Hammond Teaser ???

[Legatoboy]

Nice reviews Jim Thank You...organ sounds like a Hammond to me..that's very very good... I wouldn't mind having the SK Pro 73 and Yammy YC73 side by side for a day or two...in review of single gigging axe ...the Hammond AP I wouldn't expect to be as good as Yamahas & the Organ on the Yamaha I wouldn't expect to be as good as the Hammond and I can hear a bit of that... but you never know what will work gigging wise until you have the axe in hand and even then, w/o a band/gig you still can never really tell sonically how it will perform on a live stage with other instruments/vocals.. .. but you can nail down all the rest you need to know/feel pretty well and how generally comfortable you are with the ax/features and action w/o a gig or band present of course...Hammond Clones get the drawbar sound/interplay right.... not that the other clones are so lacking, I enjoy my Electro 5D a lot... but the DB interplay and Tonewheel swapping/and sharing I can actually hear the best on most of the Hammond products...they get that absolutely right as I would expect....the finger to sound/note relationship on the AP (Japanese) I thought was a bit behind in tracking the keybed, less with the American/German Grand patch I thought for whatever reason... and I have noticed that before in the Hammond AP's... they are 'present' sounding though and that is a good thing, so definitely usable!

[JohnDoe]

Regarding the demos it says: " "Recorded direct into an Audio Recorder-No Leslie Cabinets were used".

In demo #4 you clearly hear keyslapping and drawbars going in/ out, so there must be a live mic into the recorder just for handeling noise, or what?

[ChazKeys]

 

Scott is going to have to update his spread sheet!

Here ya' go... https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fr9cObRaep37A9Y1PZtRkVWxKKDsXUGPk9ubfhYgoSk/edit?usp=sharing

 

Above I compared it to YC61... the other boards people will clearly be comparing to are the Nords.

 

That's a really good spreadsheet. What about adding Mono Mode and Portamento as YC61 and SK Pro have both - well the Hammond is only a Mono synth anyway. Not sure about the Stage might have both as well.

[rogs]

One nice little touch that Jim mentioned - at 11:20 in his overview video - was the fact that the organ reverb can be routed through the Leslie rotors.

Back in the day (early 70s ) I was working as a Hammond tech....

Many (most?) 'home organ' customers with model A.100 or M.100 - fitted with model 122RV or model 251 Leslies - would ask for their set ups to be modified, so that the reverb could be routed through the rotors.

 

(The 'standard' Leslie install had the second organ reverb channel routed through stationary speakers)

 

With the SK Pro, Hammond have realised that some folk may still like to use this option.... Nice touch!

[dickiefunk]

Some other useful sound demos here :-

 

[Delaware Dave]

I wonder if the mono synth's sliders can be programmed to control the lower drawbars so that there would essentially be two sets of drawbars.

[GovernorSilver]

What are the differences between multi-contact, virtual multi-contact, and "regular" keyboard? I don't have enough background to understand Jim's explanation about the virtual multi-contact keyboard.

[bjosko]

What are the differences between multi-contact, virtual multi-contact, and "regular" keyboard? I don't have enough background to understand Jim's explanation about the virtual multi-contact keyboard.

 

I don"t know how they have did it technically.

You can see and hear it in the video above from Bonnier, about 6 minutes into the video.

On a real Hammond, there was one busbar for each drawbar.

 

When you slowly push down the key, it made contact to each busbar in a random order, so you can hear the tones in different order made contact and sound.

I guess it are simulated in some way with a programmed random algorithm when you press the keys.

Perhaps in the XK5 there was real contacts or sensor that measured the key movement?

[GovernorSilver]

What are the differences between multi-contact, virtual multi-contact, and "regular" keyboard? I don't have enough background to understand Jim's explanation about the virtual multi-contact keyboard.

 

I don"t know how they have did it technically.

You can see and hear it in the video above from Bonnier, about 6 minutes into the video.

On a real Hammond, there was one busbar for each drawbar.

 

When you slowly push down the key, it made contact to each busbar in a random order, so you can hear the tones in different order made contact and sound.

I guess it are simulated in some way with a programmed random algorithm when you press the keys.

Perhaps in the XK5 there was real contacts or sensor that measured the key movement?

 

I've been too chicken to try a B3 or similar model Hammond in front other people, especially people that know to play them. So I have yet to experience a multi-contact keyboard under my own fingers. Bonner's explanation and demo cleared it up for me. Thanks!

[AnotherScott]

I guess it are simulated in some way with a programmed random algorithm when you press the keys.

Perhaps in the XK5 there was real contacts or sensor that measured the key movement?

Yes. Both boards are simulating 9 contacts. The XK5 has 3 physical contact points (sensors), and so should be able to be a bit more faithful than the SK Pro action which has only two, but both are extrapolating ("guessing") at when to trigger the 9 component sounds from the sensor information provided.

[AnotherScott]

Picking up on the synth functions, I saw in the specs that you can indeed select from multiple filter types for the mono synth, it's an on-screen option rather than the button it is on the Nord.

