What's wrong with the Numa 2 clone.

[Chris Towns]

Hi,

 

As a reasonably happy owner of a Numa 2 clone, I was curious why this particular keyboard seems to get more than it's fair share of criticism. I originally had a Nord C1 which I sold (no proper drawbars). I then opted for a Numa 2,which is the cheapest of all the single manual clones. I had heard several youtube videos and was aware that the original Numa clone had received good reviews in the music press. I was pleasantly surprised on receiving and auditioning the Numa 2. The build quality is of a very high standard, and the keyboard has a lovely feel and look about it. There are three different Hammond models to choose from A100,B3 and C3 (as well as other organ sounds). The leslie sim is stunning (to me it is anyway). I personally prefer the sound of my Numa 2 to my old Nord C1.

I have had the Numa 2 for about a year now, and have no plans to change it. There are things I'm not so happy about. The manual is a pain, and upgrading the firmware was a headache although I did manage to get it done in an evening with virtually no instructions. I don't like having one set of drawbars to control upper and lower sections.

It's just that whenever I read threads on these Forums about which clone to choose, it's invariably the Numa 2 that takes most of the flack. I don't have a problem with that, I was just curious what was it about this keyboard that rubs so many people up the wrong way.

I think all the Hammond clones on the market do a great job and would be happy with any of them. Even so, I think it's important to note that you can purchase three Numa 2's for just over the price of one XK3C in Thomann.

 

I am genuinely not looking to pick an argument with anyone, and respect any choice of clone a member has made. It's just that sometimes I'm a bit confused when I read members posting negative comments about different clones, and particularly the Numa 2.

 

Chris

 

http://www.keyboardmag.com/gear/1183/studiologic-numa-organ-2-reviewed/49445

 

 

 

 

 

[Dglavko]

Good question - I didn't dig the non flat top if the numa 2 vs 1 but always thought the numa1 was a great organ. I use mine at more gigs than my mojo/kronos/Nord's/hx3 as it is flat/stackable, has great ergonomics and just feels good. Also sold an sk1 to get it and never looked back. Not quite as good sounding as the mojo mind you but close/still a great organ IMO. I had no reliability issues with mine but I suppose others did not gave quite as good luck and are scared of the Numa supposed substandard support.

[ElmerJFudd]

A few thoughts...

 

Studio Logic gets a hard time because of a history of quality control and follow up on customer service, parts, warranty issues, firmware updates, stuff like that. I think their most recent products are a step in the right section on completeness prior to shipping, the rest remains to be seen.

 

The Numa 2 is an internal (or commissioned exclusively for them) attempt at doing a clonewheel - the organ sounds themselves, the CV, key click, Leslie sim, all that good stuff. The Numa 1 was a licensing of the KeyB engine. KeyB has an established name in the clone world, Studio Logic doesn't. They'll have to prove it to some folks to be held on par with Hammond, Crumar, Nord, etc.

 

The Numa 2 sounds pretty good! Better than some in some ways... close enough for comparison to the leaders, but in some minds coming up short on a few details here or there. But it's a pretty good attempt, certainly worth considering. Not deserving of being pissed on, but there are of course arguably "better" or more accurate clones in near price range, and many not so near. I agree the Xk-3c could use a reality price check in 2016 - that, or a refresh that addresses some things others have since improved upon like the CV and internal Leslie sim. It's also 43lbs, built really well and it feels it. But the closer you get to 50lbs the more I start to think - crap this is heavy.

 

The Numa 2 has some advantages that make it worth considering, not organ related but as a second tier single manual clone that will also suffice as a keyboard controller for other sounds with pitch and mod wheel, preset keys that become available as an extra octave of playable keys when in controller mode.

 

So, at the moment if your second tier real estate is at a prime and a great clone that isn't a good controller won't suffice, then a "good" clone that is a decent controller might be right up your alley.

 

I personally can't wait to see a few more developers realize that a single manual organ (not a dual so much) but definitely guys that play a single over a stage piano would also like it to have great controller features for driving synths and modules, iOS devices, laptop etc. Most guys aren't going to drag more than two boards and a clonewheel is a decent part of a set list, but not so large as to not need the organ/synth action keyboard in their rig to do other work.

