Hammond, Rhodes, Moog reissues

[yannis D]

LOL Mike, that's what i'm sayin'.

This particular guy I refer to, is a quite nice and pleasant one, exept his bad music taste and aesthetics... I've seen -I bet, you too- many other club owners/promoters/managers and so on, who have the same bad ideas plus they're shitty characterw

That's why a carry to gigs the small Electro and never, never play "for the love of music"

Yannis

[Ed Coury]

The reason they stopped making Rhodes pianos is simple: consumers wanted lighter, more practical, easier to maintain, more realistic-sounding, and more versatile eelectric pianos!

 

If B-3's did not face a challenge from modern boards that did not require regular maintaince by trained servicemen, a team of people to move, and could play more than just organ sounds, they would have kept on makin' 'em, too.

 

Personally, I find MANY Rhodes synth sounds more than exceptable -- even better -- than the original. Heck, even the old DX-7 had amazing Rhodes sounds - I would have traded my old 73 for one in a heartbeat in 1976!

 

I used to HATE the action of the Rhodes...stiff, etc., even with the so-called 'mods' the techs would do in the day. And let's face it -- it was an AMAZING sound -- but a piano? More like a gigantic music box!

 

We have become jaded after years of sampling and ROM technology. But 30 years ago, if you could have heard the sounds made by a the $500 Roland or Yamaha keyboards of of 2004 -- may of us would trade our entire rigs for one slab of plastic, IMHO.

 

As far as guitar amps are concerned, most of the guys playing the retro tube jobs have connected stateof the art Stomp Boxes with circuit boards in addition to their classc gear.

[ManInTheBox]

All the reasons given here are fine and dandy. But every reason here can still be applied to the acoustic piano. The market for the Piano has shrinked considerably in the last hundred years, there are viable alternatives, yet they are manufactured and sold today. Some going for as much as $200,000.

What is it about the acoustic piano market that consumers will demand and pay for the quality a $200,000 instrument should have, yet the tonewheel market won't?

[JMcS]

Although some of the people who pay $200,000 for a piano may do so for the way they sound, my guess is that many do so in order to have paid $200,000 for a piano. So it can sit there in the front room / grand room of the X million dollar house and be dusted by the maid twice a week. B3's just don't have the look for that. And besides a B3 that only gets dusted once in a while is a sad thing.

 

If Hammond brought out a NewOld B3, there would still be people who complained that it cost too much and didn't sound like the B3 they played way back in the day and the wood in the leslie came from trees that grew in air that was too polluted and didn't resonate properly, and the plastic in the horn may have been recycled plastic and on and on.

 

I got to listen while someone else played my XK-3 last night. I have to say the XK-3 doesn't take second to anything. Including a B3. IMHO

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by Ed Coury:

The reason they stopped making Rhodes pianos is simple: consumers wanted lighter, more practical, easier to maintain, more realistic-sounding, and more versatile eelectric pianos!

So why not make a lighter, more practical, easier-to-maintain, more versatile, better action, real electro-mechanical Rhodes, with MIDI? Personally, I don't see why the original Rhodes design has to be set in stone. They could modify it - as long as it is still electro-mechanical, and not digital.

[coyote]

Haven't read all responses yet, so maybe this has been mentioned... There are also literally hundreds of thousands of existing tonewheelalternatives to the B3. Thay are called C3, A100, A102, RT3, B2/C2 w/add-on percussion, etc. There certainly is collector's value in a good B3 but I would not hesitate to chop an A102 or RT3 to make it more portable. And many of those organs are available, in good condition, for less than $1000. Given the existence of hundreds of thousands of potentially inexpensive available units in the marketplace, there's absolutely no financial incentive to reproduce such items at $15-20K.

Originally posted by bartolomeo:

You can get a fully restored, pristine B3 for around $10,000, and I doubt whether ones with all-new parts could be manufactured for that, let alone sold at a profit.