 

The leslie certainly didn't sound like the leslie I heard on the opening videos

That's the first thing I noticed. The Leslie on the other videos got me interested. Very Interested, but yeah, this didn't sound like that. A little disappointed.

.I thought that too and just assumed they had it running through one of their Leslies, but videos including teaser #4 which was the first tonewheel organ demo and the one that grabbed my attention are here: https://hammondorganco.com/products/portable-organs/skpro/skpro-details/ and on that page it says: "Recorded direct into an Audio Recorder-No Leslie Cabinets were used".

Regarding the demos it says: " "Recorded direct into an Audio Recorder-No Leslie Cabinets were used".

In demo #4 you clearly hear keyslapping and drawbars going in/ out, so there must be a live mic into the recorder just for handeling noise, or what?

I'm not sure what "teaser #4" or "demo #4" refer to, but I assume it's the one that first grabbed the Leslie attention in this thread, at post #3077450. And I'm pretty sure that one is NOT on the page where it says no leslie was used. And yes, you can tell that that one was not simply recorded direct because you can hear his fingers hitting the keys.

 

The Fatar TP-8O is in the Nord Electro/C2/Stage Compact, the Hammond SK1/2/x/pro, the Numa (obviously) and the Mojo, but none of them are cheap so I'm wondering what you're referring to when you wrote: "a lot of boards that are much cheaper" ???

I guess it depends on your definition of "a lot" and "much." ;-) But with the Hammond at $2500+, TP-8O boards that are at least $1000 cheaper (for the same # of keys) are Numa Organ 2, Hammond XK-1C, Crumar Mojo 61, Roland VR-730, and if you allow $30 leeway, Viscount Legend Solo. That said, I think the SK Pro is worth its premium over the lower-priced TP-8O based Hammonds, and over the only multi-sound option there, the VR-730. Yeah, I'd rather it had the action of a YC61 or Vox Continental, but Yamaha and Korg are probably not interested in selling their actions to Hammond. (This is all assuming that the SK Pro uses the TP/8O, which is likely, but I don't think I've seen confirmed yet.)

 

I suspect the multi-effects are just 2 blocks with separate sends for each of the 4 sections.

Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking about when I asked Jim the question. We'll see.

 

And the choice I'm looking at is an SKpro versus a YC61 MIDIed up to an HX3, which I currently have, and the glaring difference from a performance point of view is what do I really want accessible from the top panel: on the YC61 it's all the effects controls, while for the SKpro it's the mono synth, and atm I'm really not sure.

The fact that the YC61 LEDs sync up with HX3 (as you described at Post #3073088 in the YC61 thread) would be a nice perk for that combo... I wonder if there's any chance the on-screen drawbar displays of the SK Pro could do that same trick. That would certainly be a nice feature for B-3X which they may specifically want to support since it's Hammond co-branded.

 

Which set of front panel controls (fx or synth) is more valuable is an interesting comparison point. I would say synth, because with effects, each control is really its own thing, whereas with synth, the setting of one control can actually alter how you would want to set another control, so having them all available at once is more of a benefit, making going back and forth among some number of controls a lot less painful than if you had to navigate menus. The other reason I think this comparison benefits Hammond is that, while you don't have the front panel effects controls, you do actually have (presumably) all those controls available in the menus, whereas the Hammond's synth functions are largely not available on the Yamaha at all, not even in the menus. All you have is the one knob (switchable for EG or filter) and a non-intuitive set of options you can set it to control, with no way to access all the parameters individually. (Plus there's an additional filter control implemented as an effect.) Admittedly, having the effects in menus on the Hammond is not as convenient for live performance, but for effects, I tend to do the setup in advance and rarely need to tweak them in performance (except maybe reverb, which has a front panel control on the Hammond anyway). So I'd rather have full effects I can set up in advance and full synth parameters available to tweak simultaneously and in the moment, rather than having effects parameters I can tweak simultaneously and in the moment (less useful to me) and almost no editable synth parameters at all on the panel OR in the menus.

 

.the Hammond AP I wouldn't expect to be as good as Yamahas & the Organ on the Yamaha I wouldn't expect to be as good as the Hammond and I can hear a bit of that

Yes, but I hear attributes of both organs I really like. Yamaha's leakage is really convicing, for example.

 

the Hammond AP's... they are 'present' sounding though and that is a good thing, so definitely usable!

Although a bit OT, I have noticed a difference in "presence" in boards, and I wonder what it's from. It's a sense that, for example, one keyboard's Rhodes is farther away from you than another... but the levels are about the same, and there's no reverb on either one, so I wonder what it is that contributes to that effect.

 

That's a really good spreadsheet. What about adding Mono Mode and Portamento as YC61 and SK Pro have both - well the Hammond is only a Mono synth anyway. Not sure about the Stage might have both as well.

I do have portamento listed (line 19). I think everything that has portamento has mono mode (or selectable mono synth sounds), and everything that doesn't, doesn't. But I'm open to corrections. ;-) Yes, Nord Stage 3 has both.

