Nord User Forum

[anotherscott]

If the 5D claims to be a B3 then it should be possible to tweak it to sound like my C3

B3 and C3 are identical except for the shape of the wooden cabinet. So a particular B3 is as likely to sound as similar to or different from a C3 as it is from any other B3.

Nord emulates a Hammond tonewheel organ. Numa emulates 3 Hammond tonewheel organs. Mojo emulates a whole bunch of them, plus (IIRC) lets you define your own customized tonewheel set. Hammond SK emulates one but also lets you design your own customized tonewheel set. That doesn't mean these all are equally good. Even if you customize your own set in a Mojo vs the SK, I wouldn't expect you to be necessarily be able to get them sounding exactly the same, as there are presumably still some differences in the raw tones you are working with, and differences in other parameters like leakage/crosstalk, chorus/vibrato, key click, tube overdrive effect, rotary speaker emulation. (Many of the youube videos that show how close someone can get a clone to the real thing kind of cheat by putting both through the same Leslie speaker... it would not sound as similar if the real one were played through a Leslie, and the clone played through its simulator.)

what is the 5D organ? is that the VST emulation thing too, maybe something similar but not 100% VST? If so the ability to change the B3 console year/version or even edit the virtual tomewheel should be possible.

VST means something that runs in Windows, Mac, or Linux host. But being a VST (or not) has no bearing on whether or not the manufacturer provides the facilty to load different virtual tonewheel models or whether they allow you to create your own. As I said, there are numerous computer based tonewheel organ emulatons that do not provide this facility, and non-computer based emulations tha do. So Nord can choose to implement this (or not) regardless. But I would not hold my breath waing for Nord to do this. (I can't say for sure whether or not any given piece of hardware may be built around some kind of embedded Linux, but it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.)

For my use, I think the pianos in the 5D would be perfect but I'd not get the flexibility as the Mojo, but then.. and so on. No one solution

You could get the 5D and a Gemini module.

[Quai34]

True.

On the other hand, my B3 doesn’t give me the option of turning it into a different organ, either.

You’re kind of stuck with either liking the instrument, or selling/not buying it.

Yes, right, so, all the options offered by the newer models, being handy though, won't give you what the real thing in term of true character....You said it, you like your Hammond for its own character or you don't....

I happen to think that the Nord organs do have character, and I rather like it.

Yes, I agree, I'm not ready $wise to change my C2D (Updated to C2D) but it's also that I like its Character...I think I would have not bought it, even at the price I got it if I didn,t like its own Nord Character, goor remark, thanks...Well, I don,t have any B3, C3 to compare to so, finally, I,m not that much into all these options even if i like discussing them because I learn a lot, thank you all...

[Quai34]

So, the Mojo is basically a PC running a B3 software right? Ditto for the Numa or the HX? Thus, the larger amount of tweakability?

Sorry to say, almost all of that is mistaken!

My understanding is that original Mojo is built around a PC (as is their earlier Hamichord); Mojo 61 is not, though they use the same B3 emulation. Numa is not built around a PC. I don't believe HX3 is either.

You can have a lot of tweakability in clonewheels that aren't built around a PC; you can also have clonewheels that are built around a PC that don't have as much tweakability.

Hammond SK series (along with some XK) are very tweakable, and are not built around PC. Although Hammond doesn't offer the switchable "Hammond model" emulations that Mojo and Numa do, Hammond does let you alter the response of each virtual tonewheel. The idea is that, if you own a real tonewheel organ, you can tweak your SK to respond the same way, drawbar by drawbar. Jim Alfredson altered his SK virtual tonewheel settings to make them match his own 1954 Hammond C2. You can download that set into your SK, and you can also tweak the SK to match your own tonewheel Hammond, if you have one (along with a good set of ears and some patience). BTW, I beleieve the Mojo also lets you create your own tonewheel sets... I think Mojo and Hammond are the only "clonewheels" with that feature.

Some Hammond emulations that are not tweakable to that extent, but ARE built around a PC include Garageband and Korg Kronos. So there is no correlation between tweakability and being built around a PC.

Woo, great infos, thanks, now it's clear for me...Note that as I said earlier, I've never asked myself any of these questions, when I bought the C2, Nord was almost the only one with Hammond for clonewheels...

