New Clonewheel: DMC-122, Mojo or Legend?

[confidence]

I'm looking to buy a new clonewheel organ, and have narrowed my choice (based on various critera) down to the Mojo classic, Viscount Legend Live or DMC-122 + Gemini expansion - all of which are about the same price. Unfortunately It's quite hard to fnd retailers with these in store to play on, as they're relatively niche. Obviously I can order one and then return it if I don't want it, but it would be best if I could choose the one I'm most likely to keep first.

 

I had a play on a single manual Mojo the other day and LOVED it. They had a Hammond XK-1c as well which I tried and, while both sounded great, I much prefered the lighter action of the Mojo.

 

My understanding from forum posts is that the Legend would have a similar great sound and look-and-feel, but has a stiffer action. Is that right? How "Hammond-like" does it feel playing the Legend?

 

The wild card is the DMC + Gemini. On the one hand, I'm attracted to the DMC's aspect as a MIDI controller, and it seems the most flexible and open-ended in how it might integrate with other things. I've listened to demos of the Gemini sounds and am really impressed. They seem both highly realistic but also warm and characterful. Having a varied bunch of onboard sounds as well as the basic organ would be useful for gigging particularly. I also like that it has the ability to store 32 presets, whereas the others have practically none.

 

On the other hand, my intuition says that the DMC won't feel as much like playing a Hammond as the other two, and I will be less likely to get the immersive experience I got playing the Mojo in the store. Is this reasonable / fair? I suppose I'm basing it on a combination of the look, and the fact that it tries to be open to different implementations of its MIDI, whereas the Mojo and Legend are totally dedicated towards everything being Hammond-like.

 

I know this is a hard thing to quantify, but I'm interested to hear from any DMC owners how they find this aspect of it, to what extent it feels "holistically" like a Hammond performance instrument. I think if I can be convinced by this, it beats the others on spec and I'll buy it. But if not, I'd rather buy one of them and get the other functions from other gear.

[jeffincltnc]

Count me in the Viscount Legend Live camp as being very happy with owning this instrument for the last 3 years and it is extremely reliable and it sounds great.

 

I'm very happy with the action and do not find it stiff at all.

 

I looked at the DMC+Gemini with the same interest but I have found I only take the Legend Live out a couple of times a year if that despite having a custom hard case for it made.

 

More users on this forum have the Mojo dual manual than the Legend Live. My decision was that I preferred the built in leslie simulation in the Legend over the Mojo and it had a leslie output when the Mojo did not at the time. I prefer the layout of the Legend and full sets of drawbars and the overdrive and spring reverb are very good. Lastly, I wanted a DSP based organ instead of the Windows architecture of the Mojo. Those were my reasons.

 

I don't like to argue about clonewheel authenticity but I think the strengths of the Mojo over the Legend are in the adjusted action and the superior C/V.

 

Both of these are really good.

 

The Gemini sounds are also very good. The Rhodes, Wurly and Clav are excellent as are the effects and I'm sure would contend with something like Nord Electro, Korg SV1, etc. in a blind shootout and be preferred by many, but last I recall, the acoustic pianos aren't very good. It may have been updated since then. One thing I realized about the DMC 122 and Gemini is that even though the hardware is integrated, it is still a MIDI controller and you have to think about the setups as the controller and module being separate parts, if that makes sense. It does take some work and effort to get it all setup.

 

As far as aesthetics, I prefer the look and layout of Legend. Mojo looks nice, too. I don't care for the design and look of the DMC 122 onstage visually and I think it's kind of ugly looking to be honest.

 

These are just my opinions. But I did want to share them. You really can't go wrong with any of these!

[Outkaster]

What are you trying to accomplish? How much organ do you play? How important are the other sounds.

[CEB]

Sounds like you prefer synth actions. If you are not an organist then don"t obsess with it being Hammond like. Some of us do that because we have been playing Hammonds for 40 years. Not sure if stiff is the right word but a Hammond has a higher initial resistance when you first attack the keys than synths do.

[confidence]

What are you trying to accomplish? How much organ do you play? How important are the other sounds.

 

Didn't want to make my OP too long but I can answer this.

 

I'm primarily a pianist & keyboard player. Not gigging much at the moment but after some life changes having a major house reorganisation and rejuvenating my home studio.