 

One nice little touch that Jim mentioned - at 11:20 in his overview video - was the fact that the organ reverb can be routed through the Leslie rotors.

Yes, that's in the Bonner's video too. Funny thing, over at the Nord user forum, there were lots of people bemoaning that Nord switched to that method in the NS3. (Though in their defense, Nord doesn't let you pick which you prefer, Hammond does.)

 

I wonder if the mono synth's sliders can be programmed to control the lower drawbars so that there would essentially be two sets of drawbars.

Interesting idea. It would add some complication (e.g. in combining or alternating between organ and mono synth sounds, where I'm assuming that you'd normally be able to return to a synth sound you had just played/altered and its controls would be in the "right" places with the sound still in sync with where you had left them, though that's an assumption), and it also runs counter to the "dedicated controls per function" concept, but clearly, it's also something that could be useful, I like the idea. Assuming those controls send MIDI CC (and Hammond has generally been good about that kind of thing), I imagine that, at a minimum, you could take the MIDI Out, filter for those 9 CCs and change them to the CCs for second manual drawbars (using a MIDI Solutions Event processor or iPad app, for example), and feed it back into the MIDI In to get your 2nd drawbar controls. An advanced option allowing someone to create that routing internally might not be a bad idea, though I suppose there may also be an argument against opening up a pandora's box or source of confusion.

 

I also had the idea that the 9 sliders could be used to edit the similar parameters for sounds in the piano/ensemble section. Some of the same issues might apply.

 

Some other useful sound demos here

Nice dynamic piano control in the section starting at about 1:30. Assuming this is still a TP/8O, so that's not the easiest thing to acheive.

[Delaware Dave]

I guess it are simulated in some way with a programmed random algorithm when you press the keys.

Geez, I hope this is certainly not the case. The partials occur when the key is not fully depressed; when fully depressed whatever drawbars are draw out, their associated value for loudness are sounded. Typically it starts with the 1' drawbar and as you continue depressing the key the drawbars pulled out kick in one at a time down to the 16'. If the key is partially depressed you may not hear the 16, 5 1/3 or 8. So under the Hammond tonewheel environment it is associated with key travel; I wouldn't want a random algorithm unless the virtual contact detects a non-fully depressed key event; then an algorithm would be acceptable; also on a hammond when I previously said 'fully depressed' it actually does not take full depression of the key for all 9 drawbars to kick in; its more like halfway down or less. So how is the SK's keybed figuring out the key is half way depressed vs. fully vs. a quarter depressed? I'm sure they've given this some thought so that there is not a sloppy implementation. Jim A. mentioned in one of the videos that they may have used velocity to make the determination; if the velocity is light not as many drawbars are heard; if the velocity is higher then more drawbars are heard. A general randomness algorithm would not be cool; the last thing I would want is to fully depress a key and the algorithm kicks in I don't get all of the drawbars that were pulled for that key. the reality for me is that I'd rather hear all of the drawbars pulled (like all the other clones) even on a partial key trigger then a randomness algorithm that is sloppily designed and implemented. I don't think that Hammond would actually do a sloppy implementation of this concept.

[AnotherScott]

On the XK5 there are three sensors. On the SK Pro, apparently, two. Velocity cannot be determined until the lower of the two sensors is triggered (which also defeats high trigger), so one way to do it could be to simply play the 9 partials at scattererd times from the high trigger point instead of playing them all simultaneously. On the XK5, it would be able to play *some* of them that way, and then play some more of them when you crossed the middle trigger, so it would be a more accurate simulation that actually would depend somewhat on velocity (the time from your key depression to move from the first sensor to the second). On the SK Pro, it would be the same idea, but it is doesn't "know" when you've hit any particular point in the travel between top and bottom, it could only "guess."

 

But another possibility, if it wants to simulate responding to velocity yet not have the third sensor to actually know what the velocity is, could be to use the velocity of the most recently player prior note, to "guess" at the velocity of the current note (because in fact it probably is about the same as the previous one), and then to spread out the simulated contacts accordingly. Would that create an audible improvement over plain guessing? Beats me.

 

So anyway, it could certainly be a random algorithm at least in terms of the exact times after you press the key that the various elements kick in. (When I say "press the key" I mean initiate the key travel, I do not mean hitting bottom.) Although the precise delays for sounding each partial could be fixed rather than random, or as I proposed, calculated based on the velocity of the previous note... I don't know how "random" vs. "calculated" it may be. Whether the partials are played in the same order each time or are randomized, also, I don't know. But the important part here conceptually is not whether it is actually random or using an algorithm or some fixed numbers that simulate a sense of randomness. The important part is simply that the elements of a note are not all playing simultaneously, but are scattered, mostly if not entirely in the upper range of the key's travel (i.e. before hitting the bottom sensor).

[AnotherScott]

Jim's got another video posted...

