From drjoho@swbell.net Tue Nov 09 11:19:54 2004
Subject:Re: Why did Hammond get the virtual B3 right?

Dave,

I have been trying to stay out of this thread, but you
do make it difficult.

I am not sure what you mean when you say that
"everyone" should start by listening to the basic drawbar
sound with no effects or Leslie when evaluating a clone.

I think that the Hammond Organ and the Leslie Speaker
are intimately tied together.

I have a 1962 Hammond A-101 (and a nice one at that)
with its internal speakers and a Leslie 122 (that is run
directly off the AO 28 preamp, as in a B3).

This is my judge as to what an organ should sound like and
it sounds just great!

I guess you could connect the AO 28 preamp output to a set of reference
monitors and compare that to clones through the same reference
monitors, but what would that prove? I only listen to my A101
through a Leslie and it surely colors the sound (and in a very
positive manner).

I own three clones: Hammond XK-3, Electro 73, and Korg CX3.
When I test their sound, I test them first and foremost against
my A-101 and its Leslie 122.

I can connect my XK-3 directly to my Leslie 122 thru a Leslie 1122
kit and with careful adjusting of the XK-3 parameters I can get it
so, so close to my A-101.

The Electro and Korg I have not been able to hook up directly
to my Leslie 122. I could have Steve modify my speakeasy but
I don't think it is necessary.

For my comparison, there I used my MS Pro-145. There was no
doubt the XK-3 sounded sweeter to my ears. The Electro was second
but there is a slight dullness. The CX3 is thin and digital sounding.
(Although, I will say that I have gigged with all these clones and I think
that the expertise of the player is more important that the difference
in the sound of the clones).

So, guess what I gig with my XK-3 and at present with my MS Pro-145.

But, my Pro-145 does not sound exactly like a Leslie (but close, except
for the bass) so I am building a small Leslie for gigging. I am putting the
guts of a 122 into a 120 cabinet (had to extend the cabinet a bit to get
the 15" woofer in). So, I will see if I can get a light Leslie that sounds
like
a Leslie. Maybe, Maybe not.

BTW, when I play my XK-3 through a Leslie (either my 122 or my 145 -
yes I have two leslies soon to have 3) I do not feel like I am playing a
clone
other than the physical aspects. When I close my eyes, whether I play my
A101 or my XK-3 it sounds like a Hammond not a clone.

BTW, I do really like my Electro and have no plans of selling it. I keep
saying
that I am going to sell my CX3 but it hasn't left the house yet, so the saga
continues...

Josiah
Austin, Texas

----- Original Message -----
>
> You really need to have the basic tone generator sound right first.
> Everything that gets piled on top of that is just icing. Everyone
> should start by listening to the basic drawbar sound with no effects
> or Leslie when evaluating a clone. Then you can logically evaluate
> the quality of the different effects (chorus, percussion, leakage,
> Leslie sim). Without the proper basic generator sound you'll be
> fiddling with effect parameters forever trying to correct for a basic
> deficiency.
>
> /Dave
>
> --- In CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com, "EXT-Schurr, Larry A"
> wrote:
> > I'm kinda going with -steve, here. What's the dif?
> >
> > IMO, at the generator level, I don't believe there's any meaningful
> > difference and I don't really believe there's anyone that can prove
> much
> > otherwise. Remembering, of course, that people like Nord utilize
> > modeling to integrate the various artifacts that come (arguably )
> > *after* the generator. Also, models like Korg's rely on modeling
> > architecture to increase Leslie realism. So it's not a generator as
> > such even to begin with.
> >
> > Add to that, there is so very many factors *after* the generator
> that so
> > greatly affect the sound that the generator output is well
> conditioned
> > if not hidden long before it sees the speakers. Tube pre-amps,
> perc,
> > vib/chorus, and certainly Leslie all do their part to completely
> change
> > the generator output. Hammond or clone, if it's an additive
> > architecture, the 'generator' section is just there to be in tune
> and
> > not much more.
> >
> > So (if I might brownnose for bit), my V3 and 2X midi-drawbars is
> STILL
> > my favorite live rig. Still. Even after owning a Nord and a Korg.
> > ('Course, it's built-in to my FrankenClone.) Yes, I run the V3
> through
> > various post-processors and FX, but that's the point: I can mess
> with
> > the sound all I want and it still comes out nice. Not always the
> case
> > with the newer hardware. So as far as "better" goes, whatever
> the V3
> > does works for me, for now.
> > OTOH, I'm warming up to the XK and it'll likely end up playing a
> major
> > part in my FrankenClone rework ;-) But that'll be a bit later, yet.
> >
> > L.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vocedave2002 [mailto:dave@b...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2004 8:34 AM
> > To: CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [CWSG] Why did Hammond get the virtual B3 right?
> >
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > The question still remains... for a given generator model, is
> it
> >
> > better to use a fully modeled tonewheel oscillator or one
> which
> > is a
> > repeating snapshot in time?
> >
> > /Dave
> >
> > --- In CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Schow"
> >
> > wrote:
> > > I thought I heard someone else say that B4 used samples and
> I
> > > misunderstood. It very well may not. And it very well may.
> > Do we
> > > really know for sure that it does not use ANY samples
> anywhere
> > in
> > its
> > > innards?
> > >
> > > Anyway, this is becoming a ridiculous thread.
> > >
> > > all the best
> > >
> > > -steve
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> To unsubscribe, send email to: CloneWheel-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>