|
Post by SPIKE on Nov 7, 2009 15:04:53 GMT
Hi Everyone Trace the history of echo units used by The Shadows from the early sixties to the current period. Paul Rossiter’s thorough research and accompanying pictures are very interesting and will answer many questions regarding what tunes were played with what echo machines. It also gives examples of where these units were used in live performances. There is also some technical information about each unit that gives an insight into the number heads, delays, feedbacks, levels and other information. To see this interesting article go to the TVS website www.tvsspecialtyproducts.com and click on the “Shadows Echo Machines” tab. You can also read about the amps that were used over this period at the next link down from “Shadows Echo Machines”. It’s called Amplifiers Used By The Shadows. Happy reading Spike
|
|
|
Post by teleman on Nov 8, 2009 8:05:01 GMT
Hey Spike, That is a very interesting website for me. I have only been playing the shadows for about a year now (novice etc) but I now understand what most of the patches I got from Charlie for my Zoom G2 were based on. I'm not sure the wife would agree as she has just let me buy a PA for my gigs but I do fancy one of them Alesis Q2 units in the future. Anyway I've got to go, got a gig to prepare for at lunch time, 22 tunes under my belt to date and working on more. Many thanks spike Regardz from Neil
|
|
|
Post by SPIKE on Nov 8, 2009 8:37:43 GMT
Hi Neil
Sounds like you are making good progress with your Shadows Music...especially on getting your wifes approval and support...its a rare thing...make the most of it ;D.
Glad you liked the website and hope you found the articles interesting.
Spike
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Nov 8, 2009 10:49:44 GMT
Hi Spike, Interesting read but I found an error with the Binson section. Where it says the head levels are 0db, -2dB, -4dB, -6dB, this only applies to the SWELL setting on the 6 knob Echorec 2 (as far as I know) where all heads are automatically selected with those head levels. Feedback then comes from the heads that are selected with the 1-12 selection knob. On the usual head selections modes 1-12, the head levels are all equal with feedback coming from the same selected heads. Please let Paul know so he can update the information. Regards, Charlie
|
|
|
Post by erikMAMS on Nov 8, 2009 11:11:46 GMT
Great articles! I’m amazed by the entusiasme and work put into researching and documenting the details - which I find very interesting.
Speaking of details I noticed something that got me wondering. In the echo article, section 2 re the Meazzi Echomatic 1 - head timings. It looks to me that Paul Rossiter presents a new set of head timings, compared to what I thought as generally agreed upon, and collected on the echotapper site.
6 head model J: Paul: 121-238-331-424-510-595 mSec Echotapper: 120-200-280-360-440-520 mS
Quit a difference here?
5 head model F: Paul: 122-280-360-428-603 mS Echotapper (reported by Charlie hall): 125-180-340-430-600 mS
Close – except for the 20 mSec difference on H3 and 100 mS on H2. The later could be a typo, on both parts – but I seem to recall that Charlie on more occasions has pointed out that he found H2 was very close to H1, and about half the distance of the first delay.
Very interesting, what do you think – still confused, only on a higher level?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2009 11:39:55 GMT
HI ALL ,, GREAT-STUFF -''PAUL'' I came across this TVS-posting earlier today & it is a wonderfull insite into those old shad's & other-machines & was a great post to read as I am at the moment refurbing & modifying my old ace-tone tape-echo !! [see- project's thread] .. As I have witnessed your work ,,I know you are a ''stickler- for thoroughness,and this posting is very well done indeed ,,, would have taken much research & as you say help from other's! ''GOODONYOU-PAUL'' & CHEERS TO ALL ................barry..
|
|
|
Post by SPIKE on Nov 8, 2009 13:24:35 GMT
Thanks for your comments folks!
Charlie:
I have sent Paul an email regarding your comments and I'm sure he will reply very soon. Please keep in mind that this mammoth exercise can sometimes result in tiny errors due to the mental tiredness caused by the large amount of detail put in.
I do appreciate your comments and help here.