 

The Roland VR-09 is a huge win for Roland because it's a Swiss Army board in clonewheel clothing. But it's priced too low to have build quality a priority. It's very light, too light. The action is not on par with the ones they built for the VR-700/VR-760, the drawbars are not as sturdy or even designed as well as the previous V-Combos, nor are the knobs and buttons. But those were expensive single manual do it all clones that had trouble competing with Nord, Hammond, Crumar, etc.

 

Looking for....

Roland to return to a higher end V-Combo maybe priced around $1499-$1699 that's built well and has some FA features like Supernatural library and a VA synth engine.

GSi single manual DMC with 73 keys and Gemini - done.

A cheaper Nord Electro D with pitch and mod, maybe an actual synth inside not just a sample player.

Some additional controller features on the XK-1c

Things, like this that Swiss Army up a single manual clone.

 

[marczellm]

Elmer, that's very much what I too have been thinking of. Currently my rig is NS2 and JUNO-G, and I'm very happy with it, but having to set up the MIDI link from JUNO to Nord to control organs and synth leads is a bit of a hassle. I'd very much like to have something like the VR-09 with a better keybed and aftertouch, having a good clonewheel and a good VA engine, with both drawbars and knobs for synth tweaking.

 

On the other hand I wouldn't buy it if it came out now, shortly after my NS2 purchase

[BigJPatton]

I don't buy all the reliability issues, that's just people perpetuating a few issues they had early on and never actually owned the board themselves, they've been fine for years.

 

I just don't like the way the Numa 2 looks, with the raised drawbars on top, it looks silly, the original is far cooler looking.

[LX88]

I played the Numa 2 at NAMM and IN MY OPINION the Numa 2 is very sensitive to the playback source that you use - i.e. speakers and EQ source.

 

I played it through some reference headphones that I use and got it to sound pretty good. The CV on it is good as is the leslie sim.

 

If it has a weakness, it is that the EQ curve on the treble knob is set very high. The mid range is barely affected, causing it to have a lack of " cut" in the mid range of the upper octave.

 

The Crumar Mojo has a much lower treble curve and gives you more midrange cut. You can hear more "sizzle" in the upper octave.

 

The Numa 1 behaves similarly. I remedy this by using a Yamaha mixer with it most of the time, and turn my mid EQ to 2 or 3 o clock. I am also careful which speakers I use with the Numa 1, because the upper treble range ( percussion) tends to get bright.

 

I will say that you can get good results out of both Numas, but they are fussy about their playback source.

[AnotherScott]

I think that, at its price, the Numa 2 is great. There's certainly nothing at or below its price that is better. Basic sound vs. the Numa 1 is a judgment call to me, with the most obvious difference to me being the 1 having a more cutting high end and the 2 sounding fuller on the bottom. Action, rotary effect, and availability of alternate organ sounds are advantages of the 2. Overdrive and leakage are better on the 1, and maybe the key click.

[zoooombiex]

Interesting. I thought I had read that the Numa 2 was still based on the KeyB engine. Is that not correct?

 

Also interesting to see some preferences for the sound of the Numa 1 (drive etc.) as all the reviews I had seen to now were squarely in favor of the 2.

 

I've been out of the clonewheel race for a while. Had most of the current crop, and sold off all but the nord. But when I sometimes think about picking up a dedicated clone again, the numa 1 & kx3c are the ones that left the best impression with me.

[vanderSchoot]

Interesting. I thought I had read that the Numa 2 was still based on the KeyB engine. Is that not correct?

 

Also interesting to see some preferences for the sound of the Numa 1 (drive etc.) as all the reviews I had seen to now were squarely in favor of the 2.

 

I've been out of the clonewheel race for a while. Had most of the current crop, and sold off all but the nord. But when I sometimes think about picking up a dedicated clone again, the numa 1 & kx3c are the ones that left the best impression with me.

I used to believe most professional reviewers as a neutral, objective mouthpiece for the pro player, but now I have a hard time taking any review for more than just another opinion.

 

All current keyboard/synth/organ reviews are raving, subtle comments, no real negatives and a repetative positive tone....just like the reviews of similar products of the competition.

My personal opinion is that i truly like some products and seem to dislike others more than just ''not my cup of tea''.

 

But even keyboard magazine reviews all clones as very good, spot on, warm, woody etc.

