From groovecake@yahoo.com Thu Dec 15 21:33:55 2011
Subject:Crumar Mojo - Brief Follow-up


Ok, I now feel like I wrote my review too soon. As I said in my review, I hadn't had a chance to try some things yet, the most intriguing of these being the alternate Leslie simulation. The Mojo sends its normal Leslie simulation in stereo like every other Leslie simulation. However, the Mojo is also capable of splitting the L/R output to create what Crumar calls vertical simulation ("V.S. Technology" in the manual). The left channel sends a simulation of the horn and the right channel sends a simulation of the rotor. (Note: The manual has it wrong. It says the opposite of how the simulation functions. Chalk it up to the translation.) These simulations are applied with an 800hz internal crossover to simulate the crossover in a Leslie. Ideally, one would stack a couple speakers on top of each other to get the maximum simulation effect. The simulation is then in mono, but it is designed to simulate what it would sound like sitting in front of the Leslie.

So...does it?

To sum it up in one word: Oh, my God.

Seriously, I have not heard a Leslie simulation like this. The separation of the highs and lows adds so much space to the sound, you wonder why someone hasn't done it before. (I guess Motion Sound has with it's Pro-3 line, but those had issues of their own when it came to sound.) As I pried myself away from the Mojo after hooking it up and playing it for an hour, I thought of all the things you could say about this feature: "Game changer," "Game on," "Game over," etc. But to be pithy would be a disservice (even though I was pithy above...I couldn't resist). I ran the Mojo with the highs going into my Motion Sound KP-500sn and the lows into a QSC K12 (a slammin' rig, to be sure). The Leslie sim when run the normal way into the Motion Sound is fantastic. But when split, it really shows how good the Mojo is as a clone. Everything just breathes more. It is by FAR the closest thing to a real Leslie I have ever heard and it really brings out the differences in
the tonewheel sets. Bear in mind, this review is coming from a guy who only buys Ford Explorers because the 147 fits perfectly in them. In other words, I have been gigging regularly with a real Leslie. I am used to the real thing. This sim is incredible. Nothing comes close. 

An additional commentary about the tonewheel sets: I have done some further exploration of the different sets and they each really do have their own character. As I said in my original review, Guido told me that the tonewheel sets are based on actual readings he took of various organs. He said that when these readings are fed into the software, every aspect of the VB3 tonewheel simulation is effected. You can really hear this. The default VB3HE2 Standard is a very aggressive organ. The 1956 B3 is mellower. The 1962 B3 has a very well rounded tone. The 1965 B3 sounds rather hollow with more crosstalk present. The 1959 C3 has a great jazz tone and the 1965 C3 has a very aggressive 1' drawbar. I am jsut picking differing aspects at random, but you probably get the point. The differences are not vast (with a few exceptions) but they are definitely different. 

Now...here's the interesting thing that I think proves that what Guido says is correct. When you are looking at the Graphical User Interface (GUI) with a monitor, you can see all the adjustable parameters (Leakage, Xtalk, Percussion volume, etc.). As you change the tonewheel sets, these parameters don't change. What this tells me is that the differences in the tonewheel sets isn't a matter of someone spending time designing the sounds of the different sets or just some different EQ on each one. Everything is the same except the base tonewheel readings that Guido took and fed into the software. This is truly like having 20 different organs to choose from! They all have the basic characteristics of a Hammond tonewheel organ, but those little differences between organs is truly present in this software. Who knows what different issues each one of the organs that Guido measured had? Whatever they were, they were captured and translated into the software. It
is nothing short of astounding. 

So, as I said earlier, I wrote my review too soon. I didn't think I could get more impressed with this instrument, but I have.

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