From organbarry@gmail.com Tue Oct 02 10:26:40 2012
Subject:Clonewheel better than B3 was My New Rig

I've thought of this intriguing possibility also. There's really no
reason a 'clonewheel' organ couldn't sound 'better' to some people than
a well maintained vintage Hammond. If 'better' means possibly richer or
smoother sounding or with less artifacts and various background noises,
I'm sure many modern 'clonewheels' could do that. To many people a
clonewheel played cleanly through a Ventilator and a very nice stereo
system is going to sound beautiful, while a vintage B3 and Leslie turned
up all the way grinding out massive distortion is going to sound bloody
awful (of course, lots of people would feel the opposite way). If your
ideal is some perfect vintage Hammond organ, you're right - a
clonewheel can approach that perfect sound and, I guess, even equal it,
but it could never be 'better'. If, on the other hand, your ideal is
some indescribably gorgeous sound that a real Hammond falls short of,
there is no reason a 'clonewheel' couldn't sound better than the
Hammond. Of course you're right, if that's the case, the term
'clonewheel' is a misnomer, and these things should just be called
something like 'organs?'!
>
> Now hold on just one cotton-pickin' minute here ...
>
> If an XK-33c is supposed to be a clone of a classic tonewheel Hammond
> console, how on earth can it sound "better" than that which it is
> supposed to replicate, unless your A-100/147 rig is in poor repair?
>
> I (being the ornery old coot I am) would postulate that, if your
> A-100/147 rig is up-to-spec and you believe that your XK-33c actually
> sounds "better," then it in reality sounds "worse," as it is not doing
> the job of faithfully reproducing an actual tonewheel Hammond console
> organ being played through a Leslie 122/147 cabinet, but rather
> introducing something different into the sound that you find more
> aurally pleasing.
>
> Not that it really matters much. Some people believe that a Farfisa
> Combo Compact sounds better than a Hammond ... and for some music, I
> suppose it does ... likewise a Vox Continental ... but they are NOT
> the same instruments as each other or as a Hammond, nor does one try
> to emulate the other. They are merely similar but different tools in
> the chest ... like a spanner and a pair of pliers. But one does not
> advertise itself as a more-or-less direct replacement for the other,
> as clonewheels have always striven to be direct replacements for
> classic electro-magnetic tonewheel Hammond consoles, indistinguishable
> in sound and character of timbre in an a/b comparison. Under that
> definition, it would appear that your XK33-c rig has failed, as it
> seems that it IS distinguishable and that you, in fact, find it to be
> sonically superior. Fascinating!
>
> So, that raises a more-or-less philosophical question: If a Hammond
> clone's "sound" exceeds the bench-mark (i.e. perhaps a B-3/C-3 fresh
> off the 1958 assembly line with all components and adjustments
> operating at and set to full-factory-spec), is it actually still a
> clone, or does it become something different, evolving the
> "clonewheel" state of the art into something else ... like clono
> neanderthalensis vs. clono sapiens, or somesuch?
>
> Best,
> Fox
>

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