 

[video:youtube]

 

The poly synth sounds are in the Ensemble section, as I'd expected (and as probably anyone who has played any SK expected). The nice surprise is that these sounds are even *more* editable than the mono synth sounds. While you don't get the same kinds of hands on control (and they are sample based rather than VA), there is enormous flexibility. A single such poly synth sound can have four components (which seem like Yamaha elements, and other companies' equivalents) and each component has a full complement of editable settings including, for example, envelopes that have about a dozen parameters (compared to the 4 parameters of a mono synth envelope).

 

Jim actually demonstrated using these functions to create single Ensemble sounds that were, themselves, 4 split/layered sounds. This if of course also a "trick" you can do with (for example) Yamaha elements on a Motif/Montage type of board, but on those boards, that level of editing is only for the most dedicated. On this board, it's quite direct and approachable. It's also reminiscent of Casio's hexlayers (except, obviously, four instead of six). This means that your two ensemble sounds--as long you only need them to be single velocity layer sounds--can each contain up to 4 split/layered sounds, meaning that (if I got it right) you can actually split/layer up to 10 sounds across the board (organ, mono synth, a 4-component sound under the piano button, and a 4-component sound under the ensemble button), and each of the 10 sounds can have its own key range. That's an awful lot of split flexibility... probably more than anyone is likely to need in a 61 or 73 key keyboard, but no doubt more useful than, say, the single split point of an Electro or a YC61.

[Jim Alfredson]

Yes, and keep in mind that the SK Pro still retains the MIDI functionality of it's predecessors, so you could have more splits controlling external devices there as well.

[niacin]

The leslie certainly didn't sound like the leslie I heard on the opening videos

That's the first thing I noticed. The Leslie on the other videos got me interested. Very Interested, but yeah, this didn't sound like that. A little disappointed.

.I thought that too and just assumed they had it running through one of their Leslies, but videos including teaser #4 which was the first tonewheel organ demo and the one that grabbed my attention are here: https://hammondorganco.com/products/portable-organs/skpro/skpro-details/ and on that page it says: "Recorded direct into an Audio Recorder-No Leslie Cabinets were used".

Regarding the demos it says: " "Recorded direct into an Audio Recorder-No Leslie Cabinets were used".

In demo #4 you clearly hear keyslapping and drawbars going in/ out, so there must be a live mic into the recorder just for handeling noise, or what?

I'm not sure what "teaser #4" or "demo #4" refer to, but I assume it's the one that first grabbed the Leslie attention in this thread, at post #3077450. And I'm pretty sure that one is NOT on the page where it says no leslie was used. And yes, you can tell that that one was not simply recorded direct because you can hear his fingers hitting the keys.

 

Yes it was the video at post #3077450, and lo it's been removed from the SKpro page on Hammond's site, presumably cause it shouldn't have been there in the first place, so yeh the original conclusion that it's a real Leslie in that video that some of us got excited about seems reasonable.

 

And the choice I'm looking at is an SKpro versus a YC61 MIDIed up to an HX3, which I currently have, and the glaring difference from a performance point of view is what do I really want accessible from the top panel: on the YC61 it's all the effects controls, while for the SKpro it's the mono synth, and atm I'm really not sure.

 

Which set of front panel controls (fx or synth) is more valuable is an interesting comparison point. I would say synth, because with effects, each control is really its own thing, whereas with synth, the setting of one control can actually alter how you would want to set another control, so having them all available at once is more of a benefit, making going back and forth among some number of controls a lot less painful than if you had to navigate menus. The other reason I think this comparison benefits Hammond is that, while you don't have the front panel effects controls, you do actually have (presumably) all those controls available in the menus, whereas the Hammond's synth functions are largely not available on the Yamaha at all, not even in the menus. All you have is the one knob (switchable for EG or filter) and a non-intuitive set of options you can set it to control, with no way to access all the parameters individually. (Plus there's an additional filter control implemented as an effect.) Admittedly, having the effects in menus on the Hammond is not as convenient for live performance, but for effects, I tend to do the setup in advance and rarely need to tweak them in performance (except maybe reverb, which has a front panel control on the Hammond anyway). So I'd rather have full effects I can set up in advance and full synth parameters available to tweak simultaneously and in the moment, rather than having effects parameters I can tweak simultaneously and in the moment (less useful to me) and almost no editable synth parameters at all on the panel OR in the menus.

 

Thx, I hadn't seen the reverb knob. Jim mentioned that you can choose one reverb type for the Hammond and another for the other voices so not sure what the knob is tied to, but it's actually the Hammond spring reverb that I'd like to be able to adjust on the fly. Things I find most useful to control from the top panel are: organ spring reverb, drive, delay (and a button for tap tempo), amp envelope attack, amp envelope release, filter cutoff, filter resonance, portamento glide time (with a button for portamento on/off), lfo speed. Hopefully the SKpro modwheel has some mapping options.

 

I wonder if the mono synth's sliders can be programmed to control the lower drawbars so that there would essentially be two sets of drawbars.