 

When I've gigged in the past, any organ I've needed has been coverable by rompler presets (mainly KB3 in my Kurzweil rack unit). However I've always loved the sound of the Hammond and want to take this opportunity to immerse myself in it a bit more. As a classically trained pianist, I'm used to independent 2-hand work and would like to investigate some of that Jimmy Smith organ trio stuff, which I love. Hence wanting a proper 2-manual job, and hence wanting something that is a simple all-in-one unit that "feels" like a Hammond, or at least like a musical instrument rather than a technology component.

 

For these reasons I want two manuals, with a separate set of drawbars for each. (I know the Legend has two sets for each; not sure how much difference that will make). There's also a size/space consideration: My studio room is not huge and is largely dominated already by a grand piano. There's a particular space where the new instrument could go that is just wide enough for the Legend or Mojo's 61-note keyboard, but not wide enough for those models with the extra octave of preset keys. This also ties in to the fact that if gigging picks up again, I'd like to be able to take the instrument out and it would be good if it's not too large or heavy.

 

My other board is a piano-action one so I'd also like this clonewheel to be able to function as an organ/synth-action MIDI controller, for playing parts into the PC that don't feel right on a piano board. Also, if gigging picks up again, I'd be taking it out sometimes in conjunction with the piano board, and would want to use it at the very least to trigger sounds from. It only need basic MIDI functionality for that, but I can imagine the sounds in the DMC coming in useful as well, if I were to choose it.

[confidence]

Count me in the Viscount Legend Live camp as being very happy with owning this instrument for the last 3 years and it is extremely reliable and it sounds great.

 

I'm very happy with the action and do not find it stiff at all.

 

I looked at the DMC+Gemini with the same interest but I have found I only take the Legend Live out a couple of times a year if that despite having a custom hard case for it made.

 

More users on this forum have the Mojo dual manual than the Legend Live. My decision was that I preferred the built in leslie simulation in the Legend over the Mojo and it had a leslie output when the Mojo did not at the time. I prefer the layout of the Legend and full sets of drawbars and the overdrive and spring reverb are very good. Lastly, I wanted a DSP based organ instead of the Windows architecture of the Mojo. Those were my reasons.

 

I don't like to argue about clonewheel authenticity but I think the strengths of the Mojo over the Legend are in the adjusted action and the superior C/V.

 

Thanks. Can you just clarify: You say you don't find the Legend action stiff, but that the Mojo action is better? What then is better about it?

 

I did really like the Mojo action when I played it but not having played a Legend, I can't compare. And it doesn't seem to be possible to find one to try out without placing an order.

 

 

The Gemini sounds are also very good. The Rhodes, Wurly and Clav are excellent as are the effects and I'm sure would contend with something like Nord Electro, Korg SV1, etc. in a blind shootout and be preferred by many, but last I recall, the acoustic pianos aren't very good. It may have been updated since then. One thing I realized about the DMC 122 and Gemini is that even though the hardware is integrated, it is still a MIDI controller and you have to think about the setups as the controller and module being separate parts, if that makes sense. It does take some work and effort to get it all setup.

 

The piano sound aspect doesn't worry me as I have that comprehensively covered elsewhere. I do however get what you're saying about the fact that it separates MIDI and audio unlike the others, and that's kind of what I meant. I'm wondering if, no matter how good it is at what it does, by the time I faff about setting up MIDI parameters yada yada I'll just be in the wrong frame of mind to sit down and enjoy playing Hammond.

 

Or maybe once I've done all the setup stuff once, it'll be good to go and from that point feel much the same as the others, I don't know?

[AnotherScott]

good Mojo vs DMC thread: https://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2736315/dmc-122-audition

 

 

Although all based on the Fatar TP8O, this is my experience with key tension:

 

Heaviest = Nord Stage 2/3, Electro 5 (and presumably 6), Dexibell J7. From what I've read, I'd expect the Viscount and Roland VR730 to be similar.

Average = Hammond XK1/SK1, Numa Organ (original), Korg CX3 (final standalone iteration). I'm guessing the XK1C falls into this category.

 

I have not played the Mojo, but by reputation, it is lighter feeling than any of those.

 

I prefer the layout of the Legend and full sets of drawbars and the overdrive and spring reverb are very good.

I found the Legend overdrive particularly disappointing, personally, based on my trying the EXP. But Viscount provides an FX loop, so one could insert some other drive device(s) and still have it appear before the built-in Leslie, which I think could be a really nice option to have.

