Numa Organ's own rotary sim vs. Burn

[AnotherScott]

I've moved this from the "Numa Organ vs. Nord Stage 2" thread because I thought it might be of interest to some other people who might not see it there, with all the Burn interest at the moment.

 

This picks up from a comment on the other thread about how the Numa's CV didn't fare well through a Vent. So there's a question about how it fares through a Burn.

 

I did use a Burn setting which I think more closely approximates a Vent than the stock presets do. Which means if you think it's okay, great, but if you think the Burn still doesn't work with the Numa's CV, well, it doesn't necessarily mean there might not be some other Burn setting that would be more amenable to the Numa's CV.

 

Anyway, here's the Numa Organ, all drawbars out, C3 chorus.

 

 

Through the Numa's own sim, its drive was at about 10:00. Through the Burn, I lowered the Numa drive to zero and used the Burn's OD. Maybe a more pure test would have been not to use overdrive for either, though practically speaking, I never play that way.

 

All mono.

 

Maybe you would pick one rotary effect for being better overall, but the other for being more cooperative with the CV?

[AnotherScott]

144 views and 44 plays of the file, and no one has an opinion to offer? Maybe people could use a little prompting!

 

I was going to edit the post and add a poll, but it's too late. So I'll just ask people to post,

 

1. Apart from the CV, which rotary sample did you like better, A or B?

 

2. for those of you who care about CV, which rotary sample did you prefer the sound of the CV through?

 

and finally, if you preferred the CV through one sample but preferred the overall rotary effect of the other (so either one would be a trade-off for you), which would you choose to use?

[Six-string-man]

We just listened to them AS, and agree that though fairly similar, we liked the second one better.

 

Can't exactly put our fingers on the reason, best we can do, is that the second one seemed to have more "presence"

 

SSM & KG

[Tomkeen]

I like the first one much better. Though the second one has more "body", you can really hear the horn spin much better in the first one. Just my opinion though.

[Steve Nathan]

I gave a quick listen last night and I believe I preferred the 1st one, though there was nothing "slam dunk" about it.

[Steve Nathan]

Yeah. I prefer the 1st one. It second sounds slightly muffled to me, like it has "cheaper mikes" on it.

[Al Coda]

Yeah. I prefer the 1st one. It second sounds slightly muffled to me, like it has "cheaper mikes" on it.

 

I prefered the 1st one too.

Don´t know which is which,- so I´m curiuos ...

 

A.C.

[vanderSchoot]

The first one is BURN and the second is the Numa....

I think the fast setting on Burn is not my cup of tea at all, but I think the Numa sounds a bit washed out.

 

But........never judge solely on recordings.

My amp is a Motion Sound KP500SN.

The Numa dry sounded warmer balsier fatter than the electro3 by a good margin through this amp.

 

And the leslie sim comes alive, like a 3D projection, not only left/right, but also in/out, something most other internal sims fail to produce....only left right imageing.

This is something you have to experience yourself and I know LX88 has the same experience with the Numa and amps.It is very important to play it through the right amp and when you succeed its sim is lush and 3D.

 

 

 

 

[AnotherScott]

The first one is BURN and the second is the Numa....

vanderSchoot know of what he speaks!

 

I think the fast setting on Burn is not my cup of tea at all, but I think the Numa sounds a bit washed out.

Of course, one big difference here is that the Numa on fast is the Numa on fast, but the Burn on fast can be substantially modified, so you might be able to get something you like better out of it. I used the default settings of one of the Burn presets, except for lowering the overdrive. But they provide a choice of 4 different mic placements, 3 different horn and rotor speeds, and 3 levels of frequency modulation, among other things that might affect how the fast leslie is sounding to you.

 

My amp is a Motion Sound KP500SN.

The Numa dry sounded warmer balsier fatter than the electro3 by a good margin through this amp.

Yes, the amp can make a difference too. But when you say "dry," I'm guessing you mean each one still being processed through its own rotary effect, yes? I think it's common that people think the Numa sound better than the Electro 3 regardless of amp. What really makes it a horse race is the addition of the external leslie sim into the equation.

 

the [Numa] leslie sim comes alive, like a 3D projection, not only left/right, but also in/out, something most other internal sims fail to produce....only left right imageing.

This is something you have to experience yourself and I know LX88 has the same experience with the Numa and amps.It is very important to play it through the right amp and when you succeed its sim is lush and 3D.

I feel I get that out of the Burn as well... and perhaps without having to be as fussy about which amp you pair it with.

