I had posted about this, the 1700 series pdf shows the wind type and most are paper. I was impressed as I always thought of Hammond as to big too bother with details like this. I just assumed that the guitar series were de-rated or de-tuned 1600 series thrown together to get a piece of the guitar market. You know what happens when you assume...? I would think that in modern times for Hammond to bother with paper layering would be a nuisance for them so maybe they actually sweated the details on the guitar trannies.pula58 wrote:Hammond (from their Fender drop-in line of OT's) - just right. I have no idea why!
I think Hammond gets a bad web rap as people confuse the 1600s and the 1700s. The guitar line is only about a decade old I think, before that if you used a Hammond it was a 1600 unless it was an old pull. From the 80s-90s there weren't many choices out there, all this repro stuff wasn't around, no web, remember catalogs and telephones? i remember my phone bills from calling people around the country looking for amp crap. So lots of people tried Hammonds as they were easy to source, and they used to be very reasonably priced too, but they just weren't the right ones back then for the job. There's that Funk quote that Hammonds sounded bad too, when did he say that - 1985?
I'm caught up in this too as money's tight and I'm hesitant to use the 1700s until I hear a bit more feedback, there really isn't much on the web where people clearly specify it's a 1700 rather than just Hammond they're discussing, but what there is positive. Be nice to hear from the techs here of their experience with the 1700s.