[michael_C1]

All having been said, nothing will be 'exactly' like a real deal analog Hammond, it's impossible, as you know. But some of the clones sound great, pretty darn close. If I were playing primarily organ again, I'd go for the Crumar Mojo, but that's me. In your case, it might be well worth the effort to check out all the available choices before buying.

ANY of these will sound great onstage, but at home playing/practicing, things are not so equal. I've owned a Hammond XB2, an XK1, an SK1 and an SK2, plus many analog Hammond's including several B3's, and I thought all the Hammond clones sounded digital by themselves, so not entirely convincing in my opinion. (My friend puts his Hammond SK through an analog Hammond organ preamp to warm up the tone and make it more realistic, but he's a bit of a maniac). The Nord's sound is more natural to me, but the most natural of all has been my VB3 V1.4 software, which means messing with a PC on the gig. Not fun. The VB3 V2 software is inside the Crumar Mojo, so that would be my choice, personally.

There are plenty of choices for listening to aggressive jazz playing for each clone. For the Crumar Mojo, a full bodied sweet sounding demo is 'Mala Femmina' on YouTube. Corny song maybe but it showcases the tone, and of course the players.

[benny ray]

I went from a Nord E5d to a Crumar Mojo and haven't looked back. The only thing I miss are the piano sounds but I have that covered.

The Nord is very good but the C/V is so much better on the Mojo. The Mojo sounds more like a B-3 to me.

[Jorvic]

Yeh the B3 is the same as a C3 except the woodwork, but not the year! That's why the "quality" of the 5D's "B3" (same as C3) would be important to me and why I raised this thread. I think quality of the Leslie makes a big difference too, I just renewed the crossover caps in mine and that really opened up the sound. I'm sure the 5D B3 would be nice but...

I got the VB3 V1.4 running on a laptop just fine and found it... perfect! Their Jimmy Smith and rock organs.. blimey!
So now I'm thinking of a drawbar CC controller and maybe a box to run it on.

I had a XB2 many years ago, wasn't convinced about it, sadly it died! It seems in time one of the main custom chips fails and there are no fixes. Maybe with the XB2 I learnt there are some decent emulations, all a varations on a theme, but when it comes to specifics, it starts to get involved.

[anotherscott]

I got the VB3 V1.4 running on a laptop just fine and found it... perfect! Their Jimmy Smith and rock organs.. blimey!
So now I'm thinking of a drawbar CC controller and maybe a box to run it on.

FYI, the Mojo organs and the Gemini module use a newer version of VB3.

[baekgaard]

VST means something that runs in Windows, Mac, or Linux host. But being a VST (or not) has no bearing on whether or not the manufacturer provides the facilty to load different virtual tonewheel models or whether they allow you to create your own.

Exactly.

For the curious ones that doesn't already know: VST means Virtual Studio Technology and is an open standard developed by Steinberg. It is a software standard for plug-ins that allow also 3rd party developers to create effects or (as of VSTi or VST2.0) instruments that can be plugged in to a VST host Digital Audio Workstation (DAW). Thus, the main benefit of VST is that it allows different vendors to create cross-compatible effects, instruments and hosts.

This has also been used in some hardware boxes that basically just are VST Hosts with some interface that allows manipulation of the VST instrument(s) running on the host. For smaller companies, it is a way of getting faster to the market (take existing VST's and adapt their interface and make them run on a dedicated host) or creating a larger addressable market (the same VST instrument/effect can both be sold as SW or embedded on dedicated HW running your VST Host).

A VST instrument can be compiled for windows or mac and in some/many case also be made to run on Linux. If you have a dedicated box running only a VST host with VST instruments/effects, you don't need the full windows environment, and a Linux environment may thus be more efficient and faster way to make it all run. If you make the host a "standard" i386/amd64 architecture, there is typically less (or none) porting work involved getting a standard VST instrument or effect running.

As for the Nord instruments, as far as I know, they run on dedicated hardware where likely some or even a significant amount of the processing is not done on a conventional i386/amd64 architectures. This can make them more efficient (higher polyphony, more responsive, etc). I think I saw somewhere that e.g. the Stage 3 has 5 dedicated units doing the heavy audio lifting.

So the "Nord B3 model" is very unlikely a VST based solution; it may still run on a Linux (or some other dedicated real-time OS) though -- but there is no way you as an end-user should ever notice that