[vanderSchoot]

Of course, one big difference here is that the Numa on fast is the Numa on fast, but the Burn on fast can be substantially modified, so you might be able to get something you like better out of it. I used the default settings of one of the Burn presets, except for lowering the overdrive. But they provide a choice of 4 different mic placements, 3 different horn and rotor speeds, and 3 levels of frequency modulation, among other things that might affect how the fast leslie is sounding to you.

I believe you !, the same is partly true for the vent (distance knob)

Yes, the amp can make a difference too. But when you say "dry," I'm guessing you mean each one still being processed through its own rotary effect, yes? I think it's common that people think the Numa sound better than the Electro 3 regardless of amp. What really makes it a horse race is the addition of the external leslie sim into the equation.

Before I had the Numa I used the vent with the electro 3, it sounded good.

But the Numa sounded better, more open, less compressed than the electro3 with vent.

My idea was to use the superiour sim of the vent with the Numa.

To my surprise the result wasn't all that great.

The sound became a little muddy and less open, something I didn't notice with the electro 3 and vent.

 

Till a week ago my vent was gathering dust, but since I have a xb2/hx3 for over a week, the vent is polished and reintroduced into the sound chain.

It sounds fantastic together.

 

And if your sound is improving through the Burn, I hope you enjoy it all the way.

 

My point is that in my opinion an outboard effect isn't always a real improvement.

 

 

 

[LX88]

I actually wasn't wild about the Vent/ Numa combination but I liked using the volume control for the horn on the Vent with the Numa.

 

The Numa sim never fails to amaze me. Live, I use overdrive quite a bit with good success but when I am home for some reason the overdrive seems bright with 3 rd percussion. But in a band setting, not bad.

[analogholic]

All mono.

 

Would you like to repeat this comparo in stereo?

And also throw in the Vent?

 

To my ears, the Burn sounds way better than the Numa sim in mono on fast.

The Numa sim gets almost like a "chorusy" sound on fast and

gets "washed out" as Vandershoot mentioned.

Would be curious if stereo helps the Numa sim?

 

Thanks!

[jeffnkrn]

Don't own a Burn, but I do have the Numa and a VB3. I had been running the Numa mono out and the Leslie sounds OK not very convincing. Didn't realize the leslie effect was also sent stereo out. (Saw Joey playing on You tube set up this way). It sounds much better this way, and is comparable to my Vb3 leslie sim, though not as deep sounding. Now I will have to bring 2 of my powered speakers to a gig to get the full effect.

[BigJPatton]

I'm not sure what the issue here is, but my Numa sim sounds much better than this clip, it's not nearly as washed out.

 

But I think this reveals the real reason why sim pedals sound better than internals on these clips, the pedal is giving the signal a boost along with the effect, so recordings sound better, and more clear, but with a good amp live there is little difference.

[AnotherScott]

I'm not sure what the issue here is, but my Numa sim sounds much better than this clip, it's not nearly as washed out.

Are you running mono or stereo?

 

But I think this reveals the real reason why sim pedals sound better than internals on these clips, the pedal is giving the signal a boost along with the effect, so recordings sound better, and more clear, but with a good amp live there is little difference.

If you think the difference is level, you could boost the Numa sample on playback.

 

For those who feel that your feelings about these two samples might be different if you had instead heard both organs running into an amp--you, vanderSchoot, LX88, I think--could you try running my soundcloud clip into your amp, and see how the two sounds compare when you run them into your amp?

 

It would still be an imperfect comparison with your real world setup if you typically run a stereo in, and here you would be running a mono in. But I'd still be curious to know if you hear the difference you expect. You could also run your own Numa into your amp "live" and in stereo (by playing the big C major chord with all drawbars out and C3 chorus... GCE with the right hand, and the two lowest Cs with the left), and compare it to the Burn clip in mono. That would clearly give the Numa the edge in its sense of space, being stereo, but even knowing how the Numa in stereo compares to the Burn in mono in other respects, when both are running through your preferred amp, could be an interesting comparison.

[tucktronix]

I'm not sure what the issue here is, but my Numa sim sounds much better than this clip, it's not nearly as washed out.

Are you running mono or stereo?

 

..and what amp do you run it through??

[BigJPatton]

Mono, QSC K10 or Mackie DLM8

[BigJPatton]

I think the bottom line is a good sim pedal will always sound a bit better than an internal sim just because of the way the signal is being effected and boosted from the line, rather than however this is happening inside a keyboard, maybe I'm wrong.