Spike
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Nov 8, 2009 18:51:49 GMT
Hi Erik, I think the 280 instead of 180 is a typo. I am totally sure that 180 is near enough correct, I have it as 179 in fact. 360 may be a typo as well since Paul had previously agreed with me that it was closer to 340 (I have it as 339), although at that time he thought it was generated by a separate echo unit. I originally thought the same but now it appears that there is agreement that there are 5 heads on that unit. Regards, Charlie
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Nov 9, 2009 3:15:27 GMT
Hello Charlie, Erik and others,
Thanks for your comments on the article, I had hoped that this one and the one on amplifiers would lead to the discovery of further information about the gear used by The Shadows.
I determined the head timings by analysing all the tunes that used each particular machine (both on record and the videos of the Cliff Richard Shows etc) and then averaging them since there was usually a percent or two variation either due to measurement errors or the machines running at slightly different speeds due to varying drag on the drum etc. In all cases the overall pattern was quite consistent. This was not the case with the head amplitudes that varied considerably from tune to tune. The TVS3 patches use the actual data measured.
Now to the particular points raised. In relation to the 6 head model J, if you have a look at the photo of the drum ahd heads, I think you will be able to see from the head spacings that the delay to the first head is the longest, it decreases a little to head 2, then it seems to decrease again to heads 3 and 4 (but roughly equal) and then again the heads 5 and 6. This is entirely consistent with the pattern that I have measured with delays between the heads of 121, 117, 93, 93, 83, 85 mSec, but it is not at all consistent with the delays between the heads from the Echotapper data (120, 80, 80, 80, 80, 80 mSec).
In relation to the 5- head model F, Charlie's suggestion of an echo at 179 mSec I have two comments. Firstly, that would require the replay heads 1 and 2 to be only 54 mSec apart. This would simply not be possible due to the design of the heads being mounted on swinging arms as shown in the photo of the 6 head machine (and presumably the same for the model F). Secondly, I have looked long and hard for such an echo and sometimes found some sort of signal there, but it never had the higher frequency components that are characteristic of an echo signal. The only echo I found consistently was at 280 mSec.
Finally, with regard to the Model F echo at 340 or 360 mSec, I was in some doubt for a while until I analysed the rendition of FBI on the Cliff Richard Show of 2nd March 1961, where Hank plays a dud note and the echo is clearly at 360 mSec.
Hope this helps,
Paul.
|
|
|
Post by dobroman on Nov 9, 2009 8:00:52 GMT
Finally, with regard to the Model F echo at 340 or 360 mSec, I was in some doubt for a while until I analysed the rendition of FBI on the Cliff Richard Show of 2nd March 1961, where Hank plays a dud note and the echo is clearly at 360 mSec.
I'm not really technically minded, but do find all this very interesting. One comment I would make . . . if you can remember a dud note that Hank played in 1961, that to me says something about the man!!!!
Brian
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Nov 9, 2009 12:19:00 GMT
Hi Paul, I am not convinced that Hank's first Meazzi was the model F but is certainly the nearest diagram I have seen to what I think the first one was. Dick Denney told me that there was never a circuit diagram for the first Meazzi and up till now I have always believed what he told me. If you have analysed Blue Star you will see that the first echo is around 125 and then a louder echo at 179. On other tunes the 179 tap is about 12dB lower than the first tap 125. The only tune where I could not find 179 was The Stranger. Also if you have analysed Quatermassters Stores you will see that by dividing the Blue Star times by approximately 1.4 (as high speed was used for Quatermasters Stores), all the timings of Blue Star will fit Quatermassters Stores, with the exception of head 3 at 340 which seems to be absent on Quatermassters Stores which would have been around 240 at the higher speed. These findings do prove that there is a head at 179 at the slower speed, which arrives at around 125ms at the faster speed, which could quite easily be mistaken for the first head at the slower speed. I never could get sensible echo timings from the original recording of FBI. My filtering method showed up clearly the leading edges of all echo and reverb taps, exposing so many reverb taps which masked the echo so much that for a long time I was unable to derive echo timings for it. When Hank told me he used the first Meazzi on FBI (which makes sense chronologically) I decided that the 5 heads found on Blue Star and Man of Mystery would fit FBI the best. The variations of delay times that you and I found are caused by the wow of the particular unit, which often seemed to vary by 1-2ms. Regards, Charlie
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Nov 9, 2009 13:29:35 GMT
[/img]Hi Charlie, Sorry but I disagree and let me show why. The first diagram (if I have managed to attach them correctly to this and the next two messages!) is the echo from a string squeek in Blue Star. This gives a nice sharp signal to analyse and as the diagram shows there are echoes very distinctly at approcimately 125, 433 and 603 mSec. From your comments there should be one at 179 mSec that is larger than the one at 125. This is clearly not the case and there is no sharp signal at that delay. The second diagram is from FBI which shows echoes at 122, 280, 360, 428 and 604 mSec. I have indicated where one at 180 mSec should occur and again there is nothing. The final diagram is from Quatermassters Stores. In this case the damped chord note is about 180 mSec long and so one has to include the effects of oberlapping notes and echoes. As you can see from the diagramthe echoes occur at 121, 433 and 600 mSec with probably no feedback (exactly the same as Apache). Where the first echo overlaps with the note there is some constructive interference. So I don't believe there is any need to invoke speed changes at all. Also, I repeat my point that I don't think that a head could be mounted just 54 mSec away from the previous head on a Meazzi drum unit because of the way the heads are mounted on swinging arms. Regards, Paul.
