Piano World Home Page
Posted By: Glen Johnson ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 09/18/01 05:32 PM
I know for sure that the top two digital pipe organ sounding manufacturers are Rodgers and Allen Organ Co. Allen pretty much invented the technology and easily has more installations than Rodgers. They have been around considerably longer than Rodgers, as well. However, does anyone on the forum have any opinions as to what each strengths and weaknesses are? It is so difficult to find opinions from qualified organists that have tried both instruments.

Thank you very much.


Glen Johnson
Posted By: Eldon Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 09/20/01 03:01 AM
I am presently playing 2 pipe organs, at 2 different churches. However, I have played both Allen and Rogers organs many times. I think you are correct in stately that they are probably the best and most well-known of the digital organs. I absolutely, hands down, prefer the Allen over the Rogers. I don't think there's any comparison in their sounds. The Allen sounds LOTS BETTER! smile I have also played a Rogers that also had an antiphonal set of pipes connected to it. It was a constant struggle to keep them "in tune" with the Allen. And then on the flip-side, I have a CD with Virgil Fox playing his Rogers touring organ. I think is sounds pretty good. Now, can you answer this for me? Is this a fact or rumor. I heard a while back that Allen was coming out with a console that...when a piano sound/stop was used...the keyboard becomes touch-sensitive. Have you heard anything about this?
Dear Eldon,

I respectfully disagree. Perhaps neither of us has heard the best that each has to offer. The Masonic Temple in Philly (1 N. Broad St.)has a Rodgers that is probably the finest electronic organ I have ever heard. Brand new installation - and I understand that the quality of installs will effect the final product.

Could this be the case? Regional installers may be effecting our preference? confused

[ September 25, 2001: Message edited by: Rich Galassini ]
Posted By: Eldon Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 09/26/01 03:33 PM
Yes I totally agree about the quality of installations. And yes, it's been a long time since I've played a "new Rodgers". I do think it would have to be something very special to out-perform the Allens. Just my $.02

I know - you spend a weekend in Philly and hear a Rodgers, then I come out to Illinois (stop and hear the Notre Dame and Valparaiso organs on the way) and hear an Allen there.

Then the loser buys dinner with Paul Manz. (I think he is still at St. Peter's in Chicago.)
Posted By: Taylor Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 03/22/02 12:37 AM
My 1 and a 1/2 cents on this is Allen wins hands down for really three reasons.
first and formost sound. They invented the technology and are atleast 15 years ahead of Rogers, On the new Rennassance models if you don't like the stops you can completly change them from a laptop PC.
secondly their made 100% in the USA. That says something today. Aside from patriotism being made in the same factory lets Allen build all their parts that means you can always get parts for any Allen ever made and they can make better parts cheaper. no middle man they don't buy their keys from manufacturer A and their Draw knobs from manufacture B.

Third reason and last but not least. Versitility i mentioned this a little before but any new digital Allen Protege or Rennassiance you can voice from a laptop PC and Change the Stops its like having an infinate number of organs to chose from on a given Sunday. you can also use MIDI moduels from other manufactures. Lets say you have a Clavinova in your church you can play the organ from the clavinova or play the clavinova from the Allen. There is no contest Allen is the best. If you think otherwise Go for a factory tour at Allen organ in Macunge PA its worth it. http://www.allenorgan.com/
laugh laugh
Posted By: khgrant Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 04/21/02 07:44 PM
I would like to reply about the Rodgers Vs Allen.

First of all Rodgers has always maintained strict voicing control over note by note voicing so that the instrument would fit the acoustic response of the room.

Allen did not invent the digital, it was invented by North American Rockwell who claimed it was not suitable for classic organ sound, but ok for home organ.

It was grossly limited, not allowing many of the nuances that make a pipe organ what it is and did'nt allow voicing.

Rodgers utilizes state of the art technology, using software architecture which allows the organ to react to your playing in real time. Just as a pipe organ has wind sag, random tuning and tone etc Rodgers will perform it in real time unlike Allen.