[jeffincltnc]

I have a hard time comparing actions and typing about them in a forum. I'm also not that picky about organ actions for my level and ability, and I like to play jazz. A lot of the tricks that are really dependent on the adapted actions for these clones are probably above my ability as an organist though.

 

I think AnotherScott's summary above sounds about right to me.

 

FWIW, I had a Hammond A-105 for about 10 years and I had no problem adapting to the Legend Live for my needs. Count me in the hobbyist/weekend warrior category as an organist. I probably am not holding these instruments to quite the same standard as some of our members like Jim Alfredson and Mitch Towne who are sought after as performing and touring jazz organists. I think for my needs any of these clonewheels would have been fine and close enough, to be honest.

 

I also don't play dual manual every day, but I like to come back to it frequently and usually treat it like visiting an old friend instead of integrating it into my rig. I like to approach it as "I'm just going to sit down at the organ today" and that's all I'm going to do, if that makes sense. I don't want it to be a multi purpose instrument and it's a one-trick pony that I picked up to replace an A-105 for space and portability considerations.

[confidence]

good Mojo vs DMC thread: https://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2736315/dmc-122-audition

 

Thanks! Very informative. Feeling seems to be that DMC is great and sounds awesome, but that as I suspected the experience of playing the Mojo is a bit more "immediate". I'm wondering if that could fade in time though, once I've got the DMC set up as I want it and can get used to it.

 

Was interested in this:

 

Guido

Maybe a silly question: If using the DMC with Gemini installed is it still possible to run the editor VB3, making the DMC tri-timbral?

 

Of course it is. The DMC-122 has 4 MIDI Outputs, when the Gemini is installed it takes the port n.4 named "INT" (internal), but you still have 3 ports left. If you connect your computer to the USB port and start the Editor, you can have the Editor/VB3 on the first port, the two Gemini engines on the 4th port, and you still have two more ports for other MIDI devices. Considering that the manuals can also be split, you can have four zones and direct them to whatever port or channel you wish.

 

I have recently made a SetUp on my DMC where I have the Editor/VB3 on the upper manual playing the organ upper (with percussion etc.), a synth bass on the left part of the lower manual playing the VA synth of the Gemini, and an electric piano on the right part of the lower that comes from the second engine of the Gemini. I just mapped the upper manual to out USB and Channel 1, the lower on port INT and Channel 1 and the lower split (left part) on port INT and Channel 4. Once you save the SetUp you can also instruct it to send the Program Change messages so that all presets on the receiving devices are automatically recalled.

 

 

That's the sort of thing that sounds really powerful to me in a live setup. I didn't realise the DMC had the ability to split keyboards and transmit on different channels. Could make it much easier to manage complex arrangements and take some of the heat off my requirements in a piano board (as we were discussing on the other thread).

[confidence]

I'm confused about the Mojo product line. It was mentioned in that thread that "the Mojo" also has other sounds on board than the main Hammond (EPs etc.) However the Crumar website currently shows Mojo Classic and Mojo XT (and Mojo 61 but that's single manual only). The specs of these don't say anything about other sounds (and I think I read that the XT has been discontinued?)

[Delaware Dave]

Have you considered a Mojo 61 w/ the optional lower manual? (here) The reason would be you get the wurli, clav and rhodes from the gemini module built into the Mojo61. The optional lower manual basically gives you a dual manual Mojo but would be using the preferable DSP of the Mojo 61 rather the windows based XP and the preferable keybed that everyone loves. Or times that you need only one organ manual you bring the Mojo 61 and if you need both, you bring both. I like that flexibility and only the Mojo (of your choices) provides that. A second set of drawbars from Crumar (Link) can be permanently attached via velcro at a minimal cost to supply the 2nd set of drawbars (or a Voce Midi drawbar unit (Link 2). I like the flexibility that this combination provides, the extra Gemini voices that you get at about the same price. This would be the direction that I would go.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

I'm confused about the Mojo product line. It was mentioned in that thread that "the Mojo" also has other sounds on board than the main Hammond (EPs etc.) However the Crumar website currently shows Mojo Classic and Mojo XT (and Mojo 61 but that's single manual only). The specs of these don't say anything about other sounds (and I think I read that the XT has been discontinued?)

