MEAZZI Emulation

[dave robinson]

In reply to Dave (twangaway) . You obviously don't know much about me because if you did, I doubt you could write all of that stuff.

I am simply pointing out facts about THAT SOUND that everyone can refer to. I did all the stuff with several Meazzi echo units in the past and none of them provided the answer, so unless I could get hold of the real deal (the Meazzi 'J' or 'F' model) I think it's a futile exercise in this debate. That's not to say that a nice Meazzi tape echo isn't any good, but we're discussing music that was made with different gear to what is now available which seems to be a waste of time. The author of the book 'THAT SOUND', Roberto Pistolisi was a lovely man and I visited his studio in Italy and he recorded me playing the tunes of his choice, with what he thought was all the right gear, Meazzi echo, 1958 Fender Tremolux, Gretsch & Strat , but when he sent me the finished CD as a souvenir, the sound was anything but what I expected and was a million miles away from what we know as THAT SOUND.
In the studio I must say that the sound was very close, that close that Jim Nugent found me a 1960 Gretsch the very next day when I returned home and I had no hesitation in buying it to continue the 'experiment' over here in the UK. The problem was that a conversation that Warren had with Hank about what I was doing was relayed to me, so I ended up looking further afield and eventually realised that although the Gretsch was indeed close, the Strat through an AC15 was 'spot on' and we haven't looked back. I'm sure that if you have followed the story as you say, that you will know the rest.
Believe me there's no envy about Justin's Meazzi or anything else, but I get frustrated that people listen with their eyes - in this case looking at the Meazzi brand and being sucked in by it all, I have said on more than one occasion that I'm pleased that he get's so much pleasure from his purchase, but I don't have to believe the hype, especially when I haven't heard it for myself. I don't doubt that it sounds good, as I've heard Colin's Meazzi from The Rapiers, but I'm not convinced that it is the answer, as he always sounds 'right' no matter what he uses. My doubts are outlined earlier on the Shadows pre-Meazzi recordings.

[Gary Allen]

last post edited..........

[MeBHank]

I stopped listening with my eyes a long time ago. I know the sound, Dave, and I know the way the music needs to be played. Those attending Pipeline and/or Tilburg, and then those at the Shadowers' subsequent shows will see and hear that. Hopefully I then won't feel that I still have to prove myself.

Anyway, let's get back to the subject of this thread. Gary, the Shads themselves didn't analyze the sound of the echoes as much as we do, they just used the gear that was available. We're studying the sounds and how these machines actually functioned. I suppose, though, that Hank could tell us how long the oxide lasted on his echoes before he had to start using tape.

Cheers...

J

[Gary Allen]

Hi Justin..Is there anyone out there that could ask him ?

[MeBHank]

He'd think we're all mad! Maybe Paul Rossiter or Gary Taylor could, though. I don't know how much regular contact the TVS team have with Hank.

J

[rogera]

This a fascinating thread even though it is showing up the differences between what are obviously some strongly held opinions.

Just briefly jumping back to the circuit differences between Binson and Meazzi units, the subject of pre-emphasis was raised. With the design of recording devices other than those used for echo effects, the ultimate aim is to combine pre-emphasis and de-emphasis coupled with carefully adjusted bias levels in order to achieve a level frequency response with a good signal to noise ratio.

Both the Binson and the Meazzi use simple pre and de-emphasis (to different degrees) but level frequency response was not a design aim and in fact would be very undesirable.

One factor that has not been mentioned as yet is the fact that magnetic tape has undergone improvements since the early 60s and one resultant of that is the fact that different levels of bias should be used in order to achieve the correct response. It just depends upon what lengths you would want to take the search for what you consider to be "that sound".

Talking of "that sound" I would personally agree with Dave (Robinson) in that it was indeed very evident before the Meazzi was introduced. The Meazzi brought with it the classic echo patterns and so helps with the final result, but I believe that amongst the major factors were the quality of the reverb chamber at Abbey Road, Hank's talent, the choice of amp, and the skill of the recording engineers.

[Mark Burton]

OK - I've lurked for a while on this thread - smirking with occasional amusement as I think I understand both points of view, but I think Derek has hit on a very valid point which Dave has eluded to a number of times. In a live band situation, it's the show, the atmosphere and a good night out which are important - 99% of Joe Public won't know a Meazzi from a milk bottle and perfectly good equipment such as a Q20, ESE or a Magicstomp, in the hands of the right player - Phil, Justin, Dave, CPJ or whoever, would still provide the same show and spectacle which people are paying good money to enjoy. I think the difference can be how the performer feels - I think I play better with the ESE, but the Q20 is an easier option in a theatre show situation, however, I continue to use the ESE as my primary echo unit because I'm happier with the sound - and that can give the performance an edge.

If I owned original 50's / 60's equipment - I wouldn't gig it anyway. Think about it - HBM can afford to buy the best and have it maintained on a daily basis whilst on tour - so if the holy grail is a drum (or even tape) Meazzi and a 1959 AC15 / Strat combo then why isn't he doing so ??? I suggest its reliability / ease of use & because 99% of Joe Public just wouldn't know ................. but more importantly it's because the real magic is in the fingers.

None of us will ever get close to the recorded sound as so much is attributable to the studio, the pre-Meazzi tracks are a case in point here (as IMO the magic is there in spades) and we also don't have 3 other very important factors Bruce / Tony & Jet - so the best we can ever hope for is a reasonable facsimile.

So to Derek's point - hear hear - lets get on and have some fun !

[Gary Allen]

Regarding the early years I think its pretty evident that Cliff and the Shads had a formula.It appears that the meazzi was rarely used on Cliff studio sessions and ac15s were used for most of it too.When playing live with Cliff hank seemed to use the meazzi model that was nt used on Shads recordings so this would have kept The Shads with their own formula/identidy when doing instrumentals live/studio.The pre meazzi days prove that abbey road reverb was a serious contributor to their sound but there were instrumentals when reverb was nt used.We sometimes forget about songs but each song is different in most ways and maybe this is leading to conflict amongst ourselves.....................Gary

[AlanMcKillop]

Agreed 100% Roger, I'll name three Shadows recordings which will show to various degrees, the effect of added studio effects at EMI/Abbey Road, listen to them with headphones.

Gonzales (no echo unit used, just studio pre- reverb), Midnight (awashed with added reverb and a strange compression sound, although I'm still not sure if compression is used) and lastly Dance On (the added reverb makes Hank's lead guitar sound like he double tracked the lead).

There are others, but these three prove beyond any doubt that the studio effects added, coloured the recorded sound, full stop.

If there's a 'sound' that we should be aiming for, it's the Live at Kingston sound, not the studio sounds.

[David Martin]

Agreed 100% Roger, I'll name three Shadows recordings which will show to various degrees, the effect of added studio effects at EMI/Abbey Road, listen to them with headphones.

Gonzales (no echo unit used, just studio pre- reverb), Midnight (awashed with added reverb and a strange compression sound, although I'm still not sure if compression is used) and lastly Dance On (the added reverb makes Hank's lead guitar sound like he double tracked the lead).

There are others, but these three prove beyond any doubt that the studio effects added, coloured the recorded sound, full stop.

If there's a 'sound' that we should be aiming for, it's the Live at Kingston sound, not the studio sounds.

Agree 100%...