There are numerous capabilities to the organist unlike other organ builder's instrument. Rodgers invented the "Laptop" computer voicing software.
It is beyond me how anyone can thinke that Rodgers is way behind. Their technology is based on the same technology that is now being used at IBM, Rockwell, NASA. The technology permits so much that any other digital builder is not capable of doing. Further Rodgers circuitry uses Surface Mount boards, Intel Flash Memory for the thousands of settings from voicing to MIDI and user functions. Rodgers, in their Trillium series can store over 5,000 combination action settings. Do you know of any other that can do that?

Always remember this...nothing remains the same forever. Yes Rodgers invented the pipe and digital concept, allowing numerous churches to keep their pipes. Further, Rodgers is still the Official Organ of Carnegie Hall, the world/'s most repected organists play Rodgers. Hmmmm they must be doing something right!

Try the Rodgers latest series, the Trillium. You'll be amazed!

Thanks a lot
KG Grant
Posted By: khgrant Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 04/21/02 07:50 PM
Regarding Rodgers and Allen

Voicing on the Rodgers can allow you to change your digital ranks, also on their second voices, called Voice Pallete you can independently select the second set of digital ranks, not so on the other,

Talking about keyboards, Rodgers uses in their moving drawknobs Harris, used on the world's best pipe organs. Their wooden keyboards are "ALL WOOD" take a look at the two brands, see for yourself that Rodgers keyboards are wooden from the front to the back, not wood glued onto a piece of wood behind the key rail.

I would like to say Allen builds a nice organ, just keep an open mind when comparing. It is obvious some have not seen the latest Rodgers as of the early 90's.

Again, they both build a fine digital organ.

KH Grant
Posted By: Taylor Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 08/17/02 07:33 PM
Originally posted by khgrant:
Regarding Rodgers and Allen

Voicing on the Rodgers can allow you to change your digital ranks, also on their second voices, called Voice Pallete you can independently select the second set of digital ranks, not so on the other,

Talking about keyboards, Rodgers uses in their moving drawknobs Harris, used on the world's best pipe organs. Their wooden keyboards are "ALL WOOD" take a look at the two brands, see for yourself that Rodgers keyboards are wooden from the front to the back, not wood glued onto a piece of wood behind the key rail.

I would like to say Allen builds a nice organ, just keep an open mind when comparing. It is obvious some have not seen the latest Rodgers as of the early 90's.

Again, they both build a fine digital organ.

KH Grant
I know this is the slowest reply in the history of the internet but i have to correct some factual inacuracies here. It will be come obvious that i am an Allen supporter But lets take this one at a time

Voicing. KH Grant i guess you are unaware of Allens Sound matrix technology that is available on all of their Rennissance organs. This allows the you to go in Via Laptop computer and replace any Stop With another sample from Allens Sound matrix library that includes thousands of different Pipe Sounds (sampled from real pipes). Also each voice can be EQed and Balanced virtually Getting down to the level of the Sound Wave itself. This lets you get in and really custom fit an organ to the room. There is no one else even in the same league when it comes to voicing. And you can do it instantly and in Real time.

Keybords and Drawknobs. This is really a matter of personal preference. But to clear one thing up Allen uses the Full length Wooden Keys. With sealed Magnetic contacts that don't corrode. As to the mooving draw knobs. I've seen both and held both and the Allen draw knows move more smothly and gently and have a real good feel the Rogers to me feel cheap and sticky they don't pull evenly. Again this is Personal Preference. But this gos to a manufaturing issue. Roland I mean Rodgers buys their parts from parts companies. these companies have to make money too so they mark it up and it costs Rodgers a little more for these parts. Allen Makes them in house and there is no middle man They are able to make a better part for less money. Also Allen parts are made to work with Allen parts. Rodgers and other Pipeless organ companies buys parts form a vendor that are basically generic parts that are not necisarily designed to work together. Can you tell i like Allen yet?

As to who invented the technology i'm not going to argue this. Perhapse i should have said they pioneered the technoligy and made it work.

i don't think we would even be debating this if there was a greater consistancey in the service nation wide. The problem is the organ community in general is computer illiterate and a digital organ Allen or Rodgers require some computer skills to voice. Rodgers makes a nice organ but really Go ahead and compaire the Trilliums to the Rennassiance organs I dare you.

You are obviously an Allen man and Grant you are a Rodgers guy.