I can speak to this. The original dual manual Mojo (after a few firmware updates) and the XT (I own an XT) have some bonus sounds, basic electric piano and transistor organ sounds in three unchangeable configurations: Rhodes on bottom manual with the normal VB3 organ on the top manual (that's the only one I use), Rhodes on bottom manual with a Vox Continental on the top manual, and Wurlitzer on the bottom with a Farfisa on the top manual. Because I don't tend to use Vox or Farfisa organ sounds, I only ever use the Rhodes, which is nothing to write home about but definitely playable. It's not anywhere near the level they got on the Mojo 61 (which also has great Wurli and clav sounds), so when the Classic was announced, a lot of folks were hoping it would be a fully-functional dual manual organ with all of the Mojo 61 bonus sounds as well...

 

But, it's not. Organ only, like the Legend and and Nord C2D.

 

As far as the action goes, I went with the XT over the DMC for that subtle difference in feel, since I'd previously been playing organ on a Nord Electro and wanted a much more Hammond-like experience for myself (both sonically and, to a point, visually, I also don't love the look of the DMC). I do use the Mojo as a MIDI controller and it will often be my only board on a gig, but I was already a Mainstage user, so I can get any sound I want on either manual via my Macbook when I'm not using the built-in organ on the Mojo.

 

The XT has simple button presses that change either manual into MIDI-only mode, sending velocity, so it works well for my workflow. I don't know if the Mojo Classic has those capabilities or not. And even if it does, it might not work quite so simply when trying to trigger sounds from another hardware board, which may or may not have the MIDI flexibility of a laptop rig.

 

Hopefully this helps rather than further complicates! I want to second the above:

These are just my opinions. But I did want to share them. You really can't go wrong with any of these!

[Adan]

Have you considered a Mojo 61 w/ the optional lower manual? . . . This would be the direction that I would go.

 

You beat me to it. It's great to have a dual manual playing solo or organ trio-style, but moving a dual manual around is a bit of a chore, not because of the weight but because of the bulk. They are also ergonomically harder to combine with other keyboards for a gig. The Mojo 61 system lets you have both.

 

Echoing some other comments, since you don't have a deep background in playing a Hammond, I think you're unlikely to be disappointed from a sonic standpoint with either the Mojo or the Legend. They're both great Hammond emulations.

 

The softer action on the Mojo is a little closer to the feel of a real Hammond than the Legend. But having played on a friend's well broken in Legend, I'm sure I'd have no problem with it either. Action is a point in favor of the Mojo but is more of a tie-breaker type consideration than a driving one.

 

Just to muddy the waters, I think if I was serious about playing a dual manual I'd be seriously considering the Mag (I almost typed MAGA . . . oops!), made in, I think, Czech republic. It's a bit pricier and one might worry about support from overseas, but to my ears it sounds amazing.

 

A lot of folks on this forum are besotted with the B3X software clone. I'm one of them. I think it beats Mojo and Legend soundwise. You still need the physical controller however. The clones made by Hammond Co. (SK, XK) are supposed to map automatically to B3X (I haven't yet heard from anyone who's tried it). The idea of the Hammond SKX dual manual triggering B3X software for organ sounds and using its own piano sounds has some appeal. However, the SK's non-organ sounds are typically damned with the faint praise of being "useable."

[confidence]

Have you considered a Mojo 61 w/ the optional lower manual? (here) The reason would be you get the wurli, clav and rhodes from the gemini module built into the Mojo61. The optional lower manual basically gives you a dual manual Mojo but would be using the preferable DSP of the Mojo 61 rather the windows based XP and the preferable keybed that everyone loves. Or times that you need only one organ manual you bring the Mojo 61 and if you need both, you bring both. I like that flexibility and only the Mojo (of your choices) provides that. A second set of drawbars from Crumar (Link) can be permanently attached via velcro at a minimal cost to supply the 2nd set of drawbars (or a Voce Midi drawbar unit (Link 2). I like the flexibility that this combination provides, the extra Gemini voices that you get at about the same price. This would be the direction that I would go.

 

Rationally, I can see the sense in that. Emotionally and viscerally, however, I have a problem with the idea of buying a Mojo for it's all-in-one holisitic Hammond identity and feel, and then having to velcro a separate set of drawbars to the bottom manual to complete it! Call me OCD, but I think every time I go to play it and look at the velcroed drawbars I'd be thinking "hmm, great that I got an instrument that was 95% there; shame about the other 5%". I think if I'm going to go Mojo, I'd rather just get the Classic and forgo the other sounds.