Interesting idea. It would add some complication (e.g. in combining or alternating between organ and mono synth sounds, where I'm assuming that you'd normally be able to return to a synth sound you had just played/altered and its controls would be in the "right" places with the sound still in sync with where you had left them, though that's an assumption), and it also runs counter to the "dedicated controls per function" concept, but clearly, it's also something that could be useful, I like the idea. Assuming those controls send MIDI CC (and Hammond has generally been good about that kind of thing), I imagine that, at a minimum, you could take the MIDI Out, filter for those 9 CCs and change them to the CCs for second manual drawbars (using a MIDI Solutions Event processor or iPad app, for example), and feed it back into the MIDI In to get your 2nd drawbar controls. I also had the idea that the 9 sliders could be used to edit the similar parameters for sounds in the piano/ensemble section. Some of the same issues might apply.

 

I'd really have liked a second set of drawbars where the sliders are with a switch that enables you to choose to use them as drawbars for a lower manual or as controls for the synth, like the Vox but drawbars instead of touch strips. I have my SK2 drawbars mapped to my Gemini module in this way.

 

I will say it's nice to see we're at page 9 of a Hammond thread and it hasn't been derailed yet, and a big thankyou to Jim for providing some of the best product demos I've seen.

[AnotherScott]

Yes, and keep in mind that the SK Pro still retains the MIDI functionality of it's predecessors, so you could have more splits controlling external devices there as well.

I also noticed the buttons to either side of the 4 main section select buttons: pedal and lower. So I said up to 10 sounds could be split across the board, but I guess lower organ is an eleventh!

 

p.s. - I think I can explain what you saw at 7:10, piano split into a second component just for the high notes for whatever reason... probably because the high notes need a different envelope, so that they ring (damperless) whether the sustain pedal is depressed or not, i.e. to emulate that behavior of an acoustic piano.

[AnotherScott]

Things I find most useful to control from the top panel are: organ spring reverb, drive, delay (and a button for tap tempo), amp envelope attack, amp envelope release, filter cutoff, filter resonance, portamento glide time (with a button for portamento on/off), lfo speed. Hopefully the SKpro modwheel has some mapping options.

So real time controls for drive and the delay options are what the SK Pro is missing for you. Besides possible mod wheel mapping, the other possibilities would seem to be whether these are controls that are on a screen you can easily get to (i.e. one or two taps), or as I said about using the mono synth controls as drawbars, if any of the parameters you're talking about are MIDI CC controllable, a MIDI Solutions box might be able to remap synth controls you don't care about to be the CCs for those functions. Though generally, parameters that don't already have hard controls associated with them are less likely to have CCs associated with them.

 

I'd really have liked a second set of drawbars where the sliders are with a switch that enables you to choose to use them as drawbars for a lower manual or as controls for the synth, like the Vox but drawbars instead of touch strips.

I certainly see the benefit. But the Vox drawstrips by their nature do eliminate the problem I mentioned of controls getting out of sync with their functions. That is, when you switch them from synth controls to organ, they automatically "move" to the right locations for the organ, and when you switch them back to being synth controls, all the sliders automatically "move back" to the right locations for the synth functions. At least I think they do. ;-)

[niacin]

I'd really have liked a second set of drawbars where the sliders are with a switch that enables you to choose to use them as drawbars for a lower manual or as controls for the synth, like the Vox but drawbars instead of touch strips.

I certainly see the benefit. But the Vox drawstrips by their nature do eliminate the problem I mentioned of controls getting out of sync with their functions. That is, when you switch them from synth controls to organ, they automatically "move" to the right locations for the organ, and when you switch them back to being synth controls, all the sliders automatically "move back" to the right locations for the synth functions. At least I think they do. ;-)

 

Yes they do. The YC61 drawbars plus LED strips would be ideal. Thanks for taking the time to reply to my posts, I've clocked up more than my share on this thread and I'm still on the fence but between Jim's demos, the Bonner's demo which is also really good, and your comments and comparisons there's a lot of good information to consider. I'm liking the Leslie ramp up and down on the Bonner's video. From Jim's latest video exploring the piano/ensemble sections I can see that the editing layout is exactly the same as my old FantomXr and will be a doddle to use. Still not convinced about the sound of the mono synth but looking forward to Jim's next video.

[nadroj]

Jim's got another video posted...

 

[video:youtube]

 

 

Holy crap, that's a potential game changer in terms of placing the SK-PRO above other competing instruments in this category. In my pop gigs I was constantly using the 3 OSC parts in a single tone in my Roland, or the 8 components per tone in my MODX to create the complex setups I needed. The fact that you can have 8 sounds split and edited how you like, along with the killer organ (and mono synth), makes this potentially more flexible than the Nord Stage 3. Since it's that deep, I can see this being used as a one board solution for pop/rock gigs. Who knew Hammond had it in them?!

 

Jim, these videos are awesome. I love having guys like you and Woody do board reviews/deep dives as you know what we as players (and mildly obsessive forum commenters) want to know.

 

I've asked on the YouTube page, but for the sake of those here who may have a similar question: how easy is it to access a filter sweep in the polyphonic section for live use? In a many of my gigs, filter sweeps on synth parts were one of the most common things I had to do live. Is there a lot of menu diving to access the filter?

