“A hybrid suggests (the instrument) is neither fish nor fowl,” he said. “and this is definitely a fish.”
The organist in this article continues to spread fuzzy information: “The digital-pipe combination starts with a full pipe organ as its basis, then adds the digital component to enhance the pipe sound while adding as many as hundreds of sampled instruments.” (“Full” pipe organ?) Then, he compares today’s pipe-electronic combinations, properly called hybrids, with those from decades ago: “The newer instruments are gaining wide acceptance, but the first efforts, which came out in the early 1970s, did not go over well because the analog technology in use at the time didn’t produce a good sound.” While that’s true, it doesn’t really help the non-technical person understand the current situation. It’s the argument to buy (or accept) because of progress.
The worst line is one where unnamed individuals, “critics,” were “fooled,” by this incredible new technology: “Once we started to go to digital, then the idea (of computer-assisted technology) became quite attractive,” he said, and added that the digital sampling is so accurate, even die-hard critics couldn’t tell the difference.” I’m in favor of technological progress and improvement all around. The newer synthesized organ sounds are very impressive on their own and don’t need the haze of fuzzy arguments to try to make a sale by confusing the buyers.
“95% Fat Free” means “5% Fat” and it’s a common example of a misleading description. I’m sure you have seen examples of others attempting to convince you of something by presenting information which is biased, not to the normal acceptable level of promotion but to the degree where the intent is to create the likelihood of erroneous inference.