From daddyo@telusplanet.net Fri Aug 10 16:22:48 2007
Subject:Re: Analog Korg CX-3 on Portland Craigslist

Bruce's points are true, and when trying to compare to a real Hammond, or a
modern clone with digital features, he can't be challenged. But...when playing
it for what it is, it's a great instrument. My biggest beef is lack of Chorus.
Sometimes I use the built in sim on slow with my lesli as well and get a cool
sound.
Brock Gillis
daddyo@telusplanet.net
"Be thinking of B-3's and Leslies goin round"

"Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies. Great friends help
you move your B3"

Quoting Bruce Wahler :

> I agree -- with caveats. From a purely functional point of view, the 1979
> CX-3 cannot compare to the 2007 CX-3, IMHO. The analog CX-3 has a fat, warm
> sound, but it 1) has no vibrato whatsoever; 2) has a terrible Leslie sim (by
> today's standards); and 3) has no user presets. In addition, the digital
> CX-3 has two sets of drawbars, splits, better ergonomics, more natural key
> click, etc., etc. I would expect a price more in the $350-450 area.
>
> > Regards,
>
> -BW
> --
> Bruce Wahler
> AshbySolutions.com_
> 978.386.7389 voice/fax
> bruce@ashbysolutions.com
>
> At 04:32 PM 8/10/2007, tonysounds wrote:
> >$650 is too much.
> >
> >jim wrote: --- In CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com,
> MRK7421@... wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't even know how to put in a link but this just went on in the
> >last 5
> >> minutes on the Portland, Oregon Craigslist musical instrument section.
> >>
> >> 1979 Analog Korg CX3, price 650 dollars. The seller DID NOT leave a
> >phone
> >> number
> >>
> >> Mark in Salem Oregon
> >>
> >> ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the
> >all-new AOL at
> >> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >Idon't know prices in USA but I think the price is a little too high.
> >Last year I bought a BX3 plus a MKIII dynacord leslie cabinet for the
> >equivalent (in "euros") of 1000 USD... but maybe I've been lucky ?
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>