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Nov 9, 2009 13:34:05 GMT
[img src="[/img] "] [/img] Hi again, Looks like I failed to get the image attached, I'll try again!! Regards, paul. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Nov 9, 2009 13:36:45 GMT
[/img]Hi again, This going to take a while! The last image was from Quatermassters Stores (I tried to post three at once which obviously doesn't work). I hope this one is from Blue Star. Regards, paul. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Nov 9, 2009 13:38:20 GMT
[/img]Hah, now I'm getting the hang of it!! Here is (or should be) the image from FBI. Regards, Paul. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Nov 9, 2009 15:20:01 GMT
Hi Paul, While your findings are interesting and informative to us all I do not wish this to appear to be a bias against my findings which I now feel is what it is becoming. I take your point about the head mountings seen on various pics but I am not so sure that there has ever been a pic of the inner workings of Hank's first Meazzi or one like it. It certainly seems from your pics that there is some disagreement with the signals I saw on my scope. I have no pictures of those displays so we may have to agree to disagree. However, I stand by my method of filtering the signal to expose the taps correctly although I am not willing to say how this was done, other than that short samples were taken from the tracks at relevent points where I thought the echo taps sounded the clearest and those samples were played through a filter tuned to the note being played in each case (to achieve as much as possible a rejection of other sounds that were not relevent) and then to an accurately time calibrated scope. The displayed signals were so clear that even reverb taps could be individually seen and in most cases I was able to pick out the echo taps separately from the reverb taps. The echo taps I got from Quatermasters Stores scaled pefectly to the slower running speed of most other tunes using the same echo unit. Even your pic of that tune shows 600ms as a much lower level than would be expected when compared with the others and appears to me to be more like a repeat of the first (or more likely the second at higher speed) tap. If you listen to the middle section of the tune where Hank plays the riffs on the lower strings with stops between each section you will hear that the echo repeats sound nothing like the echo repeats of Apache, they are much faster. The pitch variation (wow) sounds faster as well. Regards, Charlie
|
|
|
Post by eltrasero on Nov 9, 2009 16:41:26 GMT
I have been following this thread with great interest and admire the dedication of Charlie and Paul in trying to replicate the Shadows' echo sound. As Charlie says, he uses all sorts of hi-tech wizardly to get the sound. My question is ( and no shouting please if it is a stupid one) how did Hank get his echo sound back in the late 50s and early 60s? Did he choose the echo settings by ear, by sheer luck or was there some sort of formula based on old wisdom and knowledge which has been lost through the years since the arrival of computers etc. I've never used one of the older machines so I don't know how easy or hard they were to set up, but have used Alesis, Zoom and Magicstomp so it would be interesting to hear from the experts how they think Hank got that sound. From what I can gather he was in his early 20s with virtually no experience of echo units before he met Joe Brown. Any knowledge he gained was on the job, as it were.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Nov 9, 2009 17:53:57 GMT
Hi eltrasero, It seems that the earliest recordings were without echo, then we think the first recording with echo was probably Apache. I think most of what Hank managed was with luck in having a choice of probably any echo system he wanted, certainly later on anyway. His first Meazzi had a special echo sound like no other. Variations in the sound of that unit have been noticed from track to track, and even within a track, and we are still trying to understand some of that, and at the same time make it all fit with what we already know. Regards, Charlie
|
|
|
Post by erikMAMS on Nov 9, 2009 23:32:48 GMT
