|
|
Post by localhero on May 31, 2015 14:32:59 GMT
Charlie and I have been working on trying to emulate the exact recorded sound of Hank's early stuff and Charlie managed to seperate Hank from the record of Wonderful Land for listening purposes. I decided to put the master with a UB Hank BT just to see if it still had the magic of the original - what do you guys think ? I had to severely cut Hank's phrases to suit the speed of the UBH track, as it races compared to the original record.  soundcloud.com/robbo47/wonderful-hank-ubh |
|
|
|
Post by Jono on May 31, 2015 15:41:42 GMT
An extremely interesting experiment.
Although an awful lot of audio information has been lost on Hank's lead (which in the circumstances can be expected), I think the biggest tell of the piece is just how much of 'That Sound' emanates only from Abbey road in the mixing with the BT & just how much effect the BT has on the overall feel to it & to 'That Sound'.
Finally the piece also shows how close Charlie & John as got their unit to Hank's sound in particular.
Jono
|
|
|
|
Post by erikMAMS on Jun 1, 2015 8:05:24 GMT
Very interesting (why haven't I/anyone though of doing this experiment before?)!
My 2 cents.
Obviously some of the overall magic is lost with the replacement of Bruce, Jet and Tony, but I for one is surprised how well the track holds up in spite of the "amputation". To my ears Hank (and the echo sound) still stands strong and with that special something - at least much better than I would have thought.
When using UBH, or other backing tracks, most of us have found it influences how the lead sound (and the echo) is percieved (away from what we want), and in contrast by using the orginal tracks less Hank it influences the guitar sound (and the echo) positively. Interestingly this experiment seems to prove that Hanks original lead (and echo sound) doesn't lose that much with the modern BT - and, to my ears at least, even seems to have the magic/power to influence the non-original BT positively. Food for thought.
Thanks Dave for doing the experiment and posting it (I will send you an email shortly).
IIRC there's a version of Apache with the backing remowed floating around - would be interesting........?
Erik
|
|
|
|
Post by localhero on Jun 1, 2015 8:56:11 GMT
I do have copy of Apache with Bruce removed, I may have a look at that too. This came about when we were trying to figure out the exact EQ on Wonderful Land tha makes it unique and we will possibly get closer to it when we use the AC-30/4 with blue speakers, as Charlie feels that is where the tone is. I do intend to make a recording some time soon when I re-open my studio for the summer. |
|
|
|
Post by philc on Jun 1, 2015 8:59:42 GMT
A question for Charlie.
I know that there is a great deal lost with the conversion, but did you eq it to try to get some of it back, i'm guessing that you did and this is as good as it was possible to get?
Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by George Lewis on Jun 1, 2015 9:12:35 GMT
Hi Dave,
Very interesting. I hit the link before reading your post fully and thought wow Dave's really nailed the sound and phrasing amazingly, though the BT is a bit strange.
Then it dawned on me after reading the note it was Hank and UBH !
This illustrates how Hank's slightly off time phrasing and a live band influences our perception of "that sound".
Regards
George
|
|
|
|
Post by localhero on Jun 1, 2015 9:15:18 GMT
A question for Charlie. I know that there is a great deal lost with the conversion, but did you eq it to try to get some of it back, i'm guessing that you did and this is as good as it was possible to get? Phil I can answer that for you Phil, as it was I who put it together. The track of Hank came to me with a tiny bit of Bruce audible and a hint of Tony's kit, but not loud enough to make an impression over the BT. I specifically didn't add any EQ to it as I wanted to hear it as it was before going along that road, as the character of the guitar is clearly there. I may give it a tweak with EQ to listen to how it improves - or not. I'll discuss with Charlie and re-visit. One thing I do think is that the BT would benefit from some bass reduction, so I'll do that too. |
|
|
|
Post by philc on Jun 1, 2015 9:22:41 GMT
I'm guessing that filters were used on the original to cut most sounds except Hank but these would also have had an effect on Hanks lead, hence my eq question.
