Music Player Network Home Guitar Player Magazine Keyboard Magazine Bass Player Magazine EQ Magazine
Page 2 of 15 < 1 2 3 4 ... 14 15 >
Topic Options
#2779069 - 05/15/16 07:11 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: theGman]
HammondDave Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 01/20/08
Posts: 6755
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Originally Posted By: theGman
Monotimbral is the deal breaker for me, and I was ready to order...I made this mistake before when I got my Electro 3/73.

It would be so nice to have one board with a great organ and great piano/ep sounds, splittable so one could play a blues gig, or just for general one board uses. I don't get it. Oh well, 61 keys was a bit limited for my wishes anyway.


I am surprised as well. You can certainly do it on a dual manual Mojo. Maybe they want you to step up to that model for multi-timbral?
_________________________
'55 and '59 B3's, Leslies 147, 122, 21H, Motif XS7, Mellotrons M300 and M400, Wurlitzer 200, Gibson G101, Vox Continental, Mojo

Top
KC Island
#2779080 - 05/15/16 08:03 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: AnotherScott]
kenheeter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/02/11
Posts: 92
You can always ask. I for one am thrilled with the Mojo61 as it stands and I keep reminding myself that we're at the beginning of its life, there are likely many tweaks and enhancements yet to come. As a single manual organ nothing touches it.
Cheers, Ken

Top
#2779086 - 05/15/16 08:24 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: kenheeter]
Mitch Towne Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 01/26/07
Posts: 910
I have a feeling that they would have needed to include two separate DSPs in order to make it multitimbral which would have been more expensive, more intense to design and program, etc. I would suspect they wanted to hit a certain price point and include a ton of functionality and they totally did that.

Top
#2779087 - 05/15/16 08:28 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: lsj]
Mitch Towne Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 01/26/07
Posts: 910
Originally Posted By: lsj
just wondering if the Mojo needs the vent or is the leslie sim better, not as good, or equivalent to the vent.....Larry


Definitely not needed. The Mojo sim stands on its own. It just comes down to a matter of taste. Do you like the Mojo sim or the Vent better? My biggest complaint about the Ventilator is how it handles the key click. A real Leslie compresses the key click and makes it sounds squishy, for lack of a better term. The Ventilator seems to let more of the click through.

Top
#2779098 - 05/15/16 11:02 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: Mitch Towne]
FunkKeyStuff Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 06/16/10
Posts: 1784
So, note to Guido: If the eventual Mojo61 Mark 2 is bitimbral, splittable between organ an EP, includes the Clav, and doesn't cost too much more than the original, you can sign me up for one sight unseen.
_________________________
825000345

Top
#2779099 - 05/15/16 11:05 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: Mitch Towne]
FunkKeyStuff Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 06/16/10
Posts: 1784
Originally Posted By: Mitch Towne
My biggest complaint about the Ventilator is how it handles the key click. A real Leslie compresses the key click and makes it sounds squishy, for lack of a better term.


Tangential question: Am I recalling correctly that that was the original purpose of the Leslie, back when the click was considered a defect because it wasn't how a pipe organ sounded?
_________________________
825000345

Top
#2779101 - 05/15/16 11:31 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: FunkKeyStuff]
davinwv Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 07/17/01
Posts: 818
Loc: Bridgeport, WV, U.S.
A quick question now that folks are receiving their units - is the Yamaha FC-7 compatible as an expression pedal? I know the FC-7 works with the dual-manual Mojo.

Top
#2779105 - 05/15/16 12:26 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: davinwv]
kenheeter Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 03/02/11
Posts: 92
Yes, the FC7 works perfectly.

Ken

Top
#2779115 - 05/15/16 01:25 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: kenheeter]
cedar Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 10/04/14
Posts: 768
Loc: New York
For those who have the Mojo 61 and are familiar with the Hammond xk1C: how do you think they compare?

I own the dual manual Mojo and xk1C. I would guess that the xk1c might appeal more to people who like presets, but the Mojo 61 might appeal more to those who want more of a traditional approach. I also assume that the Mojo 61 has a superior C/V.

Top
#2779120 - 05/15/16 01:59 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: kenheeter]
davinwv Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 07/17/01
Posts: 818
Loc: Bridgeport, WV, U.S.
Originally Posted By: kenheeter
Yes, the FC7 works perfectly.

Ken


Thanks very much for the confirmation!

Top
#2779132 - 05/15/16 02:41 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: cedar]
Mitch Towne Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 01/26/07
Posts: 910
Originally Posted By: cedar
For those who have the Mojo 61 and are familiar with the Hammond xk1C: how do you think they compare?

I own the dual manual Mojo and xk1C. I would guess that the xk1c might appeal more to people who like presets, but the Mojo 61 might appeal more to those who want more of a traditional approach. I also assume that the Mojo 61 has a superior C/V.


You already know the difference between them since you have the original Mojo. The Mojo 61 has the exact same VB3-II sound engine. It sounds fantastic.

Top
#2779138 - 05/15/16 03:25 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: Mitch Towne]
mate stubb Online   content
10k Club

Registered: 10/26/03
Posts: 14798
I assume the Wurlitzer and Rhodes are superior in the mojo 61 to the original mojo?
_________________________
Moe
---
FunkKeyStuff: "Damn, organ freaks are weird."

http://www.hotrodmotm.com

Top
#2779140 - 05/15/16 03:31 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: mate stubb]
Mitch Towne Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 01/26/07
Posts: 910
Originally Posted By: mate stubb
I assume the Wurlitzer and Rhodes are superior in the mojo 61 to the original mojo?


Yes. And they can be deeply edited.

Top
#2779147 - 05/15/16 05:00 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: Mitch Towne]
ElmerJFudd Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 11/30/14
Posts: 4535
Loc: USA, greater NY area
If the rotary sim on the VB3 II/Mojo/Mojo61 negates the need for a vent, why hasn't the Burn been as popular around here when the topic of Leslie stomp boxes comes up?
_________________________
Live: Yamaha S90ES, Roland VR-700
Home: Rebuilt 1910 Chickering 5'2", Fender Rhodes MKI 88k

Top
#2779167 - 05/15/16 07:58 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: FunkKeyStuff]
niacin Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 11/21/04
Posts: 1252
Loc: down under
Originally Posted By: FunkKeyStuff
So, note to Guido: If the eventual Mojo61 Mark 2 is bitimbral, splittable between organ an EP, includes the Clav, and doesn't cost too much more than the original, you can sign me up for one sight unseen.


+1. Except that I just bit the bullet and ordered a Gemini rack. Tracking says I'll see it next Tuesday. To be controlled from my SK2. Even so there's a good chance I'd still +1.
_________________________
Hammond SK2, HX3 (for blues gigs), Korg SV1, Line6 L3T, Yamaha DBR-10

Top
#2779178 - 05/15/16 09:06 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: ElmerJFudd]
Mitch Towne Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 01/26/07
Posts: 910
Originally Posted By: ElmerJFudd
If the rotary sim on the VB3 II/Mojo/Mojo61 negates the need for a vent, why hasn't the Burn been as popular around here when the topic of Leslie stomp boxes comes up?


Because not everyone who owns a Burn owns a Mojo?

Top
#2779212 - 05/16/16 04:35 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: Delaware Dave]
ZioGuido Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/19/05
Posts: 235
Originally Posted By: Delaware Dave
I was looking to purchase the Gemini table top. The one feature you wrote about that concerns me is that you can't split the output between organ and non-organ. I hope this can be addressed in a future software release.


The Gemini allows the panning of DSP1 and DSP2 independently, so you can indeed have an organ on the left output and a piano on the right output, even if this is a "per preset" setting, not a global setting.

The Mojo61 doesn't allow panning or splitting outpus.


Top
#2779215 - 05/16/16 05:18 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: Mitch Towne]
ElmerJFudd Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 11/30/14
Posts: 4535
Loc: USA, greater NY area
Originally Posted By: Mitch Towne
Originally Posted By: ElmerJFudd
If the rotary sim on the VB3 II/Mojo/Mojo61 negates the need for a vent, why hasn't the Burn been as popular around here when the topic of Leslie stomp boxes comes up?


Because not everyone who owns a Burn owns a Mojo?


Hi, Mitch. Just looking to clarify, why would you need a Burn if you did own a Mojo? In every situation I've ever read here, those who owned both the Burn and Vent to A/B preferred the Vent. But folks in this new "excited to get my Mojo61" are saying they don't need a Vent. On the other hand, a lot of participating contributors here suggest they have reached a point of good enough on other clones as well, particularly the SK-1/2 and XK-1c as well as the HX3 based stuff. So maybe we're there. But of course there's no accounting for personal preferences and tastes.
_________________________
Live: Yamaha S90ES, Roland VR-700
Home: Rebuilt 1910 Chickering 5'2", Fender Rhodes MKI 88k

Top
#2779227 - 05/16/16 06:03 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: ElmerJFudd]
Delaware Dave Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 04/21/11
Posts: 2526
Loc: Take a guess ....
Some people might prefer a 122 leslie over a 147. Does that mean that they wouldn't gig or record with a 147? There is the A/B comparison and then there is "is it still good enough to gig with"? I think what you're hearing is that the Mojo sim is definitely good enough to gig with even though some feel that the Vent might be a tad better. It could be that the only thing they thought was better was the overdrive but perhaps they use a clean sound so that it really doesn't matter. I'm hoping to get the Gemini table top and eliminate the need for the Vent even though I still think the Vent is a tad better. And Guido, thanks for confirming that the organ and non-organs can be panned to different outputs on the Gemini.
_________________________
57 Hammond B3; 69 Hammond L100P; 68 Leslie 122; MS LowPro/Pro3T; Kurzweil PC3; GEM Equinox; Voce V5+; Neo Vent; EV ELX112P; GSI Gemini Desktop Module; www.dyinbreedband.com www.letitrain.band

Top
#2779251 - 05/16/16 08:03 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: Delaware Dave]
Beethree Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 05/20/05
Posts: 1491
I think the Mojo sounds a little better with the Vent than without, at least in mono. Would absolutely gig without, though.
_________________________
Vintage Vibe 64 EP, Fender Twin, Forte 7, Mojo 61, DotCom Modular, OB-6, Chroma Polaris, Kemper Profiler, Hammond A100/147, Vent ,Farfisa VIP, Wurlitzer 7300, Young Chang 6', Moog Voyager, E7 Clav

Top
#2779264 - 05/16/16 08:49 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: ElmerJFudd]
Mitch Towne Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 01/26/07
Posts: 910
Originally Posted By: ElmerJFudd
Originally Posted By: Mitch Towne
Originally Posted By: ElmerJFudd
If the rotary sim on the VB3 II/Mojo/Mojo61 negates the need for a vent, why hasn't the Burn been as popular around here when the topic of Leslie stomp boxes comes up?


Because not everyone who owns a Burn owns a Mojo?


Hi, Mitch. Just looking to clarify, why would you need a Burn if you did own a Mojo? In every situation I've ever read here, those who owned both the Burn and Vent to A/B preferred the Vent. But folks in this new "excited to get my Mojo61" are saying they don't need a Vent. On the other hand, a lot of participating contributors here suggest they have reached a point of good enough on other clones as well, particularly the SK-1/2 and XK-1c as well as the HX3 based stuff. So maybe we're there. But of course there's no accounting for personal preferences and tastes.



I misread the question I was responding to. Sorry about that. I think the Burn has been talked about quite a bit in comparison to the Ventilator. I think the Ventilator is considered the top of the line but many people dig the Burn as well.

Either way, the Mojo doesn't need either one. It would all come down to if you like the Ventilator simulation better...and if you like it $499 better. smile

Top
#2779276 - 05/16/16 09:59 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: Mitch Towne]
drawback Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 05/11/04
Posts: 3066
Loc: Victoria, BC Canada
Or if you MUST use a half moon switch.

deadhorse

Top
#2779340 - 05/16/16 03:03 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: Mitch Towne]
ElmerJFudd Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 11/30/14
Posts: 4535
Loc: USA, greater NY area
Originally Posted By: Mitch Towne
Originally Posted By: ElmerJFudd
Originally Posted By: Mitch Towne
[quote=ElmerJFudd]If the rotary sim on the VB3 II/Mojo/Mojo61 negates the need for a vent, why hasn't the Burn been as popular around here when the topic of Leslie stomp boxes comes up?


