From bruce@ashbysolutions.com Wed Jan 08 10:27:41 2003
Subject:Re: Medeski and the old CX-3

Hi Brian,

>mitch, hey, interesting comments. You say, ".the old
> CX-3 is a bad clone of a B-3 to begin with", can you elaborate?

I'm not Mitch, but I'll add my $0.02 ...

The original CX-3 and BX-3 used analog electronics that simulated sine waves, like a B-3 does, but the resultant waves were not quite the same as the Hammond TG -- not necessarily a worse approximation, but definitely DIFFERENT. Also, the "tone generator" in a CX/BX had 96 oscillators, rather than 91, meaning the foldback on the top started higher up the scale. These two items together resulted in an organ with a noticeably brighter timbre than the average B-3. Some players really liked it, but if accuracy was the yardstick, the CX-3 and BX-3 definitely failed the test.

The CX-3 didn't have vibrato of any kind -- just the Leslie sim, which was fantastic for its day, but sorely lacking by modern standards. The BX-3 had vibrato, and vibrato chorus, but the effect sounded nothing like a real scanner vibrato, IMHO.

The percussion on both organs was brighter and more "digital" than Hammond percussion, and lacked that authoritative "thump" on the low notes.

Now, none of this means that the original CX-3 and BX-3 were not useful instruments, but even their proponents were known to say things like, "I really like it because the sound is a lot crisper than a B-3." This probably sounds a little sacrilegious to many list members, but take it in the context of the mid-80's, when Hammond owners were selling their decidedly old-school instruments for a song to pay for a Prophet 5 or a DW6000, and you couldn't even GIVE away an A-100. (I personally gave away a beautiful Leslie 147RV to my roommate because it wouldn't fit in my new apartment -- on of the dumber things I've done in my life!)

Regards,

-BW

--
Bruce Wahler
Ashby Solutions™ http://music.ashbysolutions.com
978.386.7389 voice/fax
bruce@ashbysolutions.com