MEAZZI Emulation

[ecca]

Well I baggie post 100 !

[AlanMcKillop]

Sorry, it looks like 101.

[chas]

I haven't read this topic for a few days, so there's been an awful lot to catch up on. I've found it fasinating and appreciate everyone's input and views. Lots to consider!
I've never been able to try a Meazzi, but interestingly a couple of things have struck me. When I've heard Phil and Colin play at Shadowmania over the years, their sound has always been fabulous, but of course their gear I believe has changed a bit over the years - particularly in the echo department. Whether it's better than before is hard to say (I'm talking about listening from various points out in the audience) - whether it's because everyone is constantly making small improvements and tweaks, i.e. everyone moving forwards in their quest for what they individually consider to be 'The' sound, I don't know.
I suppose a lot of what you think could well be against what you've heard throughout the day.
One thing's for sure, it's in our nature to want to keep improving, even if the changes are slight. A lot of 'nothings' can add up to a 'something'.
The other thing that I found interesting is the discussion about echo or no echo. I've been playing Dance On, Midnight (though that's a bit of a special case because of the huge reverb) and nearly all the Cliff numbers with just reverb (albeit Abbey Road reverb) because I couldn't hear any echo (repeats) on these numbers....?

Chas.

[Twangaway]

Well I baggie post 100 !

Hey Ecca, I beat you by accident

[MeBHank]

They did have these type of EQ back on the EMI REDD desks then as mentioned by Malcolm Addey himself. I believe they included two mid range Para EQ for upper and lower mids and two shelving filters for bass and treble but cannot recall from memory whether there was para EQ on the treble and bass side as well. EMI engineers also built some special 'presence Boxess' to enhance the very high frequences as well and then there was the famous Fairchild Compressor and the mic preamps and the microphones and so on and so on all valve based of course.

The EQ must have played an important part in shaping the overall sound.

Dave I have checked up on what Malcolm Addey says and You are correct that there were only two controls on desk of the 'peaking type which would mean parametric he is what he said

While Studio One catered almost exclusively to orchestral recordings and Studio Three had been designed specifically for chamber music, Studio Two was the facility's pop domain. The upstairs control room housed an EMI RS1 mono desk with two-band, Pultec-type peaking EQ on each of its eight inputs — as opposed to the classically oriented shelving EQ that was to be found in the other studios — at 5kHz and 100Hz. There was also an echo send for all of the inputs, echo return, a peak level meter and a single main gain control

It is well know that several add on EQ boxes were made by EMI technicians though to supplement the inadequate EQ on the desk and that may be what I read somewhere else so that probably why I misquoted. My mistake

The reason I've not seriously gone down the EQ route, Roger (I have used a graphic before but ditched it as it took all the warmth out of the sound), is that you can hear changes to the EQ being made during the tune. I reckon there was quite a bit of tweaking done on Apache. I have discovered you can get close enough to the core sound for it to sound pretty much identical without using any other tone shaper than the simple tone controls on your guitar and amp. The only thing I sometimes do is take out some bass, which compensates for the bass frequencies that were reduced on the desk (this being the most noticable EQ change made by the desk).

J

[roger bayliss]

Justin I have used the graphic type EQ myself but the parametric type does behave totally differently IMHO which is why I am interested in trying that out with my gear at some point. I agree the core sound from your equipment is the first point to get right using it properly etc, tone and volume etc and the Meazzi does do something to the tone and I have heard yours at first hand to know that.

I am really talking about the recorded sound here as on the records. Someone pondered whether we had parametric EQ back then and someone else added that the desks only had two simple controls but clearly history shows break out boxes were used at Abbey Rd to get around the limitations of the simple limited EQ in the Pultec on the REDD desk. Sorry if we have moved away from Meazzi a bit but felt it needed saying because even the top guitarists in the Shadows forum although having a great core sound do not produce the same tones as on record and that as I said will be down to other factors like EQ. Its always good to talk these things out and bring out thoughts on the subject... so sorry if I have rambled on a bit on this

[Tab]

Hi Justin, Roger

All this stuff about parametric EQs etc is fascinating and I'm amazed at the technical knowledge of members of this site but to me it's a foreign language. Since you mention 'Apache' John Boulden and I discovered, by accident, that picking over the middle pickup produces a very close approximation to the recorded sound using basic amp, echo and guitar settings. Most people, these days, including the man himself, play Apache holding the trem thus picking closer to the neck and producing a very different tone. I believe others on the site, our French colleagues, I think, also discovered this a while back. When one considers how very different Hank's playing style was in those early days, maybe we are over complicating how we think That Sound was produced.

That 'Happy Birthday' tone is still, for me, the pinnacle. I'm very pleased with my TVS3 though.

[roger bayliss]

Tab

I think it's generally thought that in the early days HBM did not hold the trem arm like he does these days and did play nearer the middle PU on some things but I think more between the middle and neck at times but top boost is on the neck PU more. It depends on the tune really where we pick and Wonderful Land sounds right on the neck pickup area for instance as do the Top Boost era tunes generally speaking. It depends on the tones you are after for the tune you are playing. Plectrum technique adds to the dynamics as well. Depends on the pickups you have and your amp as to where you play to get something like the required result. I would like a TVS3 and can only envy you and the players on here with Meazzis as well

[fenderplucker]

Hi Everyone,

I have been watching this thread with considerable interest, though it does seem that we go over very similar ground every year or so!

With regards to the time of the first use of a Meazzi, it is clear that Hank had one at least by 19th March 1960 as it can be seen behind him on the Cliff Richard Show. We also know that it's first use on a SHADOWS number was Apache in June 1960 and it was probably used on Cliff tracks from March onwards (though possibly with no repeats on Please Don't Tease?). I couldn't find any evidence of its use before that judging by the echoes (or rather their absence).

Based on our own experience, while I agree that perception is very much in the ear of the listener, we only started getting close to the real magic of the early Shadows sound when we got our first Meazzi and subsequently with the TVS's (which is the only reason we spent so much time and effort in developing them). We could get very close with a good Strat and AC15/30 but only with a Meazzi/TVS did it send the shivers down our collective spines.

With regard to the early Cliff tunes that Dave mentions, I agree that there was already a quite distinctive sound probably due more to Hank's incredible style than anything else, though the driving backings of the other three and Abbey Road clearly also played large parts. To my ear at least the sound developed even further when he started using a Meazzi. It is also worth noting that Hank apparently didn't start using an AC15 until early 1960 (and then without an EF86) and first used an EF86 equipped AC15 in June 1960 (possibly on Please Don't Tease for the first time), so a number of the tunes that Dave cites also pre-dates the AC15 (and in some cases even a Strat)! However, I reckon that you can clearly trace the development of Hank's recorded sound through this interesting period, culminating in the sound of Hank from Apache onwards using a Strat, Meazzi and AC15/30 and Abbey Road.

Paul

[dave robinson]

I agree with all of that Paul and it leaves the possibility that the Abbey Road Studio was in fact the magic bullet, ( as told by Jet at Shadowmania a few years ago) rather than any of the various amps (Fender Tremolux / Selmer / maybe even Gibson) as the lead guitar has the 'trade mark' sound throughout those early records when different amps were being used. I do hear the magic that the Meazzi brings to the sound having followed my own advice and listened again since Monday, but I believe that the the 'core' sound is something else, as it existed before the Meazzi was introduced.