Because not everyone who owns a Burn owns a Mojo?

Hi, Mitch. Just looking to clarify, why would you need a Burn if you did own a Mojo? In every situation I've ever read here, those who owned both the Burn and Vent to A/B preferred the Vent. But folks in this new "excited to get my Mojo61" are saying they don't need a Vent. On the other hand, a lot of participating contributors here suggest they have reached a point of good enough on other clones as well, particularly the SK-1/2 and XK-1c as well as the HX3 based stuff. So maybe we're there. But of course there's no accounting for personal preferences and tastes.



I misread the question I was responding to. Sorry about that. I think the Burn has been talked about quite a bit in comparison to the Ventilator. I think the Ventilator is considered the top of the line but many people dig the Burn as well.

Either way, the Mojo doesn't need either one. It would all come down to if you like the Ventilator simulation better...and if you like it $499 better. smile


$499 better and another piece of kit and more cables. Yeah, I hear you.
_________________________
Live: Yamaha S90ES, Roland VR-700
Home: Rebuilt 1910 Chickering 5'2", Fender Rhodes MKI 88k

Top
#2779347 - 05/16/16 04:19 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: AnotherScott]
LX88 Offline
Platinum Member

Registered: 10/16/10
Posts: 1675
Hmmm

The HX3 actually did not benefit from their CV update?

Interesting. I was curious what might have happened, but I wasn't going to wait around to find out. As soon as I found out that Crumar was coming out with a module at a competitive price to the HX3, the HX3 was gone.

A lot of clones have fallen short on the CV issue. To some people it isn't important but to me its obviously a deal breaker.

The dealer I got my HX3 from said I must have something wrong with my hearing, that all Hammonds are different etc. etc. I was trying to find out if there were plans to improve it, but maybe that didn't happen.

Tony Monaco and Mitch have put out Youtube videos where the Crumar CV holds its own really well. Yes, it is many times a "jazz" type of sound but it is the standard. I am not going to settle for a compromised CV, because it is a go to sound for me.

Top
#2779356 - 05/16/16 04:36 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: LX88]
Mitch Towne Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 01/26/07
Posts: 910
I don't know if there is a "jazz" CV. It's just the standard C3 chorus. What does make a difference is the age of the organ. Older models have a shallow chorus. Newer modules are deeper. With the Mojo, you can dial it in to where you like it. I simply cannot stand a clone with a bad CV. It ruins everything for me, even if I like a lot of the overall sound. The Nord C2D is a perfect example. There is a lot that I like, but that CV has got to go.

The Mojo has nailed the CV from day 1. I don't recall any update to the CV in any of the updates since my first Mojo. And it never needed any.

Top
#2779357 - 05/16/16 04:38 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: LX88]
Delaware Dave Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 04/21/11
Posts: 2526
Loc: Take a guess ....
C/V did change over the years from the early 50's to the late 60's. So the Mojo has an mid 50's B3 model as well as an early 70's B3 (I think). Do the models reflect the C/V versions that accompanied those B3 versions as well or do the Mojo models only reflect the tone wheel model using one consistent C/V model for all 20+ models in the Mojo?
_________________________
57 Hammond B3; 69 Hammond L100P; 68 Leslie 122; MS LowPro/Pro3T; Kurzweil PC3; GEM Equinox; Voce V5+; Neo Vent; EV ELX112P; GSI Gemini Desktop Module; www.dyinbreedband.com www.letitrain.band

Top
#2779362 - 05/16/16 05:22 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: cedar]
David Loving Offline
MP Hall of Fame Member

Registered: 12/11/00
Posts: 4852
Loc: Texas
Cedar, Which board do you like better, the Hammond XK1c or the Mojo61? I'm going to buy one or the other. I have an XK3 w/ Jim's clone wheels and I like its sound. I need smaller. Which of the two 61 key lighter boards will I like and should buy? Will a Roland EV5 pedal work on a Mojo or do you need their proprietary pedal?


Edited by David Loving (05/16/16 05:24 PM)
Edit Reason: another Q
_________________________
"Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown."

