[HAM] M-SERIES

[Michael Fulk]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
The M-3's preamp stages provide substantially more amplification than the
B-3 but as Chrus said, they are not dissimilar.
Adding foldback, while tiresome to do, adds a a lot to the sound....much
fatter.

As the M-3 is potentially as bright as the Model A, (16 ohm resistance wires
to *all* key switches, rendering organ brighter, *intrinsically* brighter
than all Hammond Tone Wheel organs).  For this to occur, feedback loops in
6AU6's would have to changed; either to taste or this stage and entire chain
of amplification, up to expression and phase splitter, would need to be
chamged to B-2 etc. configuration.

I have a B-3 preamp in my Model A, and the Model A can, if one wishes,
*scream*.

Alternatively put a B-2, or B-3 preamp into the M-3, and make up or
duplicate M-3's pedal circuit; probably could do it with a transistor....I
have not thought this out.

I am surprised that no one that I know of has done even a simulacrum of what
I have outlined here, as it would make the M-3  a *real* screamer.
the old pooper


Chris Clifton wrote:
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: [hammond_zone] Hammond M3


> Hi Tim,
> The TWG, drawbars and the first few stages of the amplifier and vibrato
> system are pretty much identical, so the sound of the M should be quite
> close to the B-3, depending of course on the speaker used.  Other ways of
> getting the B-3 sound for less $'s would be the C-3, exactly the same
> electronics, different cabinet or the A-100, again the same pre-amp as the
> B-3/C-3 but with a built in amplifier and speakers.  The M-series or other
> Hammond spinets do have the advantage of being easier to move for the
> gigging musician, in fact many bands of the 60's and 70's used Hammond L's
> or M's for this reason, at least until they got rich enough to afford an
> army of roadies to move the B-3.
>
>
> Chris Clifton
>
--