[Baggypants]

So the Piano / Ensemble section reminds me a lot of the Yamaha CS2x. A "rompler" which can make sounds out of 4 parts and apply ASDR, LFO's, filters and the like. Oh and the key range bit is very similar too.

[niacin]

[video:youtube]

 

The mono synth section starts at about the half hour mark and he spends a fair bit of time there. You'll need some patience as it's an unedited live stream and a lot of talking in Japanese, but at 1 hr 20 mins long there's plenty of playing too.

[ElmerJFudd]

[video:youtube]

 

The mono synth section starts at about the half hour mark and he spends a fair bit of time there. You'll need some patience as it's an unedited live stream and a lot of talking in Japanese, but at 1 hr 20 mins long there's plenty of playing too.

 

This fellow"s playing feels so good. Very impressed - great choice by Hammond to get the instrument into his hands. Really makes it sing.

 

Jim too, what you"ve done for Hammond here is better than anything we"ve seen from most instrument manufacturers. Well thought out covering of the things we want to know, excellent demos of sounds and great playing.

[AnotherScott]

The fact that you can have 8 sounds split and edited how you like, along with the killer organ (and mono synth), makes this potentially more flexible than the Nord Stage 3.

Yes, the more we find out, the more NS3-competitive it looks. Updating my earlier take on this comparison on the most significant differences that I see so far (leaving out any judgement about the sounds themselves)...

 

Nord Stage 3 comes out ahead here:

* aftertouch

* custom sample loading

* large and ever-expanding library of replaceable factory sounds

* hands-on effects controls

* front panel control of volume and some other parameters of the external MIDI zones

* VA sounds can be polyphonic (Hammond has poly synth sounds, but sample based)

* front panel octave buttons for its piano and sampled sound sections

* arpeggiator

* morph feature for easy and flexible assignments of controllers to functions (including multiple simultaneous functions)

* supports second expression pedal

* available in 76/88 hammer action

* a bunch in the synth control section...

...more extensive set of physical controls

...applicable to polyphonic as well as monophonic sounds

...applicable to not just VA oscillators, but also to samples (factory or user)

...toggle-able between two simultaneous split/layered synth sounds

...additional LFO dedicated to vibrato

(I'm not sure which has more total mono VA flexibility... Nord has more from the front panel, but we don't know yet how much more tweakability is available from the Hammond's screen menus)

 

Hammond comes out ahead here:

* 10 patch select buttons instead of 5

* better display (presenting more options, more graphically)

* 3 MIDI zones vs. 2

* volume knob for the external input

* more flexible output routing options

* probably more total effects flexibility, but as discussed above, we need more detail here to be sure

* probably more flexible EQ (master equalizer plus individual equalizers for the organ, synth, and piano/ensemble sections of a combination; and the EQs themselves seem more flexible)

* deeper editing of the sample-based sounds

* multi-contact simulation on the organ

* available in 61 keys

* 73 version has space for something like an iPad

* substantially lower price

* more extensive split/layers

...more possible split points, with no restrictions on where they can be placed

...more possible internal sound combinations (Nord = 2 organ, 2 piano section, 2 anything else; Hammond = 2 organ + bass pedal, 1 VA mono synth, 2 anything else, but the anything-elses can, themselves, each include up to 4 sampled sounds)

 

They both have seamless sound switching, but the implementations are different. From what I can tell, I think Hammond may always have seamless switching, but it's possible you may hear an effects glitch in some kinds of transistions; Nord has totally seamless (no effects glitching) switching between programs (its version of Hammond Combinations) as well as between the two panels of a program (a panel being a piano, an organ, and another sound), but no seamless switching within a panel (e.g. turning on and off the sounds within a panel).

 

They differ in storable user edits. I think it shakes out like this:

Storable User combinations of all sounds: Nord 400, Hammond 100

Storable User individual sounds which can be used to create those combinations: Nord 400 from within its synth and non-piano sampled sounds; Hammond 400 from within its sampled sounds + 100 synth +100 organ, plus the 400 in the sampled sound section can, themselves, contain up to 4 single element sampled sounds. Hammond also has non-rewritable locations for its factory sounds (Nord's factory sounds are not separate from the user slots), and something called bundles yet to be described.

 

They both seem to have a way to quickly access sets of disparately located combinations. Nord has a "song mode" with 8 banks of 50 pointers, one-button selectable in sets of 5, with good re-ordering facilities. Hammond has "favorites" with what I think are 10 banks of 10 pointers, one-button selectable in those groups of 10, with unknown re-ordering facilities. Programs themselves can also be easily re-ordered on the Nord; the ability to re-order Hammond's Combinations is so far unknown.

 

The use of velocity layers is also going to be a source of difference. Hammond's piano/ensemble sounds appear to support up to 4 velocity layers. Nord supports an unknown number in their piano section (presumably at least 4), but only one in its non-piano sampled sound library. Though architectural support doesn't tell us how much it's been used. For example, the one piano sound Jim used in his sound editing demo appears to have only a single velocity layer. That's a sensible starting point for creating the deeper level multi-component layers, but hopefully, there are some multi-layered pianos in there too.

