So, which echo is the best ?

[hansaustria]

I have a lot of echomachines: ESE Echomatic IV, EtapHW2 , Atlantis , Amtech AGE pro , Magicstomp with EFTP, ZOOM 508 , Alesis GT .... Echolette E 51 !
Which the best? I don`t like the Magicstomp not very much because I think that it colours and changes the sound of the guitar. I did some experiences
with the Atlantis and the ESE ( echo / without echo ) - and I can say that it does not affect the dry sound of my Strat. We all talk about "That Sound "
since years - but I never found in the forum any discussion about Hanks "dry - sound" ! Maybe that his dry sound is the key/ part for ( of ) "That Sound " !
I know from serious sources that Hank had modifications in his early amps - bass cut. I have an Cicognani amp ( valve 2 x EL 84 ) with two 10 Jensen
speakers, sounds great for Shadows stuff. The amp has a clearly defined bass range ( bass cut ). No VOX but sounds very good.
And I think that it`s very difficult to bring a very good Shadows sound on stage / in the band ! To plug into a recorder and to play to a backing track
with all the EQ possibilities - I dont like this very much.

All the echounits do their job very well some better than others, but its also the player who can handle the unit well or not. Currently I use often my Amtech
Age pro and it sounds better than it is described here in the forum by some players. You can get authentic right echopatterns if you adjust the toneheads
correct. Its the same with the ESE. You have to try anf than it works.

Regards
Hans

[fenderplucker]

I think that we should distinguish between opinions (sometimes based upon careful subjective assessment, sometimes not) and verifiable facts based upon known electronic and audio engineering principles. Lest I be accused (possibly rightly!) of having a vested interest, let me start with some facts.

1. A properly set up tube Meazzi (or Long Tom) has a definite effect on the dry sound. This includes some tone shaping, compression and both harmonic and intermodulation distortion, the latter two being very dependent upon the drive level. These add considerably to the tone, timbre and attack of the dry sound. Hank even commented upon this in his recent interview in the Guitar Interactive magazine.
2. Part of this feeds through into the echo signal, but it is then overlayed with the additional effects of magnetic reproduction leading to further tonal and dynamic changes of the echoes themselves.
3. How the echoes are recombined with the dry signal (whether linear or non-linear) further ads to the overall sonic complexity.
4. Of course, the timing and amplitude of the echoes is also important, but this is the least problematic aspect of trying to reproduce the sound and playability of the original Meazzis.

All of these aspects are measurable in the lab and audible under properly controlled blind testing, though the degree of audibility does depend to some degree on the other equipment used and the playing.

Many of the echo units mentioned in the posts above make some attempt at emulating some or all of the above to a greater or lesser degree of success and if pressed I could give the electronic engineering reasons for why most fall way short. I could also back it up with test results as I have tested most of them.

I believe that those are the facts and I am happy to debate them with any competent engineer. Now to some opinions.

The critical thing from a user's point of view is does any of this matter. I think that the answer is it depends. It depends upon whether the player is struggling just to string a few notes together in some semblance of a tune, whether he/she is an accomplished player who appreciative of the response of the echo unit to the playing style, or whether matching the sounds of the original live performances and/or recordings is the goal.

For the budding musician, probably any unit that gives a reasonable echo pattern is completely acceptable. For players who are becoming more aware of sound and tone, some of the above will perform better than others. For those who are appreciative of how the echo unit responds to technique, the list becomes much shorter. For those not wanting to be locked into particular hardware and/or computer buffs, software simulation is getting better and better, though to my ear they still tend to sound a bit lifeless. And finally for those competent players trying to get as close as possible to the original sound, most of them will fall short when compared directly with the original recordings (and yes, I will indulge myself by saying that so far I have not heard anything that comes as close as a good Meazzi or the TVS3). And how important to the player is the cost factor?

So I think it is a bit unhelpful and could even be misleading to make a bland pronouncement of "which is best" without first laying down the basis of the judgement.

Paul.

[Twang46]

Interesting post Paul, thank you.

For the "average" player (whatever that means) cost will always be a major factor when buying effects units.
I have recently been using at home a Zoom G3 with a Squire CV strat & a home brew 5w amp with surprisingly good results sound wise at a total cost of well south of £400

It's a very emotive thing this echo business as the input comes from a wooden "plank" using coils in proximity to vibrating metal "strings" to generate a signal that is trying to emulate "that sound" that HBM had in 1960/61 by using his standard vox amp & an echo unit he placed on a chair next to his amp when playing on stage.

The amp sound can be replicated with a good degree of accuracy & the guitars likewise..........leaving only the echo units.

I believe price point grading is the only fair way to compare units.............musical instruments are usually assessed using this formula & it works.

Dick.