 

I don't really mind about the inconvenience of gigging with a dual. My plan would be only to take it for Hammond-centric purposes anyway. Outside of those I can just use the piano board, or if I want an unweighted board to go with it I can buy a simple synth-action MIDI controller for peanuts. I'm really looking for something that is confidently and unapologetically a dual manual Hammond here, hence my original shortlist.

[AnotherScott]

The clones made by Hammond Co. (SK, XK) are supposed to map automatically to B3X (I haven't yet heard from anyone who's tried it). The idea of the Hammond SKX dual manual triggering B3X software for organ sounds and using its own piano sounds has some appeal. However, the SK's non-organ sounds are typically damned with the faint praise of being "useable."

The automatic mapping is a nice convenience, but I doubt it's anything anyone couldn't do in a matter of minutes. Still, it's a timesaver and gives you the security of knowing it will all work, rather than starting to do it yourself on some other clone and then discovering some control is absent, or only sends sysex, or doesn't send MIDI CC except when the board is in a certain mode, whatever.

 

I wonder if the Hammond is capable of sending the high trigger point out via MIDI?

 

Yes, the Hammond "extra voices" are usually described as "usable," but that's still a nice perk compared to most 2-manual boards that don't have any at all. Another nice thing about the Hammond is that it also functions as a 3-zone MIDI controller, so not only does it provide a bunch of "usable" sounds out of the box, but it's easier than it would be on many other boards to also grab some other non-organ sound now and then from that attached B3X source (iPad, laptop). With that ability to call up presets right on the board that can independently address different sounds on different MIDI channels (including sending Program Changes), you could do it even without getting involved with the overhead (or additional learning curve) of a host environment (Camelot Pro, Keystage, Cantabile, GigPerformer, etc.). And of course, you still always have the internal sounds available as backup.

 

To me, it's the extra sounds and the MIDI controller functions that make the SKX especially desirable for a B3X-based rig, at least as much as the convenience of being pre-mapped. That is, assuming you're trying not to take any other keyboard. If you have another keyboard providing other sounds and/or MIDI functionality, then these things are less of an issue.

 

The other dual-manual that conceptually appeals to me for B3X use is the Nord Electro C2, the previous version with the LED buttons instead of the drawbars. Of course, that's not a great choice if you are a heavy drawbar-manipulating player. But at least in theory, I think you should be able to create presets that simultaneously call up the exact same sounds internally and on B3X. If you keep the Nord's volume off, all you'll hear is the B3X BUT all the drawbutton LEDs should be in sync with your B3X sound, and to the extent that you DO want to manipulate those drawbutton settings in real time, the changes you make to the front panel should be reflected both in the LED display as well as in the B3X sound you're hearing. The C2 may also be the lightest 2-manual clone you could find.

 

As I've mentioned, I think the Dexibell J7 Combo with its motorized drawbars should be able to do this "B3X drawbar sync" trick, with the advantage of actual drawbars (and an array of other available sounds, and also the MIDI zoning function like the SKX), but it is not available in a dual manual. It does send MIDI with a high trigger, though. (I don't think the C2 does?)

[The Key]

I have the DMC-122 and a Mojo 61. I LOVE the sounds on the Gemini. Crumar's physical modeling tends to get a lot more of an instrument's idiosyncracies than the ROMpler sounds.

 

Advantages of the DMC-122/Gemini:

 

- Does just about every sound you can think of. You can't crowdsource sounds like you can on the Nord, so there's one or two missing--no Hohner Pianet for example--but it goes DEEP. Horns, string machines, synth, clav, 8 Rhodes, Wurly, 2 80s EPs, Mellotrons, 2 modeled pianos and a lot more samples

- Once you figure out your Setups, it's very satisfying to design the board the way you want, and there's so much room to add Setups. I have 7 presets per Setup and use 3 Setups which means I have 21 presets ready--and there's something like 10 Setups possible after the built-in VB-3 & root one. So I could get up to 70 presets, and tailor different effects to each Setup. Changing Setups is super-easy too--just F1/F2 + EXIT to go up and down

- The synth is killer. It's very Prophet-like, poly/mono/uni 3 oscillators, 2 LFOs, 2 filters and has fantastic range and a good 50-something parameters total.

- People give it flack for the acoustic pianos, but those aren't really a problem anymore. The new APs, Venice Grand & Venice Grand Open, are really good.

