Clav patches in Hammond SK's

[SMcD]

I asked this question in the thread about clav patches a couple weeks ago, but got no responses so I'll try it as a standalone topic.

 

I'm thinking about upgrading from my Hammond SK-2 sometime soon, but I'm a bit reluctant because heard that the clav patches in the SK Pro are something of a downgrade.

 

Which clav patches are used in the SK-X? Frankly I'm satisfied with the Hammond emulation in the SK-2, so a second set of drawbars would be enough of an upgrade for me in that department.

 

And what about the newer SK-X Pro? Does it suffer from the same deficiencies as the "original" SK-Pro?

 

In summary, my understanding is this:

 

1) SK-2 - good clav

2) SK Pro - bad clav

3) SK-X - ???

4) SK-X Pro - ???

 

Can anyone weigh in here? Thanks!

[Delaware Dave]

Given you're assertion that the SKPro's clav is bad, wouldn't then the SKXPro's also be bad?  I think that the SKX is pretty much an SK2 (with additional drawbars).  So logically it would seem that the SKX would be good if the SK2 is good.  My two cents.

 

 

[Stokely]

I can't help...I own an SK pro but clav is one thing I haven't used just yet.  I have the purgatory creek library on my Modx and use that.  I did play it briefly and it sounded ok to me...but I also can't compare to the older SK as the only time I used clav on it was playing Superstition on an SK2 provided for a jam.

So far I've been pretty impressed with everything on the SK pro, even the much maligned piano sounds ok to me...though again I use my Modx for that.

[niacin]

SKpro and SKXpro are the same soundset.  Sk2 and SKX are the same soundset.  The clav samples in the SK2 are the same as those in the SKXpro but the sounds are programmed slightly differently and there seems to be general agreement that those in the SK2 play better, I believe because of randomised note off release noise.

 

1) SK-2 - good clav

2) SK Pro - ok clav

3) SK-X - good clav

4) SK-X Pro - ok clav

[BenWaB3]

I had an SK-1 and loved the clav sound. I now have an SK Pro & don't like the clav sound at all. No "dig" on the attack which, IIRC, the Sk-1 had in spades. That's just my opinion though, and you know what they say about opinions. Some forum members really like the SK Pro clav.

[AnotherScott]

FWIW, I thought the EPs were better on the SK1 than the SK Pro, but after some velocity setting adjustments, they seemed about the same.

[BenWaB3]

13 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

FWIW, I thought the EPs were better on the SK1 than the SK Pro, but after some velocity setting adjustments, they seemed about the same.

 

Yes, I liked the SK-1's Eps better also, just for the fact that you could get both delay (from the reverb section) and auto-pan on one registration. With the Pro you have to program one with delay, one with auto-pan and then play both simultaneously which results in the basic tone just not sounding right.

[AnotherScott]

11 minutes ago, BenWaB3 said:

 

Yes, I liked the SK-1's Eps better also, just for the fact that you could get both delay (from the reverb section) and auto-pan on one registration. With the Pro you have to program one with delay, one with auto-pan and then play both simultaneously which results in the basic tone just not sounding right.

I think you should be able to set the one with delay to be 100% wet, and it should sound right (tonally) because you would no longer be layering two copies of the original "dry" signal. Though it will still probably not be identical to the SK1 implementation which I assume is daisy-chaining the effects, such that the spatial location of the sound being processed by the delay is different as the source signal is being moved by the auto-pan effect. That is, the location of the delay probably moves with the auto-pan on the SK1, while it's probably fixed otherwise. (But all this is just hypothesizing...)

[Outkaster]

They are OK, but the organ is the standout.  Most people are buying for that reason.

[BenWaB3]

10 hours ago, AnotherScott said:

I think you should be able to set the one with delay to be 100% wet, and it should sound right (tonally) because you would no longer be layering two copies of the original "dry" signal. Though it will still probably not be identical to the SK1 implementation which I assume is daisy-chaining the effects, such that the spatial location of the sound being processed by the delay is different as the source signal is being moved by the auto-pan effect. That is, the location of the delay probably moves with the auto-pan on the SK1, while it's probably fixed otherwise. (But all this is just hypothesizing...)

Thanks, Scott! Another "uh, duh" moment for myself for not even thinking about trying that. Sometimes all those dang trees keep me from seeing the forest

[SMcD]

Thanks for the info everyone!