All the clone topics proof that in reality people have strong preferences instaed of enjoying all of them with some very small preferences.....reality is that people prefer certain clones more over the other with some margin.....

 

 

 

 

[Mitch Towne]

The Key B license expired with version 1, I believe. Studiologic had to "roll their own" for the Numa 2. I have owned both and I think the Version 1 had the superior sound. Neither sound set cuts that well compared to the other clones (I went back to the Electro 3 after trying really hard to be happy with the Numa 1), but the Numa 2 virtually disappeared in a jazz trio setting. I took it to one rehearsal and, by the end of the rehearsal, I had already obtained a return authorization number from the seller. It was thin as a rail.

 

I will say, however, that there were some things I really liked about the Numa 1. If I ever run across one in a pawn shop or something, I might grab it just to have it.

[clpete]

How does it compare to the Hammond/Leslie in the XK1c? It sounds good on videos and that review is good. ExceptI dont trust the sound on videos. The review didnt cover C/V and doesnt really compare it to anything but the Numa 1.

 

It looks like it will transmit midi on channels 1, 2 and 3 only and always sends clone data. Do you see this as an issue as far as using it to control module sounds? Can you turn off the organ data send?

 

The bender is fixed at 2 semi tones. Will a slave, that has that parameter changed to something different like 5, play the 2 semi tones or 5? It seems to me that usually the info has to be sent.

 

[Chris Towns]

Hi,

 

In another thread on this Forum. Mitche Towne one of the Forum members feels that the Numa 1 has a better sound than the Numa 2. I cannot comment on that as I have never had a Numa 1. In the keyboard magazine review of the Numa 2, it say's that the Numa 2 sounds slightly better than the Numa 1. I showed this to Mitche and he said that the magazine reviewer had made a mistake (I'm assuming that Mitche has heard both these Numa's along side each other).

 

For me, the Numa 2 has got an acceptable sound (just like all the other clones). I know it's not the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm reasonably happy with it.

 

Chris

[vanderSchoot]

Hi,

 

In another thread on this Forum. Mitche Towne one of the Forum members feels that the Numa 1 has a better sound than the Numa 2. I cannot comment on that as I have never had a Numa 1. In the keyboard magazine review of the Numa 2, it say's that the Numa 2 sounds slightly better than the Numa 1. I showed this to Mitche and he said that the magazine reviewer had made a mistake (I'm assuming that Mitche has heard both these Numa's along side each other).

 

For me, the Numa 2 has got an acceptable sound (just like all the other clones). I know it's not the best thing since sliced bread, but I'm reasonably happy with it.

 

Chris

Enjoy it, i had a Numa organ and electro3 the same period as Mitch had his.

He didn't like the Numa and vent as a combination.....me neither!!!

But i thought the Numa was a level up from the Electro3 on all accounts whereas he just commented how he went back using the electro3.

The Numa straight into my amp (Motion Sound KP500SN) was a better sounding, cutting and overall pleasing sound than the electro3 ever was for me.

So personal preferences, amp, music are indiniable important aspects in your perception of sound.

[Mitch Towne]

Enjoy it, i had a Numa organ and electro3 the same period as Mitch had his.

He didn't like the Numa and vent as a combination.....me neither!!!

But i thought the Numa was a level up from the Electro3 on all accounts whereas he just commented how he went back using the electro3.

The Numa straight into my amp (Motion Sound KP500SN) was a better sounding, cutting and overall pleasing sound than the electro3 ever was for me.

So personal preferences, amp, music are indiniable important aspects in your perception of sound.

 

 

100% agree with that. The amplification used is paramount to whether or not you like the sound you are getting. I had a KP500SN and it was fantastic for EPs and synths, but I could never get a decent clone sound from it. Same goes for my QSC K12s. Harsh and punchy, no matter if I was using the Mojo internal sim, the Vent or the Burn. I recently "downgraded" to an EV XLZ (or whatever the model is) and am MUCH happier. It handles the organ tones much better.

 

Back on topic, it is absolutely a situation of "to each their own." But, to articulate what I was missing from the Numa 1 (and to a greater extent, the Numa 2) was the cut and presence that I need from an organ. The Numa 1 was a much more detailed clone sound than the Electro, but it just never had the presence I needed on stage with any of the variety of groups I play with (jazz, funk, blues, etc.). Even through my 147, I found myself wanting more than what I was able to get, especially during solos (I generally stick to 888, 3rd, Soft, Fast and C3). It just didn't give me the tone I wanted. It sounded great on its own, however. Much more realistic than the Nord E3. But, the Nord got through the mix when I needed it to, so I held the Nord until the Mojo was released.

