MOJO VS. XK5

[HammondDave]

Here is an interesting A/B between these financial Apples to Oranges clones.  Everyone knows how I feel about Suzuki organs… and this A/B just confirms it. The XK5 sounds so thin in comparison. I think the MOJO also beats the XK5 when it comes to percussion, overdrive, and Leslie sim.  And what is the price difference?  I think I will keep my MOJO. 
 

 

[Chummy]

I wish there was a "Mojo 73" or an equivalent board with 73/76 "organ style" keys. I've been eyeing the Mojo but 61 is not enough for me

But yeah a great sounding board.

[Radagast]

I wish the Numa Organ 2 was still being made.

[analogman1]

Have the fixed quality control issues that had existed in the Mojo? That would be my concern.

You certainly can't beat the value!
I'd love to have their two manual clone with the reverse colored keys!

[HammondDave]

What is not A/B’ed in this video is the CV. And I have heard that this is no contest between the two with Crumar’s being superior. The author disses the XK5’s CV in another video. 

[WWW]

I liked my Mojo till it crashed and burned on me.  Just got an XK 4.       (Newer tech, the XK5 is 7 years old) Only 20 pounds.  After tweaking, it sounds more authentic than the Mojo.  The CV is now quite good. More importantly, it feels better because of the quick action and the multi level trigger attack, which completes the heart-hand Hammond B3 connection. (But yes, imho, it needs a Ventilator, but so does the Mojo). My 2 cents. 

[Stokely]

Reliability reports is the single reason I went with an sk pro over a mojo 61.   My buddy got a mojo and brought it over, I thought both sounded good but the mojo had much more of an punch/attack to the sound that we both liked.  Obviously the two aren't apples to apples on features.   At the time I disliked the bigger size of the mojo, but my friend makes great use of it for setting things on it   

And of course now I'm only using one keyboard, a nord stage 3, so not sure what I'm going to do with the sk pro.

Action-wise, if I was blindfolded I'm not sure I could tell them apart.  Both have excellent easy to play actions.

[Jim Alfredson]

A completely useless comparison. He didn't even make an attempt to match recording levels between the two instruments, which is the bare minimum required for any honest comparison (since we tend to associate 'louder' with 'better'). He has reverb on the Mojo whereas the Hammond is bone dry, another psychoacoustic preference. He is also not using the overdrive circuit at all on the XK5 (you can see that it's off because the LED is not lit). Yet he has it almost up to halfway on the Mojo. I have the overdrive circuit engaged ALL the time because even with the dial all the way down it adds girth, thickness, and saturation to the sound. With it off, the XK5 sounds more like a vintage tonewheel direct off the preamp; lots of keyclick, lots of high-end, not much bass. 
 

The tone of the XK5 varies wildly depending on the Leslie model used. And it's obvious that the level of the percussion is much hotter in the Mojo. You can of course adjust that in the XK5 very easily and it will saturate the modeled matching transformer just like a vintage tonewheel, especially with the overdrive on.

 

I'd put my XK5 up against the Mojo any day. I've barely tweaked mine; just a few adjustments to the percussion, matching transformer parameters, and the tube settings really. This video is a piss poor representation of it.

[mobi]

11 minutes ago, Jim Alfredson said:

He is also not using the overdrive circuit at all on the XK5 (you can see that it's off because the LED is not lit).

 

Neither on the Mojo 61  (drive chicken head next to volume, it's off)

[Jim Alfredson]

1 minute ago, mobi said:

 

Neither on the Mojo 61  (drive chicken head next to volume, it's off)

It's at 11 o'clock on the Mojo. Also, I don't know how the Mojo works. If the knob is all the way down, there might still be some saturation / tone shaping happening, like on the XK5 if the circuit is turned on. You have to press the OVERDRIVE button on the XK5 to actually turn the circuit on. The Mojo doesn't have an on/off button, which implies that it's always on and all the knob does is change the amount.

[kenheeter]

This is a silly argument. They are both great clones and very different from each other. Choose what you like!

[Old No7]

Had a Mojo 61 -- and now have an SK Pro 73.  What's also missing?

 

Neither weighs in over 120 pounds or more!  Plus a Leslie to go with it!  😁

 

My ears like both -- as does my BACK.

 

Old No7

[kanefsky]

59 minutes ago, Jim Alfredson said:

It's at 11 o'clock on the Mojo. Also, I don't know how the Mojo works. If the knob is all the way down, there might still be some saturation / tone shaping happening, like on the XK5 if the circuit is turned on. You have to press the OVERDRIVE button on the XK5 to actually turn the circuit on. The Mojo doesn't have an on/off button, which implies that it's always on and all the knob does is change the amount.