Paul and Charlie Thanks for taking the time to clarify and share your findings Please understand that when posting my comments and confusion my only intention was trying to understand the new information revealed in relation to previous collected data. Obviously you have different methods of analyzing and interpreting results - and maybe also differing views on how to put things in context – to me that’s only natural and understandable, and it was at no point my intention to high light any differences as right or wrong - or make you go the length of defending your findings. I’m sure that everybody will agree that EFTP and TVS are both excellent products, which - thanks to your dedication, thorough research, attention to details and more hours of work than anyone can probably imagine - are available for anyone to buy. Why I find it interesting whether the second echo of an italian made echobox used on a pop song recorded some 50 years ago is at 180 or 280 milliseconds, I don’t know – but I really do, and I also do hope that we can continue to debate that - and others issue of equal importance – in good spirit Please keep up the good work (and keep us posted). Thanks. regards Erik
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Nov 9, 2009 23:48:22 GMT
Hi Charlie,
I agree that we certainly shouldn't let this discussion degenerate into a "who's right and who's wrong" situation since we all gain enormously from each other's findings, and I guess we should remain open to other possibilities. One of those is that, if there were a head at about 180 mSec, then it was just turned off on the Blue Star and FBI tracks I showed. Pity we don't have any other data to show where it was clearly revealed since it doesn't seem to be a common occurrence (or Hank's machine to have a look at!).
I think you are right about the fortuitous nature of Hank getting his sound, a happy combination of talent, Strat, Meazzi, amp and recording environment. It certainly worked!
Regards,
Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Nov 10, 2009 1:23:20 GMT
Hi Paul, I called Alan Jackson and had a long chat about various things. He said the earliest Meazzi he has heard about is a model E and there are maybe others, and there is also a model H. Apparently the model J was the most common drum or wheel Meazzi unit and was more reliable because it did not have a speed control. Some of the models were one offs built to custom specs. He also said the head mountings were different on some of the early Meazzi units. Another interesting thing he said is that Meazzi used to supply parts to Vox so they could build their own Vox badged versions to avoid purchase tax. The outer casings were different, and he thinks the Meazzi ones were better finished. Regards, Charlie
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Nov 10, 2009 1:48:09 GMT
Hi Charlie,
Crikey, that info from Alan introduces even more uncertainties! I guess all we can do is continue to go by what we have measured until something more definitive (if it exists) ever turns up. Did you get the impression that Alan might one day finish off the series on Meazzis that he started off some time ago in Shadsfax?
Just as well that we are trying to get this all together now as one could imagine that in a few more years such knowledge might be lost forever.
I finally tracked down a photo of Hank using an EC3. It was in my concert brochure for the 1979 UK tour. Not very good quality but at least confirmation of its use in public.
Best Regards,
Paul.
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Nov 10, 2009 2:04:06 GMT
Hi Erik,
I guess we must all be "Shadows tragics" to some degree to be concerned with such apparently minute detail. But as you say, it is the thrill of finding out that keeps the drive there and it would be nice to have a record of what actually happened.
And I am sure that neither Charlie or I take any offence at you posting your comments; it is only through such discussion among respected friends that we slowly move forward. The question of the 180/280 echo is intriguing since whatever is there, it is usually quite small in level and so difficult to pin down (and could more than one machine have possibly been used?).
Best Regards,
Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Nov 10, 2009 2:04:36 GMT
Hi Paul, I seem to remember Alan telling me that there was some kind of disagreement with Shadsfax and that he would not write any more articles. I remember a leaflet showing the head timings of the EC3, which are 33ms, 66ms, 99ms and 132ms. Very fast! I can't imagine that I would like the sound with such fast timings, although that model does have individual head feedback selector switches as well as individual head playback selector switches, so that could make some interesting repeat patterns. Regards, Charlie
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Nov 10, 2009 2:23:14 GMT
Hi again Charlie,
Thanks for that info on the EC3, I'll include it when we update the article on the TVS site in the near future.
