From josenramirez@yahoo.com Sun Feb 07 08:03:13 2010
Subject:Re: Clavia

I love the drawbars as well as a real Hammond with a real Leslie. Nevertheless, If there are friendlier alternatives for the road I'll go for them. I have played the Nords and haven't been able to get used to the way their drawbar buttons work. That's maybe because we are used to physical buttons. Roland made an attempt to substitute the drawbars in the G-70 which is not a Clone as we know it but does have a clone section. I've played many gigs with it and although it takes some time to get used to it you can work your way around it.

My point is that we will have to get used to technological advances like virtual speaker simulators like the Vent, virtual tonewheel reproductions and of course new approaches to "drawbars".

All these alternatives work as long as we keep on making good music keeping the "Hammond" sound alive.

José

________________________________
From: Pontus Henrikson PH
To: CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sun, February 7, 2010 10:41:07 AM
Subject: [CWSG] Re: Clavia


I would find the drawbuttons much more useable i it were one button instead of two. Like a single switch that you can push forward or backwards. Im actually thinking of modifying my electro 3 this way..

--- In CloneWheel@yahoogro ups.com, "Jason S" wrote:
>
>
> If I might respond:
>
> --- In CloneWheel@yahoogro ups.com, "ripplevac" wrote:
> >
> > I also don't get the point of physical drawbars when there are newer technologies available to do the same thing.
>
> For many organ players, anything *but* drawbars is as inconceivable as replacing moving keys with a touch-pad. For *years* I had to overcome the non-drawbar hurdle while promoting the red ones, but it was an uphill battle. In the end it's all about being comfortable with what you're playing, and the majority of organists out there are still those who came up playing vintage organs, and for them there's no substitute for physical drawbars.
>
> >
> > If one can put touch pads on an iphone, certainly, touch pads can be put on an organ.
>
> While it might be *technically* feasible, it presents some practical problems:
>
> 1. If the exact component needed (like a touch screen) in the exact specs needed isn't available off-the-shelf from its manufacturer, it's going to be prohibitively expensive to produce. The manufacturers of such components want numbers commitments, mainly because it's expensive for them to retool in order to make the custom component. This isn't so high a concern for Apple, who sells iPhones/iPod Touches in the *millions* [and likely owns the factories making them (keyboard makers are very third-party dependent)].
>
> 2. Certain tech can only be used with expensive licensing by its manufacturer, on top of the cost per unit. Warranties and ongoing support are not easily acquirable without them.
>
> 3. These relationships can come with a lot of strings attached, too. No maker of touch-screens is going to stand idly by while a keyboard company reverse-engineers it, and sends the tech to another factory for cheaper duplication.
>
> 4. Integrating someone else's proprietary tech into yours is far more involved than writing a few lines of code. You have to master a whole new language, and often adjust to their way of doing things. If you're a company with limited human resources in the programmer dept., all other projects are on hold until they grok a solution.
>
> 5. Coming up with that tech from scratch takes a lot of time and expense. No matter how dedicated one is, at some point the question "will this really translate into profit?" becomes a factor.
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]