From deke@dekethegeek.com Thu Aug 29 13:37:57 2002
Subject:RE: What Defines a Clone?

>Since the main part of the essence of the Hammond sound is truly the
>tonewheels, then the New B3 is certainly a clone. (As is the B-Free,
>even though it's got the tonewheels. Just the thought of calling a
>virtually rackmounted version of the Hammond an original is almost
>sacreligous...and don't get me started on the price!)
>
>However, none of the clones we've (at least that I've) had the
>privilege of working on has ever had anything truly mechanical on it
>(i.e. not computerized), whereas the New B3 brings back the
>mechancial contact system. Though this isn't the majority of the
>sound, it is pretty integral to the Hammond sound. Not to mention
>just having something electro-mechanical is a part of experience of a
>Hammond, as opposed to a digital computer chip.

I disagree... I think the contact system, the resistive wire network, and
the drawbars (the fact that there are nine) are the important parts of the
Hammond sound... as I posted in a previous message. If this weren't the
case, why don't we hear complaints from people who have had missing tones on
their TWG replaced with oscillators? If the tonewheels themselves were so
unique to the sound, there would be an obvious difference in the tonal
qualities of the repaired tone. Quite the contrary, people who have replaced
missing tones with oscillators report no difference in tonal qualities of
the organ. Again, I say the tonewheels are really cool in design, but not
nearly as important to the sound as the keying system.

Deke The Geek
-contact paper-