I have been trying to get more info on the MXR digital delay and Roland RE-3 and, as far as I can ascertain, they both had only one delay (variable delay time up to about 310 - 320 mSec in standard form, variable echo level, feedback and modulation) and so could probably not be used on tracks with more complicated echo patterns. The circuit diagram for the MXR was fascinating: absolutely full of digital chips and all that is now available (and much more) on a single complex chip!
Best Regards,
Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Charlie Hall on Nov 10, 2009 2:59:30 GMT
Hi Paul, I remember seeing a Roland ad for what I think was the RE-3 (there may have been another model too at around that time so I am not sure which), described as a solid state version of the 301, with all the warmth of the original. I took that to mean replicating the wow of approximately 1Hz, which was deliberately designed to be generated by hysteresis of the motor speed control in the 301 and other similar Roland models. I think the 301 service manual mentions this feature cycling at 1Hz, I measured it at approximately 1.1Hz on a real 301. Whatever the cycle, it remains constant at any motor speed. It has been said that Hank used an RE-3 on The Snowman. I found similar echo patterns to the 301 heads 2 and 3, running at 3 different speeds, one panned left (slowest), one centre (slightly faster), and one panned right (slightly faster again). Head 3 in each case differs by approximately 100ms for each panning position, which is what gave the trickling echo effect in the damped sections, and where the 3 separate repeats are clearly heard at the end of each phrase. Regards, Charlie
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Nov 10, 2009 5:38:12 GMT
Hi Charlie,
The reviews of the RE-3 on Harmony Central suggest that Roland missed the mark. The owners didn't seem to have much regard for echoes, though apparently the reverb works very well. Again there is only mention of a single delay but I'm still searching for more info.
Best Regards,
Paul.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2009 9:10:43 GMT
HI ALL OF YOU ''ECHO-HEADS'' & ALL OTHER"S .. I would like to ''SECOND''-what eric has said very well ''goodonyou-mate'' ,especially the point on the ''EFPT'' .and the ''TVS3'' being both excellent sources of that ellusive ''sound'' ,of course the ''both -have now been publically used by hank-marvin for all to see& hear from the various live-video's from the older concert's with the alesis ''EFPT'' programed [''charlie's-patches as I call them''Q2& later Q20 & I guess soon one of this current ''cliff-shads tour'' using ''paul's TVS3''etc etc & along with a few other unit's over the years as pointed out in the write-up in this thread .. I would like to add here that both these guy's [charlie&paul] both are ''exellent'' guitar-player's as well as being ''exellent electronic expert's !!!!!,,,Just LISTEN to charlie on his band's CD'S great stuff..and to hear paul go to the tvs-web-site !![his atlantis is the best-yet!!!],What my point really is ,is these to guru's have a love-for ''The-sound'' NOW It is coincidental that I am at the moment nearing completion of my refurbishments &modification's to my old originally-bought new way back then ''acetone tape-echo-EC10''.. I AM gaining knowledge from these dicussion's from our UK -ECHO-GURU=''charlie-hall'',,and our OZ-ECHO-GURU=''paul-rossiter'' I just love-it when you two-guy's get together in the gentlemen'ly way that you do ,,, we get that extra-bit of information each time this happen's!!!! ;;GREAT-STUFF-GUY"S..., THIS ''INTERNET'' open's us all to the WORLD & it's now a whole lot smaller because of that!!!! CHEERS TO ALL ''world-wide'' ....................barry..
|
|
|
Post by rogercook on Nov 10, 2009 9:52:58 GMT
Hi All,
Just a quick note to say thanks, especially Charlie and Paul, for sharing your knowledge here. Fascinating
Roger
|
|
|
Post by fenderplucker on Nov 10, 2009 10:41:13 GMT
Hi,
I think that we can rule out the RE-3 being used on The Snowman. It has only a single variable delay (10 - 320 mSec) and as Alan McKillop commented on Shadowmusic:
Having been an owner of the Roland RE-3 digital unit, I doubt very much if this was ever used, certainly not for recording as it gives very precise even echo repeats which don't feature in the Snowman, but it did have fabulous reverbs.
Also, it seems to have been introduced in 1988 whereas the Snowman/Walking in the Air was recorded in 1987.
That leaves us with a Roland as the most likely candidate (unless there was some other unknown unit being used), though I couldn't get a perfect fit to the Re-301 timings so I am wondering about a 555/501? I'm checking that now.
Best Regards,
paul.
|
|