 

The EP's won't be much of an issue - I usually cover those from a digital piano anyway (currently a Kurzweil PC3LE8, likely upgrading to a PC4 later this year).

 

On 1/11/2023 at 8:33 PM, BenWaB3 said:

I had an SK-1 and loved the clav sound. I now have an SK Pro & don't like the clav sound at all. No "dig" on the attack which, IIRC, the Sk-1 had in spades. That's just my opinion though, and you know what they say about opinions. Some forum members really like the SK Pro clav.

 

This is a tough call. The SK is my main clav board and I'd like to keep it that way. On one hand, I'd hate for that to suffer by upgrading. On the other hand, the monosynth on the SK-X Pro is very appealing (the Kurz currently meets all my synth needs, and playing some leads on non-weighted keys would be nice), as are the wheels (whammy clav, anyone?). What exactly do you mean by "dig" on the attack?

 

If anyone's managed to get some good mileage out of the Pro clav patches, would you mind weighing in? I'm not too much of a purist, so non-random release noise as described by niacin shouldn't be too much of an issue, provided there's some kind of release.

[The Real MC]

I used to own a Clavinet.

Back in the 70s the "go-to" Clavinet sound required a tube guitar amp for mild overdrive.

 

I'd say the crucial element missing in the SK series for clav sounds is tube overdrive.  The overdrive in the SK is digital.

 

The XK series have tube overdrive.  In fact two overdrive channels which can be parallel or series.  My XK3 and XK3c are my go-to keyboards for Clav sounds.  Besides the authenticity of the Clav sample (including the quirky attack transient), dialing in the tube overdrive and sweepable 3-band EQ really contribute to taking it to the next level.

 

The SK series have overdrive, but it is digital and has very limited control.  Haven't played an SK in person, but looking at the SK spec for digital overdrive I don't see controls such as bias, crossover, phase, serial/parallel that my XK3/XK3c has.  Guitar is my secondary instrument and I happen to know how those controls change the sound of the tubes, and XK tube overdrive is crucial to my Clavinet sound.

[SMcD]

The XK series is nice, but what I like about the SK series is having dual manuals in one convenient package. I suppose I could try to find a used XK-3c and the separate lower manual, but I suspect that'll be more trouble than it's worth. And the XK-5 doesn't seem to have non-organ sounds at all. I'll have to concede to meeting my tube overdrive needs outside of the keyboard itself. Besides, my poor millennial self never had access to a real clav so I don't entirely know what I'm missing.  

 

I still think the SK-something is the way to go. I'd really like to pull the trigger on the SK-X Pro for a variety of reasons, but ideally I'd be able to hear some testimony from people who have used its clav and actually enjoyed it.

[BenWaB3]

3 hours ago, SMcD said:

Thanks for the info everyone!

 

The EP's won't be much of an issue - I usually cover those from a digital piano anyway (currently a Kurzweil PC3LE8, likely upgrading to a PC4 later this year).

 

 

This is a tough call. The SK is my main clav board and I'd like to keep it that way. On one hand, I'd hate for that to suffer by upgrading. On the other hand, the monosynth on the SK-X Pro is very appealing (the Kurz currently meets all my synth needs, and playing some leads on non-weighted keys would be nice), as are the wheels (whammy clav, anyone?). What exactly do you mean by "dig" on the attack?

 

If anyone's managed to get some good mileage out of the Pro clav patches, would you mind weighing in? I'm not too much of a purist, so non-random release noise as described by niacin shouldn't be too much of an issue, provided there's some kind of release.

 On a real clav, or good extra voice sim, the attack, especially on the low notes has an instant engagement, or "dig", greatly helping the percussive overall sound of the instrument. One of the long-standing problems with many rompler-based sounds is that they lack this immediacy and clavinet emulations in particular can show this flaw. The SK-1 didn't seem to have this problem, but the SK Pro does. I tried adding pure synth waves onto one of the 4 "operators" to see if an attack rate of zero would bring them in instantaneously, but it just lacks that immediate engagement. Hope this clarifies more than muddles.

[SMcD]

I think I understand. I'm thinking about those super-percussive RH slaps in "Superstition", for instance. I can ballpark them on my SK-2, but it sounds like it'd be harder on the Pro. Do I have that right?

