From gabru@comsec.net Tue Sep 17 18:23:12 2013
Subject:Re: New Burn demo

Craig,

I think the burn differentiates itself with the options you list. Whether or not it is a better Leslie simulator than a Vent or anything else is as always subjective and in the ear of the beholder. I am sure they will sell fine as will whatever the Vent 2 turns out to be. I for one would like to see a nice rack mount version. All of the other various “features” of the burn are of no interest to me but I am sure others will make good use of them. It’s always good to see buying options in the marketplace.

Cheers,

Gary

From: CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig MacDonald
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 5:53 PM
To: CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: [CWSG] RE: RE: New Burn demo

I think you're mistaken, I am a mojo owner and I have a burn on order and I know of a couple of other mojo owners who have them on order too. Why are we ordering them? All the reasons I stated earlier..

-Midi control
-Presets
-Real tube
-Amp sims
-Numerous Other effects
-Upgradable via software

Lots of mojo owners will appreciate the additional features of the burn

Some wont care but lots will

Craig

Sent from my iPhone

On 2013-09-17, at 8:40 PM, > wrote:

Gary:

I was thinking more of the Mojo than the VB3. Your comments made me think of something else: assuming that the Leslie simulation in the Mojo delivers 90% of that of the Burn, then Guido & Andrea probably have considered that Mojo owners won't buy the Burn--their potential customers are owners of Hammonds, Nords, Rolands, i.e., the same potential customers as for the Ventilator.

I have no idea of the size of that market, but I'm guessing it's pretty small.

--Dean L. Surkin

--- In CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com, > wrote:

I really doubt it. I think it unlikely they would add all of the additional circuitry to support the tube and also why would they compete with a product they already sell? Why do you think there has been no development on the VB3 for years and probably never will be? If it is better than what Mojo owners have now they will buy the Burn, if it is already built in they will not. No one is going to update a $49 VST with the same software they already sell in the Mojo (it’s already pretty close) because it would impact sales of the Mojo. To do otherwise would not be good business.

…just my 2 cents YMMV, etc………..

gb

From: CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of ccmacdon@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 1:24 PM
To: CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [CWSG] RE: RE: New Burn demo

Dean, I was waiting to see/hear the first Mojo II comment.. ;-)

I would fully expect that this Burn will be built into the next generation of Mojos...

Regards,
Craig MacDonald

From: "dsurkin@..." >
To: CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 4:20:45 PM
Subject: [CWSG] RE: RE: New Burn demo

And I'm guessing that the Mojo will eventually incorporate whatever code innovations Guido made for the Burn.

--Dean L. Surkin

--- In CloneWheel@yahoogroups.com, > wrote:

Man, that sound good. Of course, it may help that whatever organ he's using as the source sounds incredibly good as well (is it the Hammond featured in the photo?). It would be just an interesting to try this out with a lousy clonewheel or decade-old ROMPLER organ emulator just to hear if it makes a mediocre sound sound better.

I'd love be able get results nearly as good as this from my Xk3c...

--- In clonewheel@yahoogroups.com, > wrote:

Hey for anyone interested Andrea posted another Burn demo which gives you a bit better perspective on the overdrive.. Here it is.. sounds pretty good to me..! https://soundcloud.com/marcoballa/just-sound?utm_source=soundcloud&utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=facebook some parts are a bit over the top but some parts are awesome.