Re: Custom Hammond and Leslie

["Mark Longo" <longo@zk3.dec.com>]

> I read on the Internet your letter about what must have been a totally cool
> experience testing the Pro3 at Goff Professional.  Did I read correctly that
> you were able to play a customized Hammond C3 as part of the test?  Plus a
> brand new Hammond Suzuki XC3?  I am *green* with envy!

        Trust me, it *was* totally cool.  This was my first chance to play a 
truely howling custom Hammond rig.  All I can say is WOW!  The axe was a 
rebuilt juiced-up custom modified 1955 C-3 that Al Goff could describe far 
better than me.  It did have a solid state GOFF pre-amp but let me tellya it 
sounded nothin' but FAT.  Al has also done some capacitor networking on the 
tone generator outputs do reduce crosstalk and has hand adjusted/optimized the 
tone generator poles.  The bass end of this organ was thick enough to build a 
house on and believe me, the high end was not exactly shy either.  It also has 
some 1/4" inputs for running other keyboards (like my XB-2) into the 122.

        After having played this baby, I'll tellya now that I understand the 
bigoted fanaticism that many B3 drivers have about their organs.  The pleasure 
of playing this organ goes quite a bit beyond the actual tones generated.  
Using two manuals with two sets of drawbars each opens a MUCH wider range of 
possibilities than one would imagine, and in fact suggests a completely 
different approach to organ playing.  I now better understand why certain 
styles of Hammond playing have evolved.  As many of you have always known, two 
handed organ playing on TWO manuals is FAR different from two handed playing on 
ONE manual, even if there's no pitch overlap in what your two hands are playing 
on the two manuals, you just play diffrently.  
        
        But there's something else too.  Perhaps as surprising to me is that 
playing a big heavy immovable and pyhsically SOLID instrument like a B-3 (C-3, 
whatever) actually made the stuff I was playing feel and sound more solid and 
stable to my own ear.  This caused me to make different choices while playing 
than I would when playing my XB-2.  It's sort of like the difference between 
playing a tiny spinet piano and playing a 7' grand.  You just play things 
differently.

        That said, I'll say something that many B-3 players will scoff at.  
Listening VERY closely to my realligned v2.0 OS XB-2 through Al's big fat 
creamy hot-rodded 122, I could not hear a difference between my XB-2 and the 
C-3 in an A/B comparison using identical registrations, EXECPT that with some 
fractional drawbar registrations you could hear a bit of beating in the last 
octave of the XB-2.  AND a little bit of beating can seep down into the next 
octave down in some instances but is much harder to hear.  I've gotta tellya, I 
was amazed.  If I'd had a van with me I might've bought Al's hot-shot 122 on 
the spot. 

        BUT, regardless of tonal similarity, I have to tell you that playing 
the C-3 was about a BAZILLION times more fun than playing my XB-2, painful 
though it may be to admit ;-).

        After this weekend I'm convinced that there are three reasons why the 
XB-2's we so often hear don't come close to a B-3.

        1) so many XB-2's out there have version 1.x ROMs and the version 2.0 
ROMS are miles ahead tonally in percussion taper, perc levels, etc.

        2) the factory trim pot alignment sucks.  The improvement available in 
the XB-2 by re-trimming it is surprising.

        3) most people play XB-2's using the inboard Leslie simulator (very 
bad) or use Leslie simulator modules.

        Playing an realigned V2.0 XB-2 through a good Leslie turns it into a 
different animal.  And I can tellya that even with a good XB-2, a PRO-3 and a 
good keyboard amp you are in the ball park.

        The XC-3 we unpacked brand spanking new from the factory was very very 
nice, which also surprised me.  The XC-3 maunals felt very stiff after playing 
the '55 C-3, but I guess we could put that down to wear on the original.  Now 
please understand that I'm no B-3 player and so don't really understand the 
fine points of the vintage gear, but I was VERY impressed with the XC-3.  It 
was a ton of fun to play.  Also, it's got a tube based overdrive unit that 
actually sounds good and adds an overtone of warm grunge without OD'ing you on 
transistor hash.

        The XC-3 gave most of the same thrills and other good feelings that I 
got playing the vintage C-3.  It played very nicely, and hooked up to the 122 
sounds great.  But the XC-3 felt a tiny bit sterile when mercilessly compared 
to the '55 C-3.  The C-3 just felt a bit more quirky somehow, a little less 
even, more broken in.  Part of that might be in my head though.  The XC-3 is a 
helluva nice axe, though listing around $24000 US, not many of us will be 
getting a chance to play them.  If a rich uncle said I could pick between the 
XC-3 and the '55 C-3, I'd take the '55 C-3, but I'd hesitate for a good 10 
seconds before choosing.

        Mark


=======================================================================
  Mark Longo                                    Digital Equipment Corp. 
  longo@zk3.dec.com                             Nashua, NH
  88 8200 030