- You won't really ever need 2 boards again. You can split or play 20-DB Hammond depending on the song.

 

Disadvantages:

 

- There is SO MUCH homework. I made a giant playlist of my process of testing out every sound and building Setups:

- The action is not great for playing organ, or clav for that matter. It's a bit mushy, like a Nord. Not Hammond, not piano, just somewhere in between. If I could get a junker Mojo XT with the new keybed intact, I'd try to drop it in.

- There's still not quite enough to get everything on board that you might want. I have trouble finding nine synth parameters only to put on the upper board. I wish GSI/Crumar would put the effects and oscillators in their editor on toggle switches so you could hit a button and switch between 2 oscillators or 2 effects, for instance, and then use the same drawbars for osc waves or speed/depth.

- This isn't really a disadvantage, but you may want to get an external arpeggiator/sequencer for the synth as it's pretty much just there for pads and leads.

- Crumar, for no reason I can figure out, didn't make STORE assignable in the Gemini. When you make changes to something you want to save as a preset, you have to fire up the web editor. This means you pretty much have to soundcheck and keep the web editor open during a show to adjust onboard EQ and other parameters.

 

 

Advantages of the Mojo 61:

 

- The action is killer. It's super-springy and just made for percussive hits and even my shitty playing flies across it

- Unless you use presets, the drawbars are where they are when you switch back and forth between instruments. You don't have to remember where you put the drawbars for presets.

- It's super-basic, but that can be a really good thing. I am playing in a surf rock band, and I pretty much only ever need Farfisa and B3, and so I just pop back and forth between the two. If I had, f'rex, a Stage or Electro with a heavier action for pianos, I'd use the 61 as a bonus board & leave it in B3 mode.

- Once you edit all your deeper parameters, you can save them as a Snapshot in the web editor.

 

Disadvantages of 61:

 

- The EPs are killer, best I've heard, but there's no functionality to them except in the online editor. On my DMC I assign clav pickup switches & speed/depth for effects to the drawbars. There is no reason for Crumar not to have done this, but they didn't. You can't switch modeled amps or types of Rhodes without the online editor & you can't assign parameters to the drawbars onboard

.- The B3 presets are weird. You had to hit the "Hold" key to manipulate the drawbars once they're set.

- Switching between effects is annoying because you have to hold down one of two buttons to page between them.

- I think 90% of Mojo users won't have any use for the pipe organ. They should give you the option to overwrite it with the Gemini synth with oscillators & filters assigned to the drawbars, the way they are on the DMC/Gemini.

 

If I had a big stack of money, I might get an external Gemini module as well and use it as the controller both for the 61 and a weighted/semi-weighted board to get better action on both with the Gemini's full range of sounds. I hope that Crumar reskins the Mojo Classic Desktop as the Gemini eventually, the way the DMC is a reskinned Mojo XT.

 

TL;DR - the DMC will do just about anything if you can put up with the homework and the action, the Mojo will do very little but do it well.

 

Also, Crumar just needs to hire some software engineers to make their front-end as good as their sounds.

[AnotherScott]

There's still not quite enough to get everything on board that you might want {on the DMC}. I have trouble finding nine synth parameters only to put on the upper board.

The {Mojo61} EPs are killer, best I've heard, but there's no functionality to them except in the online editor. On my DMC I assign clav pickup switches & speed/depth for effects to the drawbars. There is no reason for Crumar not to have done this, but they didn't.

I think maybe a Korg NanoKontrol could address all of these things, in a cheap, tiny add-on.

[Delaware Dave]

There's still not quite enough to get everything on board that you might want {on the DMC}. I have trouble finding nine synth parameters only to put on the upper board.

The {Mojo61} EPs are killer, best I've heard, but there's no functionality to them except in the online editor. On my DMC I assign clav pickup switches & speed/depth for effects to the drawbars. There is no reason for Crumar not to have done this, but they didn't.

I think maybe a Korg NanoKontrol could address all of these things, in a cheap, tiny add-on.