[TrancedelicBlues]

Originally posted by JMcS:

 

If Hammond brought out a NewOld B3, there would still be people who complained that it cost too much and didn't sound like the B3 they played way back in the day and the wood in the leslie came from trees that grew in air that was too polluted and didn't resonate properly, and the plastic in the horn may have been recycled plastic and on and on.

 

My god, you're absolutely right!!

 

I think I'll just give up playing music altogether...

[Ed Coury]

CJ wrote:

 

>All the reasons given here are fine and dandy. >But every reason here can still be applied to >the acoustic piano.

 

Can they?

 

Rhodes: designed as a portable alternative to the acoustic piano (which weighs hundreds of pounds).

 

B-3: designed as an alternative to the pipe organ (which is so big it really can't be moved)

 

Mellotron: Built to replace orchestra players.

 

The piano is still being made because it was the original being copied by the early electrics.

[burningbusch]

Originally posted by JMcS:

I have to say the XK-3 doesn't take second to anything. Including a B3. IMHO

I can't concur with this, at least in my situation. I have an XK-3 that I'm trying out. My C3 has an audio input which allows me to plug into the C3 preamp. So I can route the XK-3 through the C3 preamp tubes and then into a vintage 145 Leslie and its tubes. I worked hard to get the XK-3 to be tonally as close as possible to the C3. It's very convienient in a A/B comparison as I can go between the two organs without changing anything. I can instantly tell the difference between the two.

 

Busch.

[JMcS]

Originally posted by TrancedelicBlues:

Originally posted by JMcS:

 

If Hammond brought out a NewOld B3, there would still be people who complained that it cost too much and didn't sound like the B3 they played way back in the day and the wood in the leslie came from trees that grew in air that was too polluted and didn't resonate properly, and the plastic in the horn may have been recycled plastic and on and on.

 

My god, you're absolutely right!!

 

I think I'll just give up playing music altogether...

I don't think there is a tongue in cheek graemlin or I would have used it.

 

My point was that when every new Hammond Clone is introduced, there is a litany of comments about how it isn't right for some reason. Those comments are often accompanied by a statement such as "My talent requires me to be concerned about the tone and therefore I must only use a Real B3 and a Real Leslie 122, as anything else would not show proper respect to my talent". Just read comments in the Keyboard Mag. Forum and the Clonewheel Forum on Yahoo regarding the XK-3 or older posts regarding other products.

How many comments are there stating that the Digital Leslie on the XK-3 is unplayable. Unplayable, Really? And there are similar comments about other products. Or comments that if one doesn't run whatever one plays through a Speakeasy, a: whatever is being played doesn't sound good, and b: the player doesn't know what good sound is. And on and on.

 

If Hammond were to bring out a new tonewheel organ, there would be complaints equally as ridiculous as the ones I made up.

 

My point is that whatever you have, play it for all you and it are worth. If the whole time one owns something one is dissatisfied with it, one should either get something else, or come to the conclusion it isn't the problem. If one feels that what they play doesn't sound good, it probably isn't because the harmonics put out by a Leslie Sim are not quite right.

[Ed Coury]

Well. you're pushing the XK-3 (which is modeled to sound like a Hammond ALREADY being played throgh a Hammond pre-amp) and putting it through another pre-amp. I would expect to hear a difference.

 

Originally posted by burningbusch:

Originally posted by JMcS:

I have to say the XK-3 doesn't take second to anything. Including a B3. IMHO

I can't concur with this, at least in my situation. I have an XK-3 that I'm trying out. My C3 has an audio input which allows me to plug into the C3 preamp. So I can route the XK-3 through the C3 preamp tubes and then into a vintage 145 Leslie and its tubes. I worked hard to get the XK-3 to be tonally as close as possible to the C3. It's very convienient in a A/B comparison as I can go between the two organs without changing anything. I can instantly tell the difference between the two.

 

Busch.

