MEAZZI Emulation

[dave robinson]

I don't doubt for one mintute that Justin gets a good authentic sound from his Meazzi and I'm pleased for him that the hefty price tag has brought him so much pleasure, but whilst I have to admire his enthusiasm we have to look at the big picture here. I have been looking at this for almost eight years now and listened to Roberto (to the extent of shelling out £4,500 for a 1960 Gretsch CG, to enable me to experiment) and many others who had theories about the mystry of 'THAT SOUND', but one HAS to look at ALL of the facts and the evidence.

I'm very interested in these fascinating facts about the Meazzi, but the simple truth is that none of this has any bearing on 'THAT SOUND' , which was evident before it's introduction, which was according to Bruce used for the first time on Apache on June 17 1960.

You can go back as far as 'Livin' Lovin' Doll' which was recorded on November 14 1958 and you will hear 'THAT SOUND' , even though there is no Stratocaster and no Meazzi. True enough you can't hear 'THAT ECHO' but it's enough for me to stick with my initial thoughts that it's the studio, the amp and the player that are THE main ingredients rather than the Meazzi echo machine, as it didn't exist as far as HBM was concerned. I think it's pretty clear that the studio reverb is a massive factor here too.

All the way through the Cliff & The Shadows recordings you can hear that Hanks guitar has the signiture tone that we call 'THAT SOUND', listen to 'Mean Streak', 'Livin'Doll', 'Saturday Dance',(I understand that the Stratocaster was introduced around this time) Dynamite', 'Mean Woman Blues', 'A Voice In The Wilderness', 'Fall In Love With You', 'Nine Times Out Of Ten', 'Gee Whiz It's You', 'Please Don't Tease' and everything in between - the magic is there on all of these Meazzi-less tracks. I'm afraid it blows a hole in the Meazzi theory of been the main ingredient big style. I think folks should have a listen and come back with some fresh thoughts on this one -
The good news for me was that I got my money back for the Gretsch . . . . . .
I await your feedback . . . .

[MeBHank]

What I can't understand is your statement about the heads not being in contact with the tape on the Meazzi drum models. That to me doesn't make sense and the tape recorder principle of heads not making contact with the tape even if by a whisker is sufficient to not read the signal, so I don't buy that. In the case of the Binson, I believe the head does actually make contact with the magnetic wires but marginally so, as there are flat steel spring mechanisms on each head designed to facilitate any less than perfect drums and bounce the head outwards if the drum diameter is wider at any particular point by a few thou. That is why you have the oil lubricant to reduce the friction, and if you use whale oil ( used by watchmakers ) it also allows the lower frequencies through. Am sure we are all familiar with the low frequency drones of whales speaking to one another .

David, yes, they were all drum/wheel Meazzis, Models F & J looking near enough identical to eachother from the outside, but the Model 2, being a later machine, had been given a new look by the designers.

It is certainly true that the wheel was not designed to actually touch the heads, I promise. They were, in fact, positioned a hair's breadth away from the drum so that they didn't actually touch it, but so they were still close enough for the magetic oxide to be read. That is why the frequency response of the echoes is different to the tape Meazzis. I own a Schaller drum echo which works on exactly the same principle.

Robbo, I don't hear anything particularly magical about Hank's tone on those early records. Yes, it was special, and the fresh sound coming from these new guys on the block must have been amazing, but Hank's sound lacks the sophistication of the Meazzi. His sound changed vastly when he started using it, tonally as well as the introduction of the echoes. After using a Meazzi for the last three years I can guarantee you that it is the missing ingredient. I much prefer the melodic music they made just a year or two later to the rawer Rock 'n' Roll, and I prefer Hank's Model 2 sound of '61 to the pre-Meazzi days. I hear such an incredible difference when plugged into the Meazzi, a difference that no other echo unit can replicate. The Meazzi replicates the records.

J

[MeBHank]

Please don't be so rude, Dave. I'm enjoying this educational and fascinating thread. Your opinions on when "That Sound" began obviously differ to mine but please don't make it personal. I have no agenda, I simply want to enjoy the music and take part in sharing the knowledge that we can all contribute.

J

[Didier]

It is certainly true that the wheel was not designed to actually touch the heads, I promise. They were, in fact, positioned a hair's breadth away from the drum so that they didn't actually touch it, but so they were still close enough for the magetic oxide to be read.

I have serious doubts about that, you can see on close-up pics that on the Meazzi, heads are on hinged arms pushed against the drum by wire springs.



If there had been no contact between heads and drum, there would not have been the oxide wear problem...
BTW, keeping "an hair's breadth away" between heads and drum wouls be very difficult with drum dilatation (remember, theses are valve units, getting rather hot inside).
In the early days of computers, magnetic drum memory units were used, but quicly dropped because of this problem. They were replaced by discs, with the heads actually floating "an hair's breadth away" from the disc surface thanks to an air film.