As for George's sync observation, it can be put exactly right but it takes a bit of time, which for this experiment is not really worth it.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Jun 1, 2015 13:22:36 GMT
Hi Phil,
It was about 3 or 4 years ago when I tried to separate Hank by filtering as much as possible of the other instruments out. As far as I remember I used a bandwidth filter with very steep sides, and probably took out all frequencies below around 500Hz and above 2.5KHz or maybe a little higher. The idea was to keep the retained bandwidth as flat as possible. I did not attempt to EQ what remained.
I can send you the mp3 of what I did if you want to examine it more closely. You could put it through an analyser to see what frequencies are missing.
Regards,
Charlie
|
|
|
|
Post by philc on Jun 1, 2015 14:55:02 GMT
Hi Charlie,
Thanks for the info, yes please send the mp3 it will be interesting to see if anything can be improved on it?
Best regards,
Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Jun 1, 2015 17:47:17 GMT
Hi Phil,
I have emailed you the track.
Regards,
Charlie
|
|
|
|
Post by philc on Jun 2, 2015 17:02:46 GMT
Thanks Charlie.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by nessmonst on Jun 2, 2015 19:53:40 GMT
Firstly I apologise for my comments I mean to offend no one but as a menmber I gotta say as I hear
I'm not hearing any of the 'richness' or the 'throb' or ;expression' of any HBM sound/tone.
It all sounds a bit 'plasticty' to these old ears.
It all sounds very 'scooped' and 'middley' to me-- I can't quite define it--I suppose its a bit like the difference in sound of an original quality valve amp and transitor amp which insists it sounds 'just like the original' and disappoints in all areas except the manufacturers wallets!
There again I may not be very discerning and stand readily to accept all points of view but I suppose what I hear seems to have 'lost its SOUL'
My opinion --for what its worth
Regards to all
David
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Jun 2, 2015 20:01:05 GMT
Hi David,
I think the loss of expression or soul could be because the track had to be chopped in several places to make it fit the backing track. I'd like to think Hank's sound remains largely intact regardless of the backing but I also think the backing could affect the perceived sound. I guess some of us will hear it differently to others too. All views are valid with this particular experiment!
Regards,
Charlie
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2015 21:24:50 GMT
I agree with David, sounds very tinny to my ears.... What is the point of the exercise I ask?
Jim
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Jun 2, 2015 21:51:50 GMT
Hi Jim,
I think your comment illustrates perfectly the point of the exercise! To my ears the tinny sound is coming from the thin sounding snare of the backing and probably what remains of Bruce's rhythm guitar. This must mean that the backing has an adverse effect on the perception of the lead guitar sound, which I think is anything but tinny sounding.
Someone else posted, on another site I think, a similar experiment where Hank was added to a backing track of The Savage. To my ears Hank's guitar sound only really shone as soon as the echoes at the end were heard ie. when the backing has stopped.
Regards,
Charlie
|
|
|
|
Post by philc on Jun 4, 2015 8:10:04 GMT
I think our brains translate the sounds overall, so the bt would be part of the lead and visa versa, but after many years of replicating and producing sound files close to the originals it is possible to isolate various instruments and sounds, ones ears can almost disregard totally the ones which are not required to be heard and worked on.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by Jono on Jun 5, 2015 20:57:15 GMT
Hi All,
Phil I think you are 100% spot on & I think (although I could be wrong) that if the same could be done with Apache to hear only Hank's lead would just show how correct your above statement is, especially at the Am chord played by Hank (after the middle section highly muted part) because it appears to me to be the mix of Bruce & Hank's guitars where the magic of effect of BT on the lead really is a point in fact.
I bet the effect would be totally lost if Hank's lead were to be married up to the UBH track?.
John
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Jun 5, 2015 21:14:47 GMT
Hi John,
I was sent a recording of Apache minus Bruce to which I tried to EQ out the bass and drums. Unfortunately removing the snare drum also removes too much of Hank so I don't think it's going to be possible to effectively prove the idea.
Regards,
Charlie
|
|
|
|
Post by philc on Jun 5, 2015 21:34:12 GMT
Charlie, I have the WL Hank minus bt nearly finished, Basically, I have re eq'd it adding back a lot of the frequencies that were lost in the conversion, but to be honest it's a bit counter productive, because, by adding these frequencies, the bt starts to be heard, which is what I thought would happen. Not only that but the track itself has been damaged by the conversion.