 

I did a quick scan through the video.  It looks like the drive on the Mojo starts in the off/minimum position (around 7 o'clock).  Then around 5:22 he starts adjusting it going first to around 11 o'clock, then to around 1 o'clock at 8:19, 3 o'clock at 10:25, 4 o'clock at 11:34, back to 12 o'clock at 11:45.

 

According to the Mojo manual, the drive is active when the static amp simulation is enabled.  That's indicated by the bright red LED under the "fast" percussion button, which is lit the whole time (the shift button in combination with the fast button is used to enable/disable the cabinet/static amp simulation).

 

On the XK-5 the overdrive is disabled until 8:49 with the depth knob at around 10 o'clock.  Then it's turned on and depth is turned back to around 9 o'clock.  After that it's adjusted between 9 o'clock and 10 o'clock and turned off and on again a few more times.

 

As I said it was a quick scan with the sound off, so I wasn't listening to what he was playing or describing as he was making the changes.  I was just curious what was going on with the overdrive between the two keyboards.

 

 

[ABECK]

I'm quite confident you could dial either in to sound just like the other (and wildly unlike each other too).  The value difference is really in the physical realm.  For more than twice the cost, you get multiple contact keys, reverse presets, more drawbar sets, more faithful controllers/switches.  I'd hazard a guess that's the deciding factor for the folks forking over the extra $$.  To me, sitting down at the XK5 looks more similar to sitting down at a real Hammond console.  If I were a dedicated Hammond guy, I could see where those physical aspects are a huge factor in deciding (especially the reverse key presets and the mult drawbar sets).  

[HammondDave]

Look... Both keyboards are great. If the XK5 weighed 25lbs I would probably happily gig with it as well. All I know is my MOJO 61 sounds awesome without a Leslie or Vent (Mind-blowing that a $4000  clone needs a Vent - could it be that Suzuki intentionally cripples their organs so that the musician has to fork out thousands more for a Leslie?), the keyboard feels awesome, and the overdrive and C/V are superb. It also has excellent EP, AP, Combo Organ, and Clav sounds… and it costs $1500. 

But isn't it great that we have choices? 

[kanefsky]

6 minutes ago, HammondDave said:

Look... Both keyboards are great. If the XK5 weighed 22lbs I would probably happily gig with it as well.

 

The XK-4 has the latest tech and weighs 20.7 lbs, so that's probably the best comparison (which WWW makes above).

[HammondDave]

2 hours ago, ABECK said:

I'm quite confident you could dial either in to sound just like the other (and wildly unlike each other too).  The value difference is really in the physical realm.  For more than twice the cost, you get multiple contact keys, reverse presets, more drawbar sets, more faithful controllers/switches.  I'd hazard a guess that's the deciding factor for the folks forking over the extra $$.  To me, sitting down at the XK5 looks more similar to sitting down at a real Hammond console.  If I were a dedicated Hammond guy, I could see where those physical aspects are a huge factor in deciding (especially the reverse key presets and the mult drawbar sets).  

i guess you mean “for more than 3 times the cost”. H/S grossly gouges  their products’ prices. Then you have to pay more for a Vent? 

[HammondDave]

7 minutes ago, kanefsky said:

 

The XK-4 has the latest tech and weighs 20.7 lbs, so that's probably the best comparison (which WWW makes above).

I am looking forward to playing one, but is it worth twice the cost of a MOJO?  

[kanefsky]

5 minutes ago, HammondDave said:

I am looking forward to playing one, but is it worth twice the cost of a MOJO?  

 

67% more in the US.  I guess it's personal opinion and a function of things like reliability, build quality, support, etc. in addition to sound quality.

 

[drawback]

Having had a Mojo61 for years, and switching to B-3X in the last year or so, I'm strictly a Hammond (or H/S if you prefer) guy now. There's a certain breathabilty in the CV/Percussion/Overdrive that no others have been able to replicate. If I were to get into a new hardware clonewheel, it would be the XK-4.

[HammondDave]

11 minutes ago, kanefsky said:

 

67% more in the US.  I guess it's personal opinion and a function of things like reliability, build quality, support, etc. in addition to sound 

 

And just for the record, I had many more quality control and customer support issues with my XK3’s than my MOJO’s. 

[ABECK]

 

18 minutes ago, HammondDave said:

i guess you mean “for more than 3 times the cost”. H/S grossly gouges  their products’ prices. Then you have to pay more for a Vent? 