 

It was kind of frustrating, because I had heard videos of Joey D on the Numa 1 where it did seem to have the presence and cut I was looking for, but I could just never get it from the internal sim, Vent, or even the 147.

 

Here is the best video of the Numa I have run across. What I liked about the Numa was a certain "woody" characteristic in the sound. But, I don't like the top octave CV sound.

 

[video:youtube]

[zoooombiex]

I agree that -- using the same DB settings -- the Numa 1 didn't cut as much as the nord/hammond/mojo. But I liked that it's base sound was very fat and smooth. I just added more/higher DB's on the Numa (compared to the other clones) when I needed to make it cut, and liked how it could get full and bright without being really harsh.

 

Definitely horses for courses though. Whatever allows people to make the music they enjoy is fine by me.

 

And thanks to those weighing in who tried both the 1 & 2.

[ElmerJFudd]

Here's 12 audio examples posted by StudioLogic to exhibit the variety of models the Numa Organ 2 offers. And actually, that's a selling point as well - it includes stuff like Diapason, Sawtooth, and Square Wave in addition to the tonewheel and transistor stuff. It's pretty versatile.

 

StudioLogic Numa Organ 2 on SoundCloud

 

Listening through the lot, I don't find myself saying that sucks really at anytime. They may have sweetened the examples. Hard to say, they don't suggest either way - although I always prefer when vendors don't do that. Now, I know I sit there for hours in front of my monitors tweaking things until they sound right for me, so I'm sure I could get this board to sound like what I need. Unfortunately, now this is a downside, and the Keyboard Mag article is clear on this - tweaking has to be after the output. There is no diving into this board to change things about their models beyond pulling drawbars, turning key clock on or off, etc. In that respect, it's you get what you get - like a "real" organ (at least until you open it up and start hot rodding).

 

With that said this instrument is competing with some models designed to please the the organ connoisseur - which is a really discerning crowd. And within this crowd there are cats who piss on the trebly overly compressed Nord impression of the tonewheel organ (also criticized for shimmering during solo play but not cutting in ensemble situation). Side by side in A/B with the Nords, Hammond's SKs debatably don't "thrill" but are perhaps more "authentic". The Mojo sound engine is uniquely admired on this forum as are the latest HX3 based instruments. The new Mojo61 (app. $1499) is the only one that comes close price wise to the Numa 2 at $1099. A single manual Uhl X3-1 will cost you $2180 shipped to the US. SK1 73 is $2395, Electro 5D 73 is $2499. The Roland VR-09 @ $899 also has a passable organ engine but no one is raving about it here (particularly when it comes to the leslie/rotary effect). Does it cut? You'll have to ask those that gig with it. But it's only so so in solo play, and arguably has the worst action of anything we're talking about here.

 

Every one of these clonewheels has a passable sound for lack of a "real" Hammond + Leslie (which also have a variety of sonic nuances from model to model). Everyone of these does a better job of tonewheel organ than any ROMpler that might take up your second tier single manual spot (opinion, yes, perhaps. but probably shared by many). After you stop debating about which sound engine does it for you, then you have to consider what additional features you might need. Additional sounds, two sets of draw bars, pitch & mod wheels, feel of the action, 61-73-76-88 keys, transmits program change data, etc. etc.

[Dglavko]

I will say this: everytime I gig/rehearse with my nord (stage 76-2, or 73 v3) or kurzweil pc3 or kronosx-61, I miss the numa1 and mojo and contemplate how I might get by with them and a module, iPad etc... They are both in another league as organs and quite satisfying.

[Chris Towns]

Hi,

Thank you for all the posts on this thread, it's reassuring to know some members do view the Numa organs (both 1 and 2) in a positive light.

I think it's accepted that the basic organ sound on both the 1 and 2 is reasonably close. Members and the press both have their opinions.

In view of that, I have posted two videos comparing the original Numa to a genuine Hammond. I personally cannot tell the difference, but what do you think ?

 

 

 

Chris