Now I would love to compare both. Where do we go from here? Lets find a city where we can compare two great installations, have lunch and a beer, and settle this.
Posted By: Bill G. Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 08/20/02 09:26 PM
originally posted by Eldon (last year)

I have a CD with Virgil Fox playing his Rogers touring organ. I think is sounds pretty good.
Eldon, I grew up a few subway stops from the Fillmore East, site of many great rock concerts. I was a teenager and for a few years it was the place to go on a Saturday night. At a show one night they anounced upcomming acts and to my great suprise I hear "Bach live at the Fillmore East-Virgil Fox-Heavy Organ". My aunt was an organist so I knew who he was, but I couldn't believe he was playing the Filmore. After all it was a (hard)rock venue. Anyway, I talked some fiends into going, and to this day it remains one of my all time most memorable concert expierences. To see him perform, (dressed in jacket and tie) in front of bunch of crazed, half stoned teenage rock fans, and completely command their attention was unforgetable. Somewhere buried in my basement is an LP that was recorded at the F.E. and there is a cover photo of him at the Rodgers.

Posted By: ks-soundman Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 10/31/04 10:34 PM
It seems the debate over which is better--Rodgers or Allen--is nearly as emotional and heated as which is the better choice--pipes or digital! There are several topics that I thought I'd comment on. First of all, the technology for a digital device to produce sound waves was developed by North American Rockwell during the high point years of the Apollo space program. Allen simply harnessed this power, and pioneered the technology, but not before securing patent rights to it.

The biggest advantage Allen has over Rodgers is their acquisition and analysis of an unbelievably large library of pipe organ samples from some of the absolute finest instruments in the world. In many cases, pipes from highly acclaimed instruments were made available to Allen for digital evaluation. Allen has a 17 year head start on any other maker of organs with this regard. Anyone building any kind of database knows that a 17 year head start is tough to compete with.

We all have to be incredibly cautious when offering praise to any instrument because it isn't always the instrument that sounds incredible. The former head of custom organ design for Allen Organ, Larry Phelps, once said "The biggest stop on the organ is the room itself". A Farfisa from the mid-60's would sound great in the Mormon Tabernacle, if given a chance.

A previous comment about a feature Rodgers offers providing for "sag" control made me chuckle. Not being critical of their effort by any means, I wonder if the sound of every physical flaw a pipe organ ever makes really SHOULD be imitated AND reproduced. Is it musical, or just a noise? Does it bring realism, or just become a "real pain"?

Carnegie Hall has been a prestigious installation Rodgers has held bragging rights for for many years. The last report I heard, was that the instrument wasn't actually owned by Carnegie Hall at all, but was actually on "loan" from Rodgers, and all maintenance, setup and handling costs were constantly paid for by Rodgers, at no charge to the Hall! Perhaps if given no choice but to PAY for an instrument, and a Rodgers chosen, a more credible reputation could be built.

A recent audition of the new Quantum-series of organs by Allen organ has so impressed the organ committee of the church where I play, that we have all but given up the idea of refurbishing the old pipe organ. A demonstration of a new Rodgers 2 blocks away the month before wasn't quite as effective at turning this committee, however.
Posted By: Orgelkraft Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 11/21/04 03:13 AM
Go to www.phoenixorgans.com and request a CD to hear a GOOD organ. Let YOUR ears decide the best organ. Does anything else really matter? If you can't tell if an Allen or a Rodgers sounds better, what difference does it make which you choose?
Posted By: DCR Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 06/29/07 04:31 PM
I've been listening to the on-going Allen/Rodgers debate for three decades, and for most of that time I've believed that Allen had the edge. Before Rodgers introduced a digital instrument (late 1980s?), it was using technology that Allen invented in the 1930s. From its invention of the digital organ in the early 1970s until the late 1980s, Allen was clearly superior to Rodgers (and to everything else on the market, as well).

About a year ago, I was introduced to a digital Rodgers, early 1990s vintage. Without a doubt, the best Rodgers I've ever played. It was decidedly more pipe-like than earlier Rodgers instruments, and quite similar to the early 1990s vintage Allen that I play weekly at a Lutheran church. Similar, but not the same, in my judgment. The sound seemed a little thinner, but still fairly good. My understanding is that the instrument was a "standard-issue" mid-size two manual instrument of that time, but I found the stop-list a little odd (although I hasten to admit that may be a bit of my preconceptions coming through).