[dave robinson]

Some valid points from Paul and all need to be considered when making an 'in depth' choice, in fact a lot of what he describes does affect the overall tone at the output and on a guitar signal can be very pleasing and musical, not so much if you are singing through the same system as it can add a nasal quality. With Paul's TVS3 you know you will get the desired tone out of it because of his attention to detail, that goes without saying.
The point I was making was that a half a dozen ardent Shadows fans and players, struggled to pick out the ESE Echomatic which is close to the real thing from the Catalinbread, Zoom G3x, Etap2hw, in my recent recordings on my Roland 2480 where thy are all lined up, side by side and can be compared instantly as the track is rolloing. The ESE, TVS3, old Binson and Quads are all represented as they had not been erased from six years ago, and nobody including myself could pick out the expensive ones on the list when listening without looking at the machine to see which fader was active.
So my thinking was that if we couldn't tell, then what is the chance that the audience would in a normal gig ?
The purpose of the thread was to show that if you put the time and effort into the playing and understanding how to use the gear, you can get the results you strive for at reasonable cost and no machine, amp or special £5000 guitar is going to do it for you.

[fenderplucker]

I don't think that simply comparing sounds (some 6 years old recorded with different equipment) is particularly informative and it leads to the obvious question of what was the basis of comparison? For example, many people I know prefer a clean sounding echo and would not like the sound of a driven Meazzi. If you are claiming that there was no difference in the sound of any of the echo units (and I doubt that many others on this site would agree with that proposition) then your demonstration must have been seriously compromised by other factors. Were they tested at different drive levels to see how they reproduce the spectrum of sounds available from a Meazzi, ranging from clean uncompressed echoes at low drive levels to quite distorted (but not in a digital distortion sense) and compressed sounds at higher drive levels, and all of which can be heard on various Shadows tracks?

If the goal is to reproduce the original sound then they should all be compared directly with a single reference standard: the original recordings. How many of them can actually reproduce the dry sound of the guitar and the crunch of the echoes on Flingel Bunt, for example? None of the digital ones mentioned on your list or the ESE. Why do I say this? Because I have tried with them all (except the eTaphw, but I did assess the software version upon which it is based). Can they produce the singing halo of a Meazzi? None of the sound files that I have heard done with the various units come as close to the original sound as a good Meazzi or TVS3. If I am wrong then please post something more convincing that bears comparison with the original.

If you are simply looking for a "good "sounding echo, then there are as many options as there are opinions of what constitutes a "good" echo. However, that is a completely different discussion. Can they sound OK in a live situation or not in direct comparison to the original? Sure they can and for many people this is all they want.

But I say again, to claim that any of the units can reproduce the sound of the original Meazzis is simply not true and quite misleading.

Paul.

[Gary Allen]

How come NONE of the available echoes fade and distort like Hanks meazzi ?

[fenderplucker]

That would be a more valid and informative comparison Gary, which of them comes closest to that particular aspect?

[scmitche]

I think Paul's following comment is crucial:
1. A properly set up tube Meazzi (or Long Tom) has a definite effect on the dry sound. This includes some tone shaping, compression and both harmonic and intermodulation distortion, the latter two being very dependent upon the drive level. These add considerably to the tone, timbre and attack of the dry sound. Hank even commented upon this in his recent interview in the Guitar Interactive magazine.


This is the very reason that I spent so long researching effective ways of biasing the FET and getting op-amp levels and tone shaping correct in Piet's otherwise excellent eTap2HW design.
The pleasing results of this work led to the modifications of Ecca's Chinese valve preamp and were applied to Philip Hawthorne's valve eTap2HW, which also includes Automation. The gain (drive) is variable both to match different output pickups and to allow generation of even harmonics, while the input level is adjustable and has zener diode clamps to ensure that the eTap2HW DSP chip cannot be damaged by excessive signal level. The bass response is also switchable between Normal/Vintage/Warm to add even more versatility. As in Ecca's unit the output level is also adjustable to match the amplifier/recording input.

Modelling of the Meazzi cathode follower section shows where the potential for intermodulation distortion arises as this is not the best piece of circuitry devised by man. Indeed some of the differences between the ESE and the Meazzi arise from the better engineering of the ESE, which either will or won't please the ears in the same way the Meazzi does depending on personal preference.

If you consider the circuit of Johan Forrer's hybrid valve eTap2 then you can see the effort he has made after the Meazzi like tone shaping section to slightly "dirty" the sound and add some compression at the DSP input, ironically by means of a FET! Given the limited resources and funds available in the 1960s it is probably best to consider the Meazzi result a "happy accident" and one from which there is much to be learned about what frequencies and harmonics please our flawed human hearing.

All in all though I thought that this was a well constructed, thoughtful post which I agree with completely.

Steve Mitchell

[ecca]

A very telling tune , echo wise, for me is ' Spring is nearly here '.
Just about the most distorted echo of any.

[phil kelly]

Interesting thread this one, having listened to and whilst not wanting to dismiss any of the echo machines mentioned , most of which understandedly have their place with a lot of folk, and Dave must be commended for his efforts, i must add to my ears i also have never heard anything else come close by comparison in the dry / wet tonality produced by a good sounding meazzi, until now with the arrival of the excellent tvs unit, which i must congratulate Paul with.
What i do now also realise being extremely lucky to have found a wheel echomatic machine is that the sound is different again to the tape units i have used all these years, with a tape machine the chatter of the repeats is quite prominent , the wheel echomatic is not so much noticeable, that is until you dampen the strings, then it sounds bigger than the tape, the halo reverb produced for example whilst playing Apache is huge, it is now clear to me that whilst having problems with the wheel echomatics at times i can see why Hank appeared to prefer them above anything else, i still love tape units but the wheel really has the magic sound of the Shadows.
Phil.