From alenhoff@yahoo.com Mon Oct 16 19:04:20 2006
Subject:Re: B2 vs. B3

Here's a more complete rundown, from a B2/Trek owner:

The Trek II percussion sounds great, and actually is more versatile
than the B-3 percussion (you can set decay and volume at any level,
not just fast/slow or normal/soft). You can also use a fifth
harmonic and easily select which drawbar gets disabled when you
select the B-preset. The negative: If you're used to B-3-type
percussion, its controls are different and located on the opposite
side of the keyboards.

The Trek reverb is very nice sounding. (It's not the TS-2, by the
way; that's just a switch that can control your Leslie speed and a
separately purchased Trek reverb unit.)

On the organ itself: It has a different tube preamp than the B3.
The main difference (aside from the lack of percussion) is that the
B3 preamp was re-designed to use miniature tubes. Frequency
response is reputed to be virtually identical.

Most B2s have the rachet drawbars, which can be annoying. They can
be replaced, but at considerable cost. Hammond made production
changes during the B2 production run, so my 1954 model (last year of
production) came with the B3's smooth drawbars. Mine also has the
metal expression pedal of the B3 (earlier models, I believe, had a
wooden pedal).

On the plus side, the cabinets of the B2s and early B3s are
generally regarded to be of higher quality than those of late B3s.

One other consideration: Since the B2s are older than B3s, their
aged waxed caps are likely to sound more mellow than a late-
production B3 with mylar caps. Aged to perfection, I say. But to
each his/her own…

Anyway, I love mine, and paid a fraction of the price of a nice B3.

Alan

--- In CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Bradley"
wrote:
>
> >
> > --
> > Josh Lawrence
> > http://www.hardbop200.com
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>