 

Another unknown is the full MIDI implementation. For example, can the Hammond address its different sections on different MIDI channels? Are user combinations as well as individual factory and user sounds all selectable via MIDI Program Change? Which front panel controls send out MIDI CC?

 

Travel weight: If you go with the 61, Hammond is the lightest option, at 20.5 lbs. If you want 73, Hammond's 23.7 is heavier than Nord's 22 lbs.

 

All of this of course subject to change as we learn more!

[jverghese]

Excellent demos by Jim A, Bonners, and others.

 

I really like the sonic signature of this instrument -- it does sound like four separate instruments, not some generic layered rompler.

 

However, I'm a bit worried about the Leslie sim. To me it sounds too chorusy (which is a fault of many sims, IMO), and it doesn't seem to have much stereo width, although that may be adjustable. You can hear the internal sim with all drawbars out at the end of this video.

 

That's a rather different sound from the one in one of the teasers, where they probably used a real rotary speaker, as many have pointed out. CLONK

 

It will be interesting to see to what extent the Leslie sim can be tweaked.

[ChazKeys]

 

p.s. - I think I can explain what you saw at 7:10, piano split into a second component just for the high notes for whatever reason... probably because the high notes need a different envelope, so that they ring (damperless) whether the sustain pedal is depressed or not, i.e. to emulate that behavior of an acoustic piano.

 

Wow! - perfect for the Wurly with samples from G6 - C7 ringing without the sustain pedal.

[AnotherScott]

A couple of other thoughts...

 

I've mentioned in the past that the problem with some implementations of key click is that they are too identifiable as a single percussive sound, whereas on the real thing, it's more of a "key smush" than a single defined "click." I realize now that that "smush" effect on the real thing may be related to the multi-contact staggered drawbar triggering. (That's not to say it's impossible for a clone to have a "smushier" kind of click without implementing actual staggered tone triggering... some clones do have a smushier click than others regardless.)

 

The page where I remember seeing something about a modeled clav was this one: https://hammondorganco.com/products/portable-organs/skpro/ - but it's not there now. The deep editing functions we've seen illustrated do seem to all be based on loading a sample wav. But it makes me wonder how a line like that got on to a web page. I'm going to say it was something that got lost in translation, i.e. a reference to modeled organ that somewhere translated as modeled clav until they caught it, or something lke that. Or I hallucinated.

 

One thing I like on the Nord's clav is that it uses a low release point, which makes it play more snappily. I understand that's been implemented on the Mojo 61 as well. It would be a nice surprise to find that on this Hammond.

 

I haven't watched all of it, but that Japanese video really sounds nice. The organ has a lot of body. I heard some ugly distortion, but it could have been overdriving the recorder rather than coming out of the board that way. Check 20:10 to 20:35 for example. I'm still looking to hear some good tube-style Leslie overdrive out of it though, at least up to the level of what the Nord has.

[Delaware Dave]

The fact that you can have 8 sounds split and edited how you like, along with the killer organ (and mono synth), makes this potentially more flexible than the Nord Stage 3.

Yes, the more we find out, the more NS3-competitive it looks. Updating my earlier take on this comparison on the most significant differences that I see so far (leaving out any judgement about the sounds themselves)...

 

Nord Stage 3 comes out ahead here:

* aftertouch

* custom sample loading

* large and ever-expanding library of replaceable factory sounds

* hands-on effects controls

* front panel control of volume and some other parameters of the external MIDI zones

* VA sounds can be polyphonic (Hammond has poly synth sounds, but sample based)

* front panel octave buttons for its piano and sampled sound sections

* arpeggiator

* morph feature for easy and flexible assignments of controllers to functions (including multiple simultaneous functions)

* supports second expression pedal

* available in 76/88 hammer action

* a bunch in the synth control section...

...more extensive set of physical controls

...applicable to polyphonic as well as monophonic sounds

...applicable to not just VA oscillators, but also to samples (factory or user)

...toggle-able between two simultaneous split/layered synth sounds

...additional LFO dedicated to vibrato

(I'm not sure which has more total mono VA flexibility... Nord has more from the front panel, but we don't know yet how much more tweakability is available from the Hammond's screen menus)

 

Hammond comes out ahead here:

* 10 patch select buttons instead of 5

* better display (presenting more options, more graphically)

* 3 MIDI zones vs. 2

* volume knob for the external input

* more flexible output routing options

* probably more total effects flexibility, but as discussed above, we need more detail here to be sure

* probably more flexible EQ (master equalizer plus individual equalizers for the organ, synth, and piano/ensemble sections of a combination; and the EQs themselves seem more flexible)

* deeper editing of the sample-based sounds

* multi-contact simulation on the organ

* available in 61 keys

* 73 version has space for something like an iPad

* substantially lower price

* more extensive split/layers

...more possible split points, with no restrictions on where they can be placed

...more possible internal sound combinations (Nord = 2 organ, 2 piano section, 2 anything else; Hammond = 2 organ + bass pedal, 1 VA mono synth, 2 anything else, but the anything-elses can, themselves, each include up to 4 sampled sounds)

 

They both have seamless sound switching, but the implementations are different. From what I can tell, I think Hammond may always have seamless switching, but it's possible you may hear an effects glitch in some kinds of transistions; Nord has totally seamless (no effects glitching) switching between programs (its version of Hammond Combinations) as well as between the two panels of a program (a panel being a piano, an organ, and another sound), but no seamless switching within a panel (e.g. turning on and off the sounds within a panel).