How is the Leslie Sim?  It seems like every demo vid the XK-5 is paired with a physical Leslie of some sort.  I've actually stop using a Vent with my Gemini engine, as I think the internal SIM (Same as Mojo) is just as good.

[kanefsky]

5 minutes ago, HammondDave said:

$2500 vs $1500 seems to be a lot more than 67%.

 

I guess I shouldn't regret that I didn't less time doing math and more time playing music in school

 

 

5 minutes ago, HammondDave said:

And just for the record, I had many more quality control and customer support issues with my XK3’s than my MOJO’s. 

 

I'm not making any comment nor do I have personal experience.  I'm just listing some of the factors that might justify paying more for one thing than another.  Being good at math also makes it more likely you'll be able to afford more expensive things

 

 

[JoJoB3]

4 hours ago, kenheeter said:

This is a silly argument. They are both great clones and very different from each other. Choose what you like!

Yep, and like ALL clones yesterday and today there are inherent, known issues that come with. Clones are not infallible and pale in build to the vintage counterparts (which I'm sure most here already know).

Buy the clone tool you like.

[HammondDave]

4 hours ago, kanefsky said:

 

The XK-4 has the latest tech and weighs 20.7 lbs, so that's probably the best comparison (which WWW makes above).

“latest tech” means nothing to Suzuki… considering they could have integrated a better Leslie sim in their organs for years.  

[kanefsky]

10 minutes ago, HammondDave said:

“latest tech” means nothing to Suzuki… considering they could have integrated a better Leslie sim in their organs for years.  

 

Latest doesn't always mean best, especially when comparing technology from completely different companies or technology designed to meet a particular price point.  The XK-4 would be the best comparison because it's closer in size, weight, and price in addition to being the most current model.

 

[Delaware Dave]

The new Yamaha CFX acoustic piano in the Mojo is very good.  Also the rhodes, wurli, and clav are as good as any keyboard made.  How do the Hammonds compare in those areas?  The Mojo has 22 delivered 'different' hammond models, all of them sound distinctly different. I dont use the standard delivered hammond that I'm sure that Nick used, i use the 1961 A101 which has a really sweet tone.  Two things I didnt like about the comparison was that Nick had already 'tweaked' the XK5 to his liking but never took the time to tweak the Mojo.  The other thing that I didnt like was that he treated the XK5 as if it were the gold standard, shouldnt there be a real B3 and leslie to compare to , i.e. the true gold standard. Both sounded different in several areas, so the question shouldnt be, which one do i like better, the question should be which one sounds more like the real deal, i.e, the true gold standard.  We didnt have the true gold standard to compare to in the video, so people who dont own the real deal go with what they think sounds better to them.  I'm paying money to emulate the B3/122/147 that i can no longer gig with and i want that rig to come reasonably close and there are some things (like C/V) and leslie that if they dont sound like my B3 and leslie are deal breakers for me.  The other thing (for me) is price. I'm not going to spend a ton of money to get the sound. This is why the Gemini module (Mojo in a rack) fits the bill for me. If money were no object i'd probably invest in an XK5 because i can tweak it to probably get an ideal sound. But the price alone for Hammonds are deal breakers.  BTW i owned an XM2 (an XK1 in a rack); I fought it for almost two years, I finally ditched it and kept my Voce V5+ (which i still use on smaller gigs) because i couldnt get the highly adjustable XM2 to sound as close to a B3 as my non-tweakable Voce.  My two cents, take it with a grain of salt.....

[AnotherScott]

3 hours ago, HammondDave said:

“latest tech” means nothing to Suzuki… considering they could have integrated a better Leslie sim in their organs for years.  

 

Well supposedly the SK Pro sim is upgraded from the one in the XK5 (though the XK5 has the tube), and I think I saw that the XK4 is upgraded from the one in the SK Pro. 

[Adan]

video is a classic case of someone comparing equipment they happen to have on hand, rather than equipment the typical buyer would be choosing between.

 

Both Crumar and Hammond clones are more than good enough to make audience believe (with eyes closed) they're hearing the real thing.  From that perspective, Crumar provides more bang for the buck, though how one assesses reliability should also factor into a cost/benefit analysis. We're all judging reliability from anecdotal evidence, so none of us really know for sure.  In my case, I also have the experience of more than one Crumar keyboard crapping out, which adds a sort of visceral component to the evidence (things that happen to you have more impact on your thinking than things that happen to other people).

[M_G]

 

Well, where have all those "Crumar Priests" gone ???

 

Tony Monaco -> Back to Hammond

Frank Montis -> Back to Hammond

Mitch Towne -> MAG

 

Makes me wonder ???