in expression boxes. Also most all of the bass sounds are more efficiently produced digitally. This is a "best of both world" concept - and I do mean best. All the cutting edge digital technology will not make cheaply constructed and poorly voiced pipes work any better. Not will a handful of cheap digital voices added to a moderately nice pipe organ really enhance the overall instrument.

So long as the digital organ representatives simply deliver and plug in their instruments, and the best pipe organ builders shun any digital integration, the result is, by definition, NOT the best of both worlds.

Good hybrid organs should be an option for churches not so financially blessed - that's my point. As long as the "top" musicians in the Church and in secular academia shun all digital advances, this subjective bias towards pure pipe organs will continue. And the largest part of the resulting purchase of pipe organs will continue to include the poorest quality pipe organs sold to unwitting churches by unscrupulous "pipe" organ builders.

DBP's observations are evidence of great integrity and acumen. (And I must disagree with my old friend, Steve.) The specious assertion that digital or electronic instruments are somehow '21st century' and that an organ is a relic of the past (when most organs were bad anyway) is neither honest nor morally cogent. That organs are 21st century instruments is a fact evidenced by the continued construction of fine examples of the organbuilder's art. It is a hideous affront and a shameless theft of human dignity to suggest that craftsmanship, that is, the fashioning of pipes and other objects of art by human hands in wood, metal, marble or whatever, is somehow not 21st century. What do people who think like that take us for? What manner of undiscerning cretins do they wish to turn us into? Technology? The 21st century is not entitled to a monopoly on this word. It applies to the marvels of human pro-creativity throughout the ages!

a hideous affront, manner of undiscerning cretins, a shameless theft of human dignity, specious assertion?

I must say that I resemble that remark.

I've avoided weighing in for fear of offending some on this board, Noel in particular, for whom I have great respect. Also, I must at the outset confess that at my most recent job we had a Rodgers 960D, which after considerable work both with the on-board "voice palette" options and by bringing in the local technician with the software necessary to make "voicing adjustments" to the existing samples, it was a very pleasant instrument to play. In fact, Barry Rose (of St. Paul's London fame, directed the Men and Boys for the wedding of Diana and Charles, and a fantastic organist and choir trainer) was in town working with several choirs, my boys' and girls' choir included, and when he first arrived he began playing the organ. He smiled and said, "very nice."

For those familiar with this make and model of organ, the "Festival Trumpet" as it existed was harsh, loud, and ear-splitting. With work we beat back the upper harmonics and goosed the volume as high as it would go. The result? A Tuba Mirabilis. Not what the manufacturer intended, but it made the stop completely useful for both hymn-playing and literature, which it was not before. We continued to work on balancing the Great Diapason chorus and reeds and the Swell and Pedal reed choruses. The technician said it was great fun to work with an organist who cared what the instrument sounded like. With the work done I was able to play the English literature (Howells, etc.,) and French Romantic literature with great satisfaction.

Having said all of that, I still have my prejudices regarding digital simulators versus pipe organs as well as hybrids. There are several things to consider. First of all, there is artistic value. Organ building is a high art, and quite frankly to my ears nothing beats the sound of a real pipe organ with wind being blown through the pipes. It is entirely impossible for a digitally simulated instrument to duplicate the physics of a vibrating column of air and its acoustic and physical behavior in a room. Sound waves from a speaker, to my knowledge, do not effect the air space in the room in quite the same way. The exception that I make is the use of Walker digital systems to fill out 32' ranks of flues and reeds. Having heard these I think they work well underneath an otherwise fully-pipe instrument. However, I don't think that hybrids work well, primarily because the techniques of "voicing" a digital rank as against a real pipe are so different, and the response of the room and behavior of the winded pipes are so radically different from their digital, speakered counterparts.