 

They differ in storable user edits. I think it shakes out like this:

Storable User combinations of all sounds: Nord 400, Hammond 100

Storable User individual sounds which can be used to create those combinations: Nord 400 from within its synth and non-piano sampled sounds; Hammond 400 from within its sampled sounds + 100 synth +100 organ, plus the 400 in the sampled sound section can, themselves, contain up to 4 single element sampled sounds. Hammond also has non-rewritable locations for its factory sounds (Nord's factory sounds are not separate from the user slots), and something called bundles yet to be described.

 

They both seem to have a way to quickly access sets of disparately located combinations. Nord has a "song mode" with 8 banks of 50 pointers, one-button selectable in sets of 5, with good re-ordering facilities. Hammond has "favorites" with what I think are 10 banks of 10 pointers, one-button selectable in those groups of 10, with unknown re-ordering facilities. Programs themselves can also be easily re-ordered on the Nord; the ability to re-order Hammond's Combinations is so far unknown.

 

The use of velocity layers is also going to be a source of difference. Hammond's piano/ensemble sounds appear to support up to 4 velocity layers. Nord supports an unknown number in their piano section (presumably at least 4), but only one in its non-piano sampled sound library. Though architectural support doesn't tell us how much it's been used. For example, the one piano sound Jim used in his sound editing demo appears to have only a single velocity layer. That's a sensible starting point for creating the deeper level multi-component layers, but hopefully, there are some multi-layered pianos in there too.

 

Another unknown is the full MIDI implementation. For example, can the Hammond address its different sections on different MIDI channels? Are user combinations as well as individual factory and user sounds all selectable via MIDI Program Change? Which front panel controls send out MIDI CC?

 

Travel weight: If you go with the 61, Hammond is the lightest option, at 20.5 lbs. If you want 73, Hammond's 23.7 is heavier than Nord's 22 lbs.

 

All of this of course subject to change as we learn more!

 

Paralysis by analysis. Dude, relax ...

[Stokely]

I really appreciate the NS3 comparison, AnotherScott, because that is the keyboard I sold my Electro to get (but haven't yet due to gigs going away) So if something comes along to knock it off the top of my list, great!

 

For me it boils down to:

- how committed I am to doing one-keyboard gigs, something that I haven't liked to do in the past

- how good the poly synth non-VA sounds are in the hammond, and do they have any kind of tweakability (the electro does let you mess a bit with the sampled sounds, enough to get by in many cases).

 

I don't know anything just yet about the Hammond sound library, assuming they have one similar to Nord's.

 

The difference in price is tempting, since I could use it (and the sale of my modx) toward a Prophet rev2 or hydrasynth and forget one-keyboard rigs for gigs...what a killer rig that would be for my needs. The hammond could "get by" on polysynth hopefully for small gigs.

 

I'd have to make the call on (Just ok) waterfall action on the NS3 vs the hammond action, whatever it is.

 

Edit: I should have read Jim's posts more closely and I still need to watch the vids. The ensemble flexibility sounds very promising!

 

Question, on the action: I've skimmed and read the whole thread and saw that it uses the tp80 fatar action, but so does the Nord, and from my times on an SK1 and 2, I remember the SKs being a bit less "tight"...might have been just what mood I was in that day! Any thoughts on the NS3 compact action vs this one? Are the identical or does Hammond somehow adjust that action differently?

[AnotherScott]

saw that it uses the tp80 fatar action, but so does the Nord, and from my times on an SK1 and 2, I remember the SKs being a bit less "tight"...might have been just what mood I was in that day! Any thoughts on the NS3 compact action vs this one? Are the identical or does Hammond somehow adjust that action differently?

I'm not sure we've seen any confirmation of it having the same TP/8O action of the earlier SK models, but it's likely. I agree with you, I think the SK1 was not as tightly sprung as the Nord Stage 3 and assorted other Nords, that's how it felt to me as well. The Nord and Dexibells have felt the most highly sprung of the TP/8O models I've played (and reports are that Viscount is similar); the lightest feeling was a Numa Organ 2 (and reportedly later Mojo models); and there's a middle version represented by the SK1, the XK1, the last version of Korg CX3, the original Numa Organ, and surprisingly, another Numa Organ 2 I played so there may be some variation in that model. I've read conflicting reports on the Roland VR-730.