While the sound was nearly as as good as a similar vintage Allen, the mechanical parts of the instrument were markedly poorer. Some of the pedals rattled noisily when actuated, the key action was inconsistent (both in resistance to playing and depth of travel), and some of the keys clicked audibly when played. It is worthwhile noting that like the Allen I play on Sundays, this instrument also in a Lutheran church. These churches are of similar size, and their music programs are similar as well, so it would be reasonable to say that these two instruments have had similar amounts of use. Presumably the Rodgers instrument did not have the mechanical issues when it was new, and presumably they can be corrected.

By contrast, however, the Allen has never had any such issues. I have known and played the instrument since it was new, and I do not detect any deterioration in these mechanical aspects. I do not detect any deterioration in other factors of the instrument, either.

I have more recently been introduced to a "Quantum" organ built by the Allen company, and I found its sound exceptionally pipe-like, especially in its startlingly realistic reproduction of the magnificent sounds of the Cavaille-Colle organs of the 19th century.

I have not heard a more recent Rodgers organ, and a decade's worth of progress in digital technology is immense. So, I'm not offering any opinion on the current state of Rodgers organs.

An earlier post to this forum has noted that Allen organs are virtually 100 percent made by Allen, without buying off-the-shelf parts from other manufacturers. This is more a benefits than one might first expect, until one plays an otherwise appealing instrument and hears rattles from the pedals in the middle of the fugue!

It is also worthwhile noting that Allen has maintained a commitment that it will service every organ it has ever made, as long as the organ is still in existence. I don't know of a similar commitment from any other organ manufacturer. How important is that? A few years ago, I had the opportunity to play an Allen organ from the early 1940s--it was about 60 years old when I played it. The sound was, well, "historical," but the key action was still exemplary!


PS: I've never had the opportunity to play a Phoenix organ, and so I have no opinion about that instrument. If you're still in the market, I recommend an Allen over a Rodgers. On the other hand, I'd recommend a Rodgers over virtually every other digital organ manufacturer.

PPS: One of the posts on this forum mentioned the analog Rodgers touring organ that Virgil Fox used for a while ("used," but did not own). I had the opportunity to hear Dr. Fox live, twice, playing this instrument, and I was FAR more impressed with his playing than with the sound of the instrument. Some time later, Dr. Fox purchased his own touring organ--an Allen. The Allen company will provide you Dr. Fox's own letter of commendation regarding the instrument, written after the truck carrying it was in a roll-over accident, and the instrument still played, without missing a single note, and before a technician could check it over!
Just a footnote - I serviced electronic organs for a 30 year period ending in 1997. Therefore, my comments will not be totally relevant for more recent instruments.

In the time period that I mentioned, service on Allen instruments was totally locked up to any independent technician. Allen refused to sell any parts except to the channel through their authorized dealer network. Also, during that time, the dealers were expected to maintain a parts kit for each Allen model. The electronics of the instuments were made in a modular fashion, and repairs consisted of locating the defective module(s), replacement, ship the old module back to Allen, Allen refurbished it and returned it to the dealer. As an independent technician who serviced all other makes, I did not personally like this system. However, I am not sure that it would be relevant to the instrument owner.

Rodgers (at least at that time) would sell parts, service manuals, etc. to qualified technicians (and I presume to end users) without requiring that they go through a dealer. Pricing may well have not been the same, I'm not sure. Many things did change for Rodgers after the company became a part of Roland, including adding a lower price line of instruments which were not built mechanically as well as the older instruments.

The older instruments for both Allen and Rodgers were analog instruments. Digital instruments have gone through several generations. Current instruments from both companies employ advanced computer systems which scan the keyboards and play sampled waveforms (just like my Kurzweil synthesizer keyboard - same principle of operation).

I have listened to many of the instruments of the period, both Allen and Rodgers - and each of them (except for the smaller models) had considerable latitude in voicing. Later models of both companies were typically voiced using a notebook computer with special programs. One of the most time consuming things in an installation was proper voicing - which had two main considerations, one being to voice the instrument for the best sound within the acoustic environment (complicated in the Rodgers which also had wind blown pipe ranks), the other was voicing for the particular requirements of the church and its music. As an example, I installed two mid range instruments of the same model in a single town - one for an Episcopal church which employed full liturgical worship, the other for a Baptist church which has a much more modern and evangelical service. The two instruments sounded totally different. The flutes and principals in particular were quite different.

