From tonysounds@yahoo.com Wed Jun 30 05:29:10 2004
Subject:Re: Thoughts on the XK-3 Demos

This is pretty interesting. I hear what both of you are saying, but I do tend to agree with MT. There is a pretty strong bias against HS on this list. People are still harboring bad feelings over their Xb2s (and how old is THAT clone anyway? I don't hear anybody whining about how their analog CX3s didn't have FX...seeing as it was built by Korg, why didn't they put their own FX chip in???; I dont hear them whining about how their CX3 didn't have a split keyboard, or a decent CV unit, or a halfway decent leslie sim; and hey, where are the disgruntled VK1000 owners?), and carrying that prejudice onto the XK3 without having heard and PLAYED one. I'm sorry, but listening to some mp3s does NOT qualify as having heard or auditioned a piece of equipment. No offense to Josiah, but we are working from a template of what he thinks sounds right, and when you're comparing those mp3s, hard as you might try, you will still be prejudiced by the sound of the mp3s of the clone you own:
unconsciously, you will be making allowances for your clone based on the sounds you have tweaked and coaxed from it.

Not only that, but wasn't Josiah's taste test like 2 months ago? Why are we rehashing this dead subject again....or did Yahoo eat a few postings that I didn't see?

Yeah, there is an anti-HS bias at work here. Your own statements bear this out: Because they made the B3, it's expected that they have a higher bar than the competition. Well, tubes and tonewheels are a different engine than samples, physical modeling and whatever other technology is at work in a clone. And frankly, as an XK3 owner (as well as an owner of just about every other clone made at one point), that higher bar has been reached by HS.

T

elggobo wrote: