Which "sound" is "that" then?

This is the place to find out or share tips!

Moderators: dave robinson, Iain Purdon, George Geddes, David Martin

Re: Which "sound" is "that" then?

Postby asimmd » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:11 am

I just dug out my copy of the very first Shads album,I reckon any one of the tracks could be
categorised as a distinctive Shads sound,it's the sound that I think of when anyone say's Shadows,
and possibly the sound we all wish we could get close to.

Alan
asimmd
 
Posts: 148
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:15 pm
Full Real Name: Alan Sim

Re: Which "sound" is "that" then?

Postby Tab » Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:51 pm

[i]by asimmd » Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:11 am » Post #21

I just dug out my copy of the very first Shads album,I reckon any one of the tracks could be
categorised as a distinctive Shads sound,it's the sound that I think of when anyone say's Shadows,
and possibly the sound we all wish we could get close to.


I agree with you, Alan - that first album is full of wonderful guitar tones, Golden Street and Gonzales in particular which are so difficult to reproduce.

How much of that sound is due to the echo relative to the amp?

Would be interested in the views of the four leading exponents here, Phil K., Colin P.J., GeGe and Gary T.

Justin you've had a lot of experience of Phil's set up would you still get the sound if you used the Meazzi with any other amp? or is the amp as integral as the echo?

Kind regards,

Terry
User avatar
Tab
 
Posts: 604
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:22 pm
Location: East Sussex
Full Real Name: Terry Bryant

Re: Which "sound" is "that" then?

Postby MeBHank » Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:38 am

Tab wrote:Justin you've had a lot of experience of Phil's set up would you still get the sound if you used the Meazzi with any other amp? or is the amp as integral as the echo?


Terry, thanks for asking my opinion. The echo does make the most difference tonally, but the amp is pretty vital too. I couldn't use my Meazzi without using a circuit three amp and be happy with the sound. So, yes, I'd say amp and echo are as important as eachother in really nailing it. Then again, the circuit three amps can be emulated fairly well by other amps and I'm yet to hear anything that gets remotely close to the sound of a Meazzi apart from the TVS3 (even the ESE is woefully short tone-wise, IMO).

The amp is the easier of the two to replicate. The echo adds the "Holy Grail" tone. Phil, Colin and myself are all lucky enough to have Meazzis that are as close anyone will ever get without replicating the drum echo units.

HTH...

J
Justin Daish
User avatar
MeBHank
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:53 pm
Full Real Name: Justin Daish

Re: Which "sound" is "that" then?

Postby ernie1958 » Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:58 am

MeBHank wrote:
Tab wrote:Justin you've had a lot of experience of Phil's set up would you still get the sound if you used the Meazzi with any other amp? or is the amp as integral as the echo?


Terry, thanks for asking my opinion. The echo does make the most difference tonally, but the amp is pretty vital too. I couldn't use my Meazzi without using a circuit three amp and be happy with the sound. So, yes, I'd say amp and echo are as important as eachother in really nailing it. Then again, the circuit three amps can be emulated fairly well by other amps and I'm yet to hear anything that gets remotely close to the sound of a Meazzi apart from the TVS3 (even the ESE is woefully short tone-wise, IMO).

The amp is the easier of the two to replicate. The echo adds the "Holy Grail" tone. Phil, Colin and myself are all lucky enough to have Meazzis that are as close anyone will ever get without replicating the drum echo units.

HTH...

J

:? I can get where you're coming from Justin but please explain something to me I've never heard before termwise...
What on earth do you mean by "a circuit three amp"...?? Is this like using three amplifiers+cabs or...?
About the Meazzi I beg to differ with you...it's not exactly the "Holy Grail" amongst the echo machines that are on the market.
I've had one myself and wasn't blown off my socks by it's performance.To me it's just what was available back in those days coz they did not
have a lot to choose from or experiment with.As for the complete sound I think the ambience of the studio in which they recorded had a lot to do
with the final sound you can hear on the Shads records.
Just my opinion on things...no offence meant m8.

Cheers,
Ernie
ernie1958
 

Re: Which "sound" is "that" then?