Top
#2779365 - 05/16/16 05:48 PM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: Delaware Dave]
Mitch Towne Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 01/26/07
Posts: 910
Originally Posted By: Delaware Dave
C/V did change over the years from the early 50's to the late 60's. So the Mojo has an mid 50's B3 model as well as an early 70's B3 (I think). Do the models reflect the C/V versions that accompanied those B3 versions as well or do the Mojo models only reflect the tone wheel model using one consistent C/V model for all 20+ models in the Mojo?


The thing that changed in the CV over the years was the resistor value which increased the depth of the chorus. The Mojo had a variable depth parameter for the chorus so you can set the CV to an appropriate depth for the age of the tonewheel set you choose, if you wish to do that.

Top
#2779453 - 05/17/16 06:27 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: David Loving]
cedar Offline
Gold Member

Registered: 10/04/14
Posts: 768
Loc: New York
Originally Posted By: David Loving
Cedar, Which board do you like better, the Hammond XK1c or the Mojo61? I'm going to buy one or the other. I have an XK3 w/ Jim's clone wheels and I like its sound. I need smaller. Which of the two 61 key lighter boards will I like and should buy? Will a Roland EV5 pedal work on a Mojo or do you need their proprietary pedal?


I have the original Mojo, not the Mojo 61. The xk1c was my first dedicated organ. Having played a B3 exactly once before, I was quite amazed with the xk1c. Keybed seemed great and I thought it blew away the organ patches in various stage keyboards.

Then I bought the Mojo. Even though I had no real experience on a B3, the Mojo somehow seemed much more authentic, and made the xk1c feel like a toy. Some of this was probably just the size. But the Mojo's keybed - especially the new one - feels really "organic" to me. And I think the Mojo's C/V is better.

Having said that, I still get a lot of use out of the xk1c, for gigs where I know I need to bring a stage piano for AP or EP sounds. I think it's a great dedicated organ where you do not need dual manuals. It's so light (15 pounds I think) that I do not find it a hassle at all to bring along.

But the xk1 does not have extra EP sounds, like the Mojo 61. For me, that is not a big deal because I prefer to play EP on a weighted keyboard. That might be crucial for others.

As I mentioned earlier, the one obvious difference (based upon what I have read) concerns presets. The xklc has a ton of preloaded presets, many of which I think are quite good. So if you care about that, I assume the xk1c is superior. But if you are more of a purist and are content to rely on drawbars, I would you think you would be happier with the Mojo61.

Top
#2779469 - 05/17/16 07:09 AM Re: Crumar Mojo 61 Review - (LONG) [Re: LX88]
M_G Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 07/17/09
Posts: 491
Loc: Germany
Originally Posted By: LX88
Hmmm

The HX3 actually did not benefit from their CV update?

Interesting. I was curious what might have happened, but I wasn't going to wait around to find out. As soon as I found out that Crumar was coming out with a module at a competitive price to the HX3, the HX3 was gone.

A lot of clones have fallen short on the CV issue. To some people it isn't important but to me its obviously a deal breaker.

The dealer I got my HX3 from said I must have something wrong with my hearing, that all Hammonds are different etc. etc. I was trying to find out if there were plans to improve it, but maybe that didn't happen.

Tony Monaco and Mitch have put out Youtube videos where the Crumar CV holds its own really well. Yes, it is many times a "jazz" type of sound but it is the standard. I am not going to settle for a compromised CV, because it is a go to sound for me.


Of course it did happen, including new parameters to
adjust it.... Cause there is not THAT CV or have you
ever heard two Tonewheel organs sounding exactly the same ???

HX3-Displayparameters regarding CV:
VibCHighboost -> new!
VibScannerFrq -> new!
Vib1 LC Age
Vib1 FreqMod
Vib2 LC Age
Vib2 FreqMod
Vib3 LC Age
Vib3 FreqMod
ChorDryMix
ChorVibMix

The only CV on a clone that really sucks IMHO is the Nord...
;-)
_________________________
Keys: UHL X3-2, Yamaha CP4, Roland FP90, Kurzweil Artis 7, Prophet 6, Roland A800pro+HX3-Expander
Amps: Leslie 760 (11pin-mod), CPS SSV.3, KP500SN

Top
Page 2 of 15 < 1 2 3 4 ... 14 15 >


Moderator:  Dave Bryce, Stephen Fortner