 

If so, it's a really tough decision for me. I'd love those extra bells and whistles I mentioned, but not at the expensive of The Funk.

[niacin]

7 hours ago, SMcD said:

the monosynth on the SK-X Pro is very appealing (the Kurz currently meets all my synth needs, and playing some leads on non-weighted keys would be nice)

the mono synth is very limited, if you’re planning to rely on it for synth leads i think you will be disappointed.

[BenWaB3]

20 hours ago, SMcD said:

I think I understand. I'm thinking about those super-percussive RH slaps in "Superstition", for instance. I can ballpark them on my SK-2, but it sounds like it'd be harder on the Pro. Do I have that right?

 

If so, it's a really tough decision for me. I'd love those extra bells and whistles I mentioned, but not at the expensive of The Funk.

Yes, particularly if you listen to the attack (or dig) on the low Eb notes he plays. Yeah, the Pro does address some of the flaws on the Sk-1 & 2 but does so at, as you say, the expense of The Funk

[SMcD]

A bit late getting back to this, but I appreciate the input from everyone.

 

Seems that the best way to go is the older SK-X. I'm disappointed that I'll miss out on the improvements of the Pro - I was excited to get my Lachy Doley on with that pitch wheel, and even a limited monosynth could've been of some use to me - but I just can't sacrifice the quality of the clav.

 

...Dammit, Hammond. Why can't you give me everything I want/need?!

 

Not that this really matters, but another bonus of going with the "original" SK-X is that I happen to think the SK-X pro is hideous. That "British Racing Green" is pukealicious, and the raised screen absolutely murders the form factor.

[Stokely]

Hmm, different strokes I guess. The SK pro looks great to me, the green is closer to black.   

I haven't used the mono synth that much on mine, but it seems to have a fair amount to it...as much as I'd need for most mono sounds anyway.  Sounds pretty good too, better than my Modx can manage at least.  I take somewhere between 0 and 1 synth leads a show with our current song list!  I was going to try to program the Cars sync lead sound but then found a spot-on patch in the Analog Xperience library that I bought for my Modx so didn't bother   

I haven't even tried the clav sounds as I have Purgatory Creek on my Modx, but I think the sk pro has assignable outputs...I could try a pedal like my Lester K to see how that overdrive fares

Ironically I'm struggling a bit with the organ tones.  I'm used to B-3X and this is quite different.   Some of it is my monitoring (in-ears)...in show recordings it sounds great even in mono.

[AnotherScott]

45 minutes ago, Stokely said:

Ironically I'm struggling a bit with the organ tones.  I'm used to B-3X and this is quite different.   Some of it is my monitoring (in-ears)...in show recordings it sounds great even in mono.

Considering how tweakable the SK Pro is, I wonder if you could load up a B3X sound as reference, and tweak SK Pro parameters to get it close. It's so much easier to tweak things against a reference than to do it in the abstract.

[Stokely]

Yeah, not a bad idea.  Something is going on with my monitoring lately though, not getting the clarity I'd like.  B-3X is a bit more "in your face" (my presets anyway).  Less low end from the sk pro would be a starting point, I keep forgetting to go in there and tweak that.

[SMcD]

Sorry for the thread necromancy, but I wanted to share how this story ended.

 

With the SK-X being discontinued, I couldn't get one from the retailers here in Canada. Having put my SK-2 through seven years of use, abuse (exuberant palm smears and hand slaps aplenty), and ad-hoc repairs, I didn't want to risk getting a used one that might end up needing the same level of maintenance within the first year of ownership. Fortunately, I managed to snag what turned out to be the last still-in-the-box unit from Sweetwater (check the site - they're all gone, and it's my fault ). After a few rounds of infuriating PayPal glitches and FedEx delays, I swung down over the border to pick it up yesterday.

 

As of last night, I am probably the last person in North America who will ever unbox a Hammond SK-X. 😎

 

 

The forum insists on flipping this image upside down, but you get the idea.

 

Thanks to everyone here for their insights. It was a big help in locking this in, and I'm glad I pulled this trigger. And the clavs sound real nice.  

 

P.S. I must say that I'm very impressed by Sweetwater's customer service. This order turned out to be quite a hassle, and they were super helpful at every step.