Parts availability - there have been comments concerning parts availability - that Allen built all their own components. This may well be true in the case of wooden parts and such things, but I can assure you that electronic parts such as microprocessors and computer memory were not built directly by Allen. The requirements for building a modern Integrated Circuit manufacturing plant mean that literally millions of parts must be produced to make the factory pay off. Now, it may very well be that Allen has stocked a very considerable number of such parts, but that number is finite - when the last one is used of an electronic component such as a large scale integrated circuit - the cost of having a few hundred more made would be astronomical. It is also highly probable that such things as keyboards, stopswitches, pedal boards, toe studs, etc. were subbed by companies which built such things, producing these items on such a limited quantity basis would have been prohibitive for either company cost wise.

I do not say this to knock either company, it is just a fact of life in dealing with any electronics. Example: in the 1960's you could buy vaccuum tubes at most drug stores in the US, there were dozens of American manufacturers. After all the US suppliers went out of business, tubes were sourced from eastern Europe, Russia, and China. Currently, only a very few tubes are made anywhere in the world (I am referring to small tubes, not high power transmitting tubes), mostly in Russia and China. Most of these are sold for use in extremely high end audio equipment, or for guitar amplfiers on the high end. The current tubes are vastly inferior to those made 40 years ago, and there is a market for "NOS" (new old stock) RCA, GE, Sylvania, Amperex, and especially Mullard tubes.

So take my word for it, it is quite possible to have a failure in either Allen or Rodgers and be unable to come up with a replacement part.

One thing that Rodgers did which I never saw Allen do (at that time, not sure about now) was to make larger instruments which could have electronic ranks disabled and replaced by true wind-blown pipe ranks (I would service the electronics right up to the point where a signal was sent to a solenoid which opened the valve that supplied air to the pipe, and a pipe technician would take over there). Their custom shop also designed special electronic additions to various pipe organs (such as a 64' rank of pedals).

One of the coolest instruments I ever played was their smallest model that had wind blown pipes, it had two ranks of flutes and two ranks of principals (4' and 2') It stood 8 feet high, about 16 feet wide, we had a number installed even in private homes. What a blast to play, the nearest pipe was a couple of feet in front of you while playing.

Posted By: Pianomann2 Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 08/14/07 03:50 AM
My friends in the UK tell me that the temporary organ installed recently at the Royal Albert Hall in London during the restoration of their mighty Father Willis pipe organ, was a Rodgers 3 manual digital organ. It is owned by the BBC and is now currently on loan to one of the big cathedrals in UK. I suspect that the BBC and the Royal Albert Hall know what they are doing!
Posted By: Jim Berna Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 03/10/08 02:42 PM
I have played both the Podgers and the Allen! Both are good organs, but in our Pittsburgh are, we have an Allen repairman but for Rodgers, we Have to rely on T>S> Good company out of Cleveland, Ohio!
I know that Allen is able to make parts for their organs that are 40 to 50 years old, but I do not know about Rodgers! It was also a rumor that when Rodgers forst opened, their technology was taken from Allen by former employees!
I'll take an Allen for an electronic over Rodgers any day of the week!
Posted By: RachBach Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 09/12/08 08:27 PM
I have played on a number of big Allens and I find them devoid of character and personality - They sound bland and overprocessed. Now, their Theatre Organs are a whole other story. Those machines have definite brass, sass, personality, and character. I have the pleasure of playing their TO-5Q at least once a week and have a blast doing so. Why can't Allen's classic organs have this kind of moxie? Yeah, I know the difference between a classic and a theatre organ but I'm still puzzled by their classic organ sounds being bland and trite.

