I have been playing some Hippie band gigs and Charlie is the perfect thing for really authentic sounding B3. The sound is more realistic than B4 or EVB3, but you lose the control. Charlie is samples, so the leslie is either on or off. The drawbars are set, so you can\'t change the settings. You also can\'t seem to cahnge the volume of the percussion samples. Inevitably you will wish they had sampled more drawbar combinations and some more overdriven samples, but it can be astonishingly good.
I like B4 a lot. It\'s just a little thin, but a little EQ in the chain does wonders.
I haven\'t heard Charlie, so can\'t comment there. I\'ve heard other B3 samples which sound excellent in parts, but as Nick says, you don\'t get the control. Especially in pop/rock, you\'re looking for the acceleration of the Leslie, being able to set the speeds to compliment what you\'re doing, etc. The Leslie also becomes granular to the individual note, rather than to the total output, so you never have that true image of everything coming out of the same spinning device unless it\'s a block chord. Also, with a sample-based organ, you don\'t get the additive anomalies of multiple notes that are simulated in the synth-type organs. And face it, an electric organ IS a synth.
I don\'t know about the Emagic product...don\'t use their stuff. I think the decision rests in whether you want a \"documentary\" picture of a few states of a sampled organ, vs. a simulated picture of the behavioral aspects of a sampled organ. Depends a whole lot on your end use, I\'d say. I personally lean towards the synth side, because to me, controlling the behavior of the Leslie in relationship to the part is so part and parcel of the overall vibe that it\'s hard to accept the \"documentary\" approach in performance.
Thanks both, very helpful advice. Bottom line I\'m not sure I want to forego the Leslie acceleration, which is my favourite thing. Can you do this with the EVB3? Gonna see if I can wangle demos of these & test drive them.