[JMcS]

Originally posted by burningbusch:

Originally posted by JMcS:

I have to say the XK-3 doesn't take second to anything. Including a B3. IMHO

I can't concur with this, at least in my situation. I have an XK-3 that I'm trying out. My C3 has an audio input which allows me to plug into the C3 preamp. So I can route the XK-3 through the C3 preamp tubes and then into a vintage 145 Leslie and its tubes. I worked hard to get the XK-3 to be tonally as close as possible to the C3. It's very convienient in a A/B comparison as I can go between the two organs without changing anything. I can instantly tell the difference between the two.

 

Busch.

Yes, but could someone who couldn't see which one you were playing? And you said there is a difference, fine, but is the difference that the XK-3 lacks something or that you just like one better than the other? Does your preference match the universal standard? Doesn't the C3's preamp change the tone of the XK-3? Wouldn't a more fair test be both into the 145? Why would you want them all to sound the same anyway?

 

My point is that the XK-3 sounded great through a Leslie 21 System and a Crate KX-80 and Ampeg Jet 12 amp. Thats All. Not less great than a B3, not more great than a Korg or Roland, just great. I'm glad I own it, not disappointed that it isn't something else, not dissatisfied with the Digital Leslie, don't wish it had something it doesn't. Now mine has GE tubes in it so it may not sound like the one you are using.

[burningbusch]

Originally posted by JMcS:

Originally posted by burningbusch:

Originally posted by JMcS:

I have to say the XK-3 doesn't take second to anything. Including a B3. IMHO

I can't concur with this, at least in my situation. I have an XK-3 that I'm trying out. My C3 has an audio input which allows me to plug into the C3 preamp. So I can route the XK-3 through the C3 preamp tubes and then into a vintage 145 Leslie and its tubes. I worked hard to get the XK-3 to be tonally as close as possible to the C3. It's very convienient in a A/B comparison as I can go between the two organs without changing anything. I can instantly tell the difference between the two.

 

Busch.

Yes, but could someone who couldn't see which one you were playing? And you said there is a difference, fine, but is the difference that the XK-3 lacks something or that you just like one better than the other? Does your preference match the universal standard? Doesn't the C3's preamp change the tone of the XK-3? Wouldn't a more fair test be both into the 145? Why would you want them all to sound the same anyway?

 

My point is that the XK-3 sounded great through a Leslie 21 System and a Crate KX-80 and Ampeg Jet 12 amp. Thats All. Not less great than a B3, not more great than a Korg or Roland, just great. I'm glad I own it, not disappointed that it isn't something else, not dissatisfied with the Digital Leslie, don't wish it had something it doesn't. Now mine has GE tubes in it so it may not sound like the one you are using.

When the XK-3 is plugged into the preamp it also runs to the Leslie so I can play the C3 and XK-3 concurrently through both the preamp and Leslie. I feel this is giving the XK-3 a huge advantage as I'm bypass the Leslie sim and it's preamp sim. The signal is passing through a lot of tubes. I am trying to make this as close to an apples-apples comparison. All of my attempts to match the tone, leakage, key-click, etc. are done while the XK-3 is running through the preamp and Leslie.

 

One sonic differnce I hear and can pinpoint immediately is that the XK-3, with the B-3 drawbar map (default on most patches) there is a distinct modulation or motion to the sound. The simulated Leslie on the XK-3 is of course off as is Chorus/Vibrato. I am listen with the brake on (on the real Leslie) and am looking for an absolutely straight organ tone. When the XK-3 drawbar map is set to mellow, the modulation pretty much goes away but it also loses the bite and the leakage of the C3. The real C3 gives a straight, flat tone, as you would expect.

 

There are other aspects of the sound that are audible to me along with the distinct impression that the XK-3 always sounds digital (and somewhat distant) when directly compared against the C3.