But aside from this, there is a financial angle to consider. If you take the cost of a new, carefully restored or renovated instrument (which is otherwise of high quality) versus the cost of digital instrument, and amortize it over the life of each instrument and also do a cost/benefit analysis of each, one finds that it is in the long run much more responsible in terms of stewardship for the congregation or parish to opt for a pipe instrument as against a digital, computer-based instrument. Think about it. The minute you turn an electronic device on, it begins to deteriorate. How many of us have a computer that is more than say 5 years old that is still fully useable? Between the deterioration and the rapidity of advances and changes in technology, the practical life expectancy of a digital instrument is at best 20 years. There are pipe organs (some renovated or updated in minor ways) that are still fully playable that are 100 years old or more!

I hope that I've provided food for thought that does not offend. I realize that there are practicalities that must always be considered when making these choices. I would like to encourage people to look away from financial consideration and look at a bigger picture with respect to this issue.

Yes, Pes, to an extent - that of leading the breathing congregation with breathing pipes. That is the goal of my hybrid model.

And David said, similar to some of my statements, that the question is the "quality" of both the basic technology and the human utilization of the full extent of that technology. The same qualitative analogy needs to be applied to the pure pipe organ, since there are more than plenty of horrid pipe organs out the - 4th go-around rebuilds as well as brand new.

We can all post objectively and subjectively all we want. Each individual circumstance needs a balance of thought applied before completion of the project.

Here's an example of the bizarre thinking when it comes to organs. Ahlborn/Galanti is a...lesser builder. So here is a church with a job open and here are the instruments:

The repertoire is integrated, including traditional, contemporary, and classical music. Steinway Concert Grand and Ahlborn-Galanti Chronicler II.

STEINWAY CONCERT GRAND! But a Galanti?

Addendum

"If it isn't it is in the same category as plastic 'flowers'."

Well put. Digital organs are like plastic flowers. They fool you only for a moment until you try to smell them, or worse, live with them day by day. BTW... I have never purchased plastic flowers for my wife. Would you?! So what is this about buying plastic flowers for our Dear Mother Church!? God Forbid!!!!

I have the latest three manual Quantum here. It is about two years old or so. I have played many organs in my lifetime since I lived almost my entire life in Baltimore where many old organs reside. I have played many electronic wannabees too. In fact, I owned a Hammond C3 for years, and I just inherited another one last week.

I had a small Jardine tracker in a quaint chapel that was well over 150 years old and it was far more satisfying and beautiful than any digital organ. (Even with the clacking of the trackers and the heavy action and the flat pedalboard.) There just is no comparison.

Don't let money be an excuse for not planning and struggling and convincing and waiting and collaborating with the many that will be involved. It will be worth every bit of the effort.

Another point: PaixGioaAmour: have you had an actual pipe organ designer come and look at your space? A creative designer can sometimes see ways of doing things that we can't.

Just as in home stereo equipment, the speakers are a key component. I think Johannus might be the only digital organ that can divide its stops by multiple speakers, i.e. C-side notes to one speaker, and C#-side notes to another. Then these pairs of speakers can be placed (also a key component) so as to help mix the sounds before leaving the case/chamber. Sub-woofers should be placed on a concrete floor. Except for special stops, like a solo Trumpet, all speakers should be facing the rear of their enclosure, or at slight angles. The absolute worst placement of speakers is on a simple shelf speaking directly into the room.

I played all kinds of literature on the Jardine. Granted you don't have the tubby sound of a French Romantic on it, but it still sounds wonderful if you understand how to use organ registration. And the main purpose of the organ is not for playing grand scale organ music, it is for serving the liturgy.

This discussion is getting a little...pusillus...

And David, you are right about that reed.

Very true, Francis. Couldn't agree more. :-)

Thank you to all who responded. You have all provided some great food for thought, which was what I was seeking.

I am currently guiding my parish's staff towards deliberations on these issues.

A run for their money, or a run for yours? They are good, but pretty expensive. Just be sure to check all your options.

Again, I would settle for playing a digital organ, but would prefer the basics of a really good pipe organ, and the digital voices simply enhance those basics.

