Re: [sdiy] Emulating Hammond keyboard contacts, was:MIDI isn

[jhaible at debitel.net]

> Just took the chance and fired up my Hammond M-101 after a long time.
> Lovely instrument, the upper manual has the same drawbars as the B3 (but
> only 3 1/2 octaves).
> I used to own an old Korg CX-3 too, but it was stolen before I got my
> Hammond so I could never compare them side by side. Although the Korg
> too has the B3 type drawbars, its sound is completely different. It's a
> good drawbar organ, but it is not a Hammond clone. This is mostly not
> because of the multiple key contacts. I think what contributes most to
> the Hammond sound (opposed to the Korg) are the tubes and the tonewheels.

You're perfectly right.
BTW, I found another reason why it's difficult to emulate a Hammond with a CX-3.
I was very surprised wen I noticed it - I would not have expected something so
trivial. If you select a single drawbar on a CX-3 and play the notes of one octave,
there is a huge difference in *volume* between the highest and the lowest note
(of on octave). Why? Because 12 notes (of one drawbar) share one filter that
forms a sine-like wave from whatever comes out of the digital circuits. If memory
serves, the difference was 6dB across one octave. You don't notice this with
normal playing (at least I didn't), but if you run it thru an external tube amplifier
to get the desired "crunch", it makes a huge difference. (with *heavy* overdrive,
it's not that important anymore.)
Compare that to a real Hammond, where the loudness of keys and drawbars
is "balanced" with resistive wires (or so they say).
Running the CX-3 thru a compressor before it goes to the tube amp helps
a little, but no way is it like the original.

Bottom line: There are other things that take away "musicality" when you go from
the "real thing" to a fake. Midi is just one among others.


> But what Juergen refers to, I think, is a more experimental style,
> pressing the keys *very* slow, so that the drawbars come in one by one
> audibly. 

Not quite. The "experiment" is just meant to explore what can or cannot
happen in "real" playing. My point was that it might play a role in
phrasing and in ghost notes of a skilled player. This I cannot proove.
But the slow motion experiment gives some hints.

JH.