 

I hope to post MP3 comparisons in the near future as I am curious if these differences are audible when recorded. I am approaching the XK-3 with the hope that, through a real Leslie, it can sound equal to the original or if there are differences they are insignificant. I like everyone else want a <50 lbs Hammond. So don't think I'm not approaching this with an open mind, I feel I am.

 

Busch.

[MikeT156]

These comparisons seem like an exercise in futility. What's the point? Sure a C3 sounds great, but so does the XK-3. I remember all too well what it was like to tear down after a gig that we put every bit of energy into and then have to haul the B3 and two leslies down steps, lift it up and put it into a large truck we had to buy in order to carry a B3 and large sound system. To me, even if a B3 or C3 does sound better to you or to me, the people we play it too don't know or care. Sure, they have lower sonic expections than we as players do, but I'll take an XK-3 anyday of the week in this day and age.

 

Mike T.

[billlevinson]

I've had every clone. Each has a certain value: The CX3 is a little lean, but very 'playable.' The Nord Electro 2 is light and clean (too clean?). The XK3 though is another story. It has the potential to be almost the real thing (though a speakeasy preamp and a 122 or motion sound kbr 3d). But the sound is too thick, 'heavy' and clunky, although the tone is very close. Any advice on this would help.

[burningbusch]

Originally posted by MikeT156:

These comparisons seem like an exercise in futility. What's the point? Sure a C3 sounds great, but so does the XK-3. I remember all too well what it was like to tear down after a gig that we put every bit of energy into and then have to haul the B3 and two leslies down steps, lift it up and put it into a large truck we had to buy in order to carry a B3 and large sound system. To me, even if a B3 or C3 does sound better to you or to me, the people we play it too don't know or care. Sure, they have lower sonic expections than we as players do, but I'll take an XK-3 anyday of the week in this day and age.

 

Mike T.

Look, the poster above commented that the XK-3 doesn't take second to anything, including the real thing, and I disagree with that. We're not talking about weight and bulk or portability, just sound. I've seen posts like this before and there seems to be this idea that the XK-3 hits the nail smackly on the head. Again I disagree. I have been warming up to it more and more as I've been fine tuning it.

 

Be aware of this. The internal virtual Leslie on the XK-3 isn't stellar by any means (as Keyboard mag pointed out). The XK-3 is designed to be connected to an external Leslie, preferrably a Leslie 21 with the bass cab. If you're going to do this thing justice, you need to connect it to a Leslie. Of course now, a lot of these clones will sound pretty good connected to a real Leslie.

 

Busch.

Currently own: C3(1957), 145, XK-3, Leslie 21, EVB3, B4

also owned CX-3, XK-2, VK-7, Voce and motion sound stack.

[JMcS]

When you look at the Leslie settings in the XK-3, two of the parameters are mic. angle and mic. distance. Although it is called a Leslie sim, it would be more accurate to call it a mic'd Leslie sim. What comes out the 1/4" outputs is actually a simulation of the sound that would be picked up by the mic's next to a Leslie. I think it is probably more intended to be used in conjunction with a Leslie than instead of a Leslie. Basically doing away with the hassle of micing and fine tuning the placement of the mics. This may be a fine point, but that's it. The laws of physics being what they are, there just will not be a sound produced by a stationary speaker that completely accurately simulates a Leslie. And even if there were, someone would still find something about it to complain about. However, it just may be possible to simulate what the mic's would pick up and reproduce that.

[TrancedelicBlues]

Originally posted by Floyd Tatum:

Originally posted by Ed Coury:

The reason they stopped making Rhodes pianos is simple: consumers wanted lighter, more practical, easier to maintain, more realistic-sounding, and more versatile eelectric pianos!

So why not make a lighter, more practical, easier-to-maintain, more versatile, better action, real electro-mechanical Rhodes, with MIDI? Personally, I don't see why the original Rhodes design has to be set in stone. They could modify it - as long as it is still electro-mechanical, and not digital.

That's what I was saying too!