If your parish is considering on acquiring an organ...please be sure to check out the used pipe organs on the Organ Clearing House website. I have seen some REALLY nice all-pipe organs on there being offered for what you would pay for a high-end digital organ. It's worth the look! Some of them will probably require a good cleaning and maybe a restoration...but still...you'll have a pipe organ that will last for a very long time.

There is a VERY nice tracker-organ (Visser-Rowland) being offered on the front page...the owner has lowered the asking price on it!

Good luck!

I have not taken the time to read all the comments here, but I do play a hybrid instrument and thought I'd let you know some of the things that I've noticed.

1. There is phasing in the speech between the pipes and the fake sounds. Those who know more about this stuff than I do and whom I trust tell me that there is no way to fix this. It is not all that noticeable in a chorale situation, but if you crank it into high gear for a fast fugue, you're going to be begging for mercy. It is utterly distracting.

2. Unless the organ is comprised of mostly real pipes, there will be tone color problems. Real tone color can only come from real pipes. Electronic stops all blend together. I will never forget the day that I played Messiaen's Apparition de l'Eglise Eternelle and then played it back on the midi. I went downstairs to listen to it and immediately noticed that I could have gotten the same effects by pulling out an oboe and a string and using the swell pedal. There was no appreciable difference in tone color between stop changes until the high mixtures came on. This monotony can be felt in hymn-playing, too.

3. In working with digital organs, I have noticed that the independence of the voices is completely lost. Many fugues just start to sound like a mush of sound. I have experienced this in my own playing and have heard it in concert, even at one of the most infamous digital organs known to man.

I remember listening once to an episode of pipe dreams which featured a new pipe organ at a Catholic cathedral somewhere in Ohio; I can't remember where exactly. The organist made a great point: The Church uses, indeed requires, real candles and real flowers. And there is the Real Presence. The organist went on to say that this requirement for authenticity even has implications for the decisions we make about the organs we build. This is a worthy point, and the fact that most modern ears are accustomed to synthetic sound should not really be an invitation to cut corners. Where there is dedication, things can happen. Think of what our organs would be if half the effort were devoted to them that is devoted to the local Catholic school basketball league...

Finally, some may consider certain criticisms of synthetic organs to be overly-particular and too focused on what arsty-fartsy types obsess about. If we are to expect music to be treated seriously, however, then we must treat our art with the respect it deserves and uphold its integrity at all times. Which part of the Pieta should we hack off in order to save space? None? Then neither should we install inferior instruments.

I had all but forgotten this experience - perhaps because it was a rather incidental one. Several years ago I was invited to play at a church which had a four manual hybrid 'organ' by Allen utilising an appreciable number of ranks from an original instrument in addition to a quite generous array of 'digital' stops. There was a certain irony here in that the presence of pipes supposedly puts such instruments more into the category of real organs. The effect, however, was that the difference between the sound of the pipes and that of the 'digital' stops was like that between night and day. These two categories of sound did not at all blend well with one another, were not in tune together, and were so distinct from each other tonally as to be all but laughable. The size and stop list of this organ easily put it into the premier status of this particular firm's products, but the results were anything but premier. There is also a four manual 'digital' instrument with everything on it by this firm at Houston's new Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, which, despite being an architectural disappointment, does have very fine acoustics. It sounds like the organ substitute it is. It will be a wonderful day when the real organ by Martin Pasi is installed!

O come on, Noel. Digitally engraved music versus a hand copied score doesn't at all affect the performance of a piece. I just don't see how you can make the comparison. I am playing one of the latest (larger) Allen digitals. Three things are apparent and destroy the integrity of the musical acoustic. Badly placed speakers, a living room architecture and the inability for the existing speaker system to match the volume of air that is properly moved by pipes. The foundational organ just isn't there. The sound is harsh and offends not only my ears but the ears of the PIPs, and they are quite vocal about it.