Didier

[dave robinson]

Please don't be so rude, Dave. I'm enjoying this educational and fascinating thread. Your opinions on when "That Sound" began obviously differ to mine but please don't make it personal. I have no agenda, I simply want to enjoy the music and take part in sharing the knowledge that we can all contribute.

J

Justin, it isn't personal, but I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'rude' if you think that is what I was being, but perhaps you were being rude when you made the 'unneccessary' comment last week and believed me to be doing the same. Not so.

I simply stated facts that don't fit in with what you would wish everyone to believe and pointed out that you are burying your head in the sand - fine it's your choice, but it won't go away and it won't change history as it's documented on recordings. I'm sorry you can't hear anything special in Hank's sound, but it doesn't mean it isn't there.
With respect, can we leave it at that and hear what others think when they have listened to the real thing , rather than being told by yourself, after all it's only your opinion as opposed to facts. I have experienced from past dealings that you hate listening to records, but it's the only way to go if you want to spout off about the sound. Please take my advice and listen for once, I promise it's worth the while.

[Twangaway]

It is certainly true that the wheel was not designed to actually touch the heads, I promise. They were, in fact, positioned a hair's breadth away from the drum so that they didn't actually touch it, but so they were still close enough for the magetic oxide to be read.

I have serious doubts about that, you can see on close-up pics that on the Meazzi, heads are on hinged arms pushed against the drum by wire springs.



If there had been no contact between heads and drum, there would not have been the oxide wear problem...
BTW, keeping "an hair's breadth away" between heads and drum wouls be very difficult with drum dilatation (remember, theses are valve units, getting rather hot inside).
In the early days of computers, magnetic drum memory units were used, but quicly dropped because of this problem. They were replaced by discs, with the heads actually floating "an hair's breadth away" from the disc surface thanks to an air film.

Didier

Didier, is that a Meazzi Drum Photo ? Never seen one before. I have to agree with you regarding the springs and also the variant spring used in the Binson Design. I think Amanda could easily confirm you wrong Justin, as the heads need to touch the surface, and I believe it's a myth believing they do not touch the surface. Electronically it doesn't make sense and you simply have to make contact to read the data.

I wish people would not get personal on this site, as Dave seems to suggest sour grapes as to anyone that may have more knowledge than he has put forward over the years. The world doesn't evolve around any one individual Dave and a hint of arrogance can be detected even if meant in jest, no offence intended. I sympathise Justin. Could it be Dave is actually Jealous of your superior playing skills IMHO amply proven and now enhanced by that prized possession bringing you closer to the real McCoy sound that only personally playing through such a unit can confirm as being exquisite. It's like trying to comment on the Sound of a Fender Strat,when all you may have is a Hofner Galaxy so the sound is in the ear of the beholder Dave, and no-one should challenge that with such an absurd remark. Sorry to be blunt, but the ill feeling shown to Justin on a number of occasions is simply not fair to this bright young man, one of the stars here like yourself Could it be that for all your experimentation and testing which we welcomed and appreciated, and the absurd amounts of money you spent was all in vain, with such an obvious oversight of getting hold of a Meazzi yourself

Twangaway


Twangaway
The drum does look similar to a Binson, so perhaps Binson took the idea and perfected it ? who knows. LOL

[dave robinson]

Forgot to mention, I really would value the opinion of members regarding what I said about those early pre-Meazzi recordings. Is the sound there or not? Or am I the only one who hears it?

[Twangaway]

[quote="dave robinson"]Forgot to mention, I really would value the opinion of members regarding what I said about those early pre-Meazzi recordings. Is the sound there or not? Or am I the only one who hears it? [/quote


Dave I will have a listen to the early stuff again. I have to agree on one thing that the unmistakable character and style of Hank's guitar playing was very much evident back then especially on Fall in Love with you, where it wasn't as raw. So whatever guitar, echo or reverb, it was clearly Hank's magic touch and those fingers that made the difference a little like his personal technique of the tremolo arm. 90% of folks can't even get close to Hanks way of using it, then there is his picking style, and then his fingering style and that is before we ever consider the effect of a Meazzi

Twangaway

[OLDEREK]

I'm am not sideing with anybodys views on here , these are my own thoughts ....

Justin if you could play and stand at the back of a hall at the same time and listen to yourself you may change your mind about `That Sound` stood in front of a amp on stage is nowhere the same sound the further you get away from it...........I'm sure most people could not tell what echo, what patch, what machine are being used from a distance...........Justin you are a great player no matter what gear you use, just get on and enjoy the fact you have reached a standard in your playing most of us will never reach, so to a lot of us going on about `That sound` becomes unimportant.
I must be lucky because I don't crave for That sound, I'm just happy to play well regardless of what echo macine I'm plugged into.............After all , 'it's supposed to be fun..............

[ecca]

Livin lovin doll is unmistakeably Hank, I love it and listen to Jet's bass as well !
Was that the Guyatone ?