It might be that some people think a real Hammond is better than the CX3 in the Kronos, however for me it is 'good enough'. I didn't had the XK2 while having my Kronos so I couldn't do a one to one comparison. I only know in a full band context it is (more than) convincing enough.Dniss wrote:Sorry if I'm sidetracking a bit here, not my intention to highjack the thread. My apologies.
Ok, perhaps I understood the wrong way.michelkeijzers wrote:I have tweaked a bit on the sounds but not much, depending on if I need the growl I add a bit more low eq (or less eq if I play chords lower).Dniss wrote: Wow, this is really puzzling to say the least.
The only area I was disapointed with is in the cx-3 department. I'm even considering getting the Xk3 at this point.
I find it's missing the "girth" of a real hammond, big time. Specially that "growling" sound on slides.
Perhaps I should find some nice custom made sounds cause the one supplied are very thin for my own taste.
What am I missing here?
I've been reading alot about the xk series, comparing, reviews, etc...
because I use organ sounds alot and I haven't found anything satisfying so far. So basically I'm looking into getting one.
I know for a fact that the Korg CX-3 itself is ok but it's an imitation of the Hammond XK's. Even the keybed on the xk series is for hammond style playing.
I'm not trying to argue here, but your comment sort of put me in doubt, because if the Kronos CX-3 engine is a complete replacement for the xk3, I'm in big trouble, since I can't get anything out of the Kronos that's remotely close to the real deal.
About the keys: the Kronos (61 at least) does not have waterfall keys, however I still have no problems with moving my hands over octaves, but it is 'smoother' on a Hammond keybed which has more squared keys.