My own machine is a custom Walker Digital 4 manual/100 stop - no borrowing or duplexing involved.
Posted By: Dew643 Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 11/01/09 01:32 AM
I have heard both,and I would take an Allen any day of the week over the Rodgers. I do not play(though I wish I knew how)and I would take one of the Protege organs without thinking twice about
it,...looks as if it would be an easier Allen to learn on than the big drawknob consoles in the Renaissance series.
Posted By: RayE Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 02/03/10 10:54 PM
I'm not an expert on the differences between Allen and Rodgers, but I wanted to tell you my experience with Allen repair. I own a small Allen MDC Classic 20, that I play often and has never required a repair. Our church is on it's second Allen the first was a tube powered unit that had two large racks of tube oscillators. We had that organ for decades, and it served us well, but as I am sure you realize needed occasional tube replacement and regular tuning (which we were able to do ourselves). Our new digital Allen an MDS series had an amplifier failure after about 10 years. It is true Allen doesn't make the ICs that go on their boards, but they do manufacture the boards. Because of the modular design of the organ they may not have the original module that went into your organ but they will guarantee to be able to provide you with an equivalent module. The amplifier we received as a replacement for our failed unit was a newer design and cleaner sounding than the original. I won't begin to say anything negative about Rodgers organs. I have heard some and enjoyed the listening experience, I haven't heard or played them enough to give an informed oppinion about which is best. I just wanted to say that as far as reliability goes, Rogers may be just as reliable, but I don't think they could be any more reliable than the Three Allen organs I've been in regular contact with over the years.
Posted By: Brandon_W_T Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 02/04/10 02:39 AM
Ahh... the long and bloody debate of Allen and Rodgers.

My personal organs i have owned are - 1940s Hammond CV- Kimball thingy, and a 1968 Rodgers.

While the rodgers was very solid and well built (oak, wood keys etc) It was not pleasing to the ear. Of course its a 1968 organ! But I have found that allen was a bit more ahead at that time than rodgers was.

Now for new organs. My playing of new rodgers is slim but I can hold my head high when I speak for allen! There is a local dealer for them, and I cant be more impressed each time I play an allen!

Especially their renaissance quantum line. Its unbelievably realistic, full and lush sounding. With 6 suits, you can play ANYTHING!

Wish I had $60,000 to spare on a new 3 manual! Maybe some day I can grab a cheap protege model!

I also love Viscount organs of Italy. I feel they are pushing far ahead in the organ industry lately!
Posted By: Brandon_W_T Re: ALLEN vs RODGERS digital pipe organs - 02/04/10 02:40 AM
My favorite brand next to Allen will always Be Johannus! They are fantastic sounding and well designed instruments! And very cheap for what you get!
Originally Posted by Brandon_W_T
Ahh... the long and bloody debate of Allen and Rodgers.

Very much like the PC v. Mac debate . . .
We will see what happens now that Johannus bought Rodgers.
Hi all,

Wow! This is an Oooold thread. So to be clear, I have always enjoyed the Rodgers organ and i certainly have preferred them for years over the Allen. The technology that Rodgers uses make it possible for an organist to voice the organ from anywhere within the space using an Ipad! They can voice note to note. This is technology that they have had for several years now. The orchestral voices they offer are also far superior to Allen and the organ samples they have been using for years now are much more robust and professional than Allen.

Since I joined this thread in 2001, things have changed for me. 5 years ago I took to opportunity to add the sales of digital and pipe organs to my company and my first choice was to carry Rodgers. Since then this organ was chosen to perform at Philadelphia's Papal mass in 2015 and The Grand Court Organist od The Wanamaker Organ, Peter Richard Conte, has purchased a 3 manual Rodgers for his home, in spite of the fact that Allen provides him with free organs when he performs with the Philadelphia Organ Quartet.

Originally Posted by willem van suijdam
We will see what happens now that Johannus bought Rodgers.

More accurately willem, The van de Weerd family, who owns Johannus, Makin, and Copeman Hart, purchased Rodgers in 2015 from Roland.

I am pleased to tell you that the resources from the van de Weerd family, along with the established technology of the Rodgers has been a pleasure for me to work with. Now that I can exchange emails with a member of the family the dealer network for Rodgers has only become stronger and the product more customizable.

Full Disclosure = I SELL THEM.

BUT, I want to include just a few links for those who may have heard a "less than ideal" installation.

Model 361 at The First Presbyterian Church of Ambler, Pa.:

We provided the organ for the Pope - unfortunately, there is no music on this video:

While I respect Allen, I have a clear preference. There are many fine musicians in my region that agree with me.

My 2 cents,
© Piano World Piano & Digital Piano Forums