This answer makes no sense. Why would you need a Nano Controller to control the pickups and switches of a Clav when they can be assigned to the various controllers of the Mojo itself? The issue he was pointing out is that Crumar did not pre-configure anything and that would require him to use the editor to assign the pickup switches and filters to say the sliders of the Mojo.That's his gripe, other than the organ controls no other bonus sounds (clav, ep's, piano) are preconfigured. He would like to have used a slider that was preconfigured to control the type of reverb, the amount of reverb, an already assigned controller that controlled the amplication of the EP, whether it runs through a fender bassman, vox AC30, marshall amp, etc. by turning a preconfigured dial and also being able to save the defaults without having to invoke the editor itself to do/change/save the default. For the original Mojo Guido supplied an editor that you plugged into the unit and could make adjustments and saves "on the fly", so to speak. He never delivered this functionality with the Gemini. I've tried to do this at a gig between songs using my phone connected to the editor. The screen is too small to do this on the fly. I usually make adjustments in between sets, however a hardware editor like the one delivered with the original Mojo could make it conceivable to do this in between songs.

[The Key]

I think maybe a Korg NanoKontrol could address all of these things, in a cheap, tiny add-on.

 

Yeah, that's what they say, but if the Mojo is going to be a simple 'do everything' board it doesn't make a lot of sense to say 'oh, also stick a NanoKontrol on there.' The drawbars are just hanging out in EP mode.

[AnotherScott]

I think maybe a Korg NanoKontrol could address all of these things, in a cheap, tiny add-on.

This answer makes no sense. Why would you need a Nano Controller to control the pickups and switches of a Clav when they can be assigned to the various controllers of the Mojo itself? The issue he was pointing out is that Crumar did not pre-configure anything and that would require him to use the editor to assign the pickup switches and filters to say the sliders of the Mojo.That's his gripe.

Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds like he can NOT use the editor to assign the pickup switches and filters to the sliders of the Mojo. i.e. "No functionality to them except in the online editor" and saying he CAN'T assign these things to the drawbars the way he can on the DMC. It sounds like he can do it on the DMC, but not on the Mojo. That's why the Korg could be a sensible solution.

 

And for the DMC, he CAN do the assignments he wants, but he wants to assign more functions than there are sliders to control them. So again, the Korg could be a sensible solution.

 

ETA: also see two posts down, for why a NanoKontrol could be a better way to go regardless.

[confidence]

Thanks so much The Key for such comprehensive information.

 

I'd need to think about money, but I can see myself veering towards a solution of getting the Mojo (or Legend) and the Gemini in its rackmount form. I already use a rack for live playing. Currently it has a Motif ES rack and a Kurzweil PC2-R in it, although I mainly use the Kurzweil for the KB3 organs (as the Motif's organs are pretty lame) and any of these clones would make that redundant. Then I could trigger the Gemini from my piano board as well for EPs etc.

[AnotherScott]

I think maybe a Korg NanoKontrol could address all of these things, in a cheap, tiny add-on.

 

Yeah, that's what they say, but if the Mojo is going to be a simple 'do everything' board it doesn't make a lot of sense to say 'oh, also stick a NanoKontrol on there.' The drawbars are just hanging out in EP mode.

If the board does what you want except for that, and you can fix it with a small cheap accessory, then sure it can make a lot of sense. You can say it would be better to be able to assign the drawbars, but that's not under your control, adding a NanoKontrol is. If you goal is to create the best board for your purposes, it could be the answer. If your goal is to tell Guido how to make the board you want, that's fine, but may still leave you without the board you want.

 

There's also a reason it can be BETTER to use the NanoKontrol than the drawbars. When you switch back from EP mode to Hammond, your drawbars will still be where you left them, in the right position for the sound you're playing. With the approach you'd prefer, once you adjusted your EP/clav and switched back to organ, your organ sound will be wrong. (Or if it remembers the last position regardless of how you moved them, then the sound may be right, but the drawbars will no longer be in the correct position for instant accurate manipulation.) Or do you want to be bothered always setting your drawbars back to where they were when you switch from EP/clav back to organ? I think that's a good argument for a separate set of controls!

[Delaware Dave]

Thanks so much The Key for such comprehensive information.

 

I'd need to think about money, but I can see myself veering towards a solution of getting the Mojo (or Legend) and the Gemini in its rackmount form. I already use a rack for live playing. Currently it has a Motif ES rack and a Kurzweil PC2-R in it, although I mainly use the Kurzweil for the KB3 organs (as the Motif's organs are pretty lame) and any of these clones would make that redundant. Then I could trigger the Gemini from my piano board as well for EPs etc.