Postby Martyn » Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:50 pm

I had the pleasure of playing through Justin's Meazzi and original AC15 at a recent SWShadows club gathering and was absolutely blown away by the sound of my guitar. I couldn't stop grinning all the time I played - OK that could have been seen by many as senile dementia kicking in :D , but I came away feeling just a tad miffed that I can't make quite the same sound using other gear. I have a Magicstomp with EFTP patches and play at home with this through a TonelabST, which combination gets reasonably close to the sound I want for recording on computer but playing live at greater volume through vintage gear does sound quite different.
Any modern AC15/30 or Fender etc valve amps will give much more clout and authenticity when cranked up but the vintage gear does add that extra something I just can't define.

With you having had not such a positive experience when using the Meazzi (what was it going through?), which echo unit would be your preferred choice if you were starting out all over again?

Regards,
Martyn
User avatar
Martyn
 
Posts: 339
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:14 pm
Full Real Name: Martyn Welch

Re: Which "sound" is "that" then?

Postby dave robinson » Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:04 pm

I think it's the AC15 amp rather than the Meazzi, as I used Roberto's Meazzi in studio conditions and wasn't excited by it as we were playing it through a 1958 Fender Tremolux. I didn't hear the sound and by contrast my own old tape Copicat through the AC15 sounds perfect. The sound that Colin Pryce Jones achieves has always been right to my ears, whether he used the Meazzi, Long Tom or the Atlantis and I couldn't tell them apart. As for the Meazzi users mentioned above, sorry but I still havent heard you recreate what's on those records, close but so are many more of us.
I tried one and the TVS3 is a great sounding machine but from what I've heard so far in Hank's hands, it's not done it for me yet, all I'm hearing is a typical Hank sound that we've heard for the last ten years or more and it's the sound the he likes. ;)
Dave Robinson
User avatar
dave robinson
 
Posts: 5098
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:34 pm
Location: Sheffield
Full Real Name: David Robinson

Re: Which "sound" is "that" then?

Postby David Martin » Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:14 pm

I too have had a Meazzi and it was fine... but not the source of any particularly amazing tonal addition/subtraction...

I too think it's the amp, more particularly the EF86 front end...
David M
User avatar
David Martin
 
Posts: 1809
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:48 pm
Location: Lincoln
Full Real Name: David Martin

Re: Which "sound" is "that" then?

Postby AlanMcKillop » Wed Sep 30, 2009 3:54 pm

:D
User avatar
AlanMcKillop
 
Posts: 1221
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:04 pm
Location: Motherwell, Lanarkshire
Full Real Name: Alan McKillop

Re: Which "sound" is "that" then?

Postby MeBHank » Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:30 pm

I guess this'll make you laugh even more then, because I disagree ;) . Some of us heard and discussed the Shads' version of Happy Birthday recently, and the majority of us agreed that it was the one of the best Shads sounds on record. Change the echo unit and the sound would not have the same appeal - the Meazzi breathes extra life into Hank's sound. The EF86 circuit simply gives it the "edgy" compression that we know and love.

Ernie, David and any others who have had experience with Meazzis and found them unsatisfying have undoubtedly used stock machines and have likely been too scared to alter them. The problem is that these tape units do not have quite the same circuitry and head settings as Hank's original units. So, you may say it defaces and devalues the unit, but to get the right sound, Meazzis - such as the ones Phil and I own - have to be altered before they sound anywhere near right for Shads music. Robbo, there was a vast change in Colin's sound when he started using the Meazzi. Listen to the Rapiers' Shadoogie from 2005 with the Long Tom and then again to their 2008 version. I hear a marked improvement.

Why do the sounds from Gary and the TVS team sound so good? Because their unit incorporates the Meazzi circuitry into the guitar signal.

I know I've found the sound that satisfies my ultra-critical ear, and I won't be changing my Meazzi for anything in the world. Apart from another good Meazzi.

Still, à chacun son goût.

J
Justin Daish
User avatar
MeBHank
 
Posts: 441
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 3:53 pm
Full Real Name: Justin Daish

Re: Which "sound" is "that" then?

Postby dave robinson » Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:46 pm

Justin, I've been listening to CPJ for seven years before then and he sounded as good on all of the pre Meazzi gigs. There was an improvement as you rightly point out as he did have the EF86 fitted to his amp quite recently - I saw Roger Alcock fitting it at Shadowmania 2006, quite a coincidence don't you think? ;)
Dave Robinson
User avatar
dave robinson
 
Posts: 5098
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 2:34 pm
Location: Sheffield
Full Real Name: David Robinson

PreviousNext

Return to How To Get "That Sound"

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Ads by Google
These advertisements are selected and placed by Google to assist with the cost of site maintenance.
ShadowMusic is not responsible for the content of external advertisements.