I have synced it to my bt, but here again I don't know what this will prove because, my bt is pretty close to the original, so it's almost the same as getting back to square one, the difference being that as I mentioned, the lead has a strange effect caused by the conversion and this is impossible to remove. The other thing is that by adding the lost frequencies, it's volume is all over the place?
More later!
Phil
PS I John is correct about Bruce's chord adding to the sound then that should be easy to prove with your file minus the rhythm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Jun 5, 2015 21:42:18 GMT
Hi Phil,
I will certainly be interested to hear it when you have finished. I honestly didn't think too much of Hank's original sound had been lost by removing the other instruments, obviously some was removed, but certainly not to the extent I found with Apache when I tried it.
I think the track with Bruce removed is simply the stereo version with Bruce's channel removed.
Regards,
Charlie
|
|
|
|
Post by philc on Jun 5, 2015 22:00:01 GMT
Hi Charlie,
The tone itself is not too bad, but it has an effect to it which is hard to explain, I just need to correct these volume abnormalities and then i'll post it.
Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by philc on Jun 6, 2015 7:16:29 GMT
Ok, just to recap, this thread was to see how Hank and a different bt sounded. So, this again is Charlie's "Hank with bt removed" added to a modern bt (mine) This is what was done:- the missing frequencies were put back as best as could be because by adding these frequencies the bt starts to be heard, so a compromise was made. There is an effect on the track caused by the conversion, it's difficult to explain but there seems to be a sort of distortion added. For Beatles fans, Lennon's "It's Real Love" has a similar sound, Jeff Lynn produced the tune with the remaining Beatles adding their instruments and vocals, the sound can be heard when Lennon sings but is cut in between vocals, anyway  My bt is synced with the original, but the originals have different speeds, typically, Hanks track was one of these so I synced him to my bt, all his phrases fit perfectly it's was just the case of some parts of the track varying in speed. So here it is, it's not perfect because of the above. Phil app.box.com/s/z2e5vnecjxehdyscxoxflm1af1gk79r3 |
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Jun 6, 2015 7:32:46 GMT
Hi Phil,
Good work. I think this shows that Hank's sound is not the least bit affected by the different backing, which, after all, is very close to the original.
Regards,
Charlie
|
|
|
|
Post by erikMAMS on Jun 6, 2015 9:25:36 GMT
To me this has been an interesting experiment. IMO it's quite surprising that Hank seems to care less about which backing track is used - so to speak, opposed to most any one else trying to clone Hanks lead/echo sound, finding the orginal backing vs other/modern BT's makes a huge difference in the way the lead/echo sound is percieved.
Charlie - watch your email
Erik
|
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Jun 6, 2015 11:05:54 GMT
My ears must be different to Charlie's and Erik's because to me the lead does not sound very close to the original at all. His style is unmistakable but the tone sounds different.
Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by localhero on Jun 6, 2015 11:45:32 GMT
It IS the original and stands out like a sore thumb.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Jun 6, 2015 11:52:10 GMT
Hi Paul,
It sounds more like Hank on the original to me than any other version I have heard, except for the real original of course!
Regards,
Charlie
|
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Jun 6, 2015 12:09:18 GMT
As I said I guess we hear things differently. I have played this version and the original side by side and to me Hank's lead in this version lacks the woodiness of the original and sounds hollow somehow. That may of course have resulted from the extraction process though Phil said he has tried to equalize it back to the original so it may also be a perception issue resulting from embedding it into the UBHank backing.
Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jono on Jun 6, 2015 13:08:09 GMT
Hi All,
If I am understanding this 'discussion' correctly then by re-inserting the Hank only track back on to the original BT & compare them? may or may not prove something to what is currently not agreed.
Just a suggestion.
Charlie if you allow me access to the Hank only track I would like to further the above by giving it the 1977 remix with compression & electronically created stereo similar to what I did with 'The savage'.
John
|
|
My bt is synced with the original, but the originals have different speeds, typically, Hanks track was one of these so I synced him to my bt, all his phrases fit perfectly it's was just the case of some parts of the track varying in speed.