 

That's how I use the Gemini rack, the top keyboard triggers the upper manual organ, the bottom keyboard can play lower manual organ or any or the other two dozen or so instruments in the Gemini. The Gemini model contains alot of additional sounds, not yust the EP,'s, Clav and acoustic piano that comes with the Mojo. Also, Guido has released 4 separate acoustic pianos for the Gemini, the original found on preset 26, one from wave table two, one from wave table 3 (Venice Grand) and the latest released Venice Grand Open. In fact, the only instrument I've found that he's missed are the saxophones. There are none and I use the PC3's Sax.

[confidence]

Any views about the Mojo's two sets of drawbars vs the Legend's four? Not having a Hammond background, I don't really have a sense of what difference it will make, but I'm aware there's a conceptual leap I have to make in playing an instrument that isn't designed around presets. Would the extra pair on the Legend make that significantly easier?

[SamuelBLupowitz]

Any views about the Mojo's two sets of drawbars vs the Legend's four? Not having a Hammond background, I don't really have a sense of what difference it will make, but I'm aware there's a conceptual leap I have to make in playing an instrument that isn't designed around presets. Would the extra pair on the Legend make that significantly easier?

I don't mind one set per manual. I'm sure if I had a Legend or a vintage Hammond I would find a way to use the four sets and switch between them, but as Viv Savage put it, "I have two hands, don't I?"

 

YMMV, and some other folks may feel differently depending on their styles (I don't play much Jimmy Smith-style jazz, though I do occasionally play left hand/pedal bass), but as long as I can shape the tone of each manual in real time, I'm happy.

[AnotherScott]

To me, the main purpose of a second set of drawbars for the same manual was to make up for the fact that the real thing had no user presets (unless you opened the back and rearranged wires on screw terminals, which I don't think many people ever did). On a board with user presets, I don't see much need for a second set of drawbars per manual, UNLESS there's a sound you want to switch to where you also want to be able to do subsequent live drawbar manipulation on that sound (without messing up the locations of your primary drawbars, on those models which allow you to use drawbars for live tweaking of presets).

[gg22]

good Mojo vs DMC thread: https://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php/topics/2736315/dmc-122-audition

 

 

Although all based on the Fatar TP8O, this is my experience with key tension:

 

Heaviest = Nord Stage 2/3, Electro 5 (and presumably 6), Dexibell J7. From what I've read, I'd expect the Viscount and Roland VR730 to be similar.

Average = Hammond XK1/SK1, Numa Organ (original), Korg CX3 (final standalone iteration). I'm guessing the XK1C falls into this category.

 

I'd say Roland VR730 keybed is definitely more stiff than the Stage 3.

[confidence]

To me, the main purpose of a second set of drawbars for the same manual was to make up for the fact that the real thing had no user presets (unless you opened the back and rearranged wires on screw terminals, which I don't think many people ever did). On a board with user presets, I don't see much need for a second set of drawbars per manual, UNLESS there's a sound you want to switch to where you also want to be able to do subsequent live drawbar manipulation on that sound (without messing up the locations of your primary drawbars, on those models which allow you to use drawbars for live tweaking of presets).

 

That's exactly my point. Both the mojo and the Legend Live have only two presets, which is practically nothing, I mean, I suppose you could quickly tweak and store those presets at the soundcheck on a gig-by-gig basis, but it's not enough to actually build up a working set of presets you can recall in future as necessary.

 

So given the inability to operate it as a preset instrument, the second set of drawbars would come in handy, no?

[Jazz+]

I"ve had my share of playing modules such as the Roland MKS 20, P330, Voce Micro B, Kurzweil K2000, Kurzweil micro piano, Yamaha Mojo rack, D 550 , wavestation rack etc. I never like the feeling of playing a module and will never go back to that type of set up. I feel detached, could be those extra few milliseconds of latency..,I realized Eventually that the action and reaction to the action is the most important factor to me and the Mojo wins in that regard andi plus, a big plus, the Mojo has a great Rhodes patch.

[AnotherScott]

That's exactly my point. Both the mojo and the Legend Live have only two presets, which is practically nothing, I mean, I suppose you could quickly tweak and store those presets at the soundcheck on a gig-by-gig basis, but it's not enough to actually build up a working set of presets you can recall in future as necessary.

 

So given the inability to operate it as a preset instrument, the second set of drawbars would come in handy, no?

Good point, I wasn't thinking about how few presets some boards have. It won't matter to some players, who don't need many presets either because they always use the same few sounds or they always build their sound on the spot through live drawbar tweaking. But, yeah, it really will depend on the player.