Your opinion would be valued...

[MeBHank]

There was no multitrack recording at that time, so there was little possibilities to remaster Hank' guitar sound separatly.

It's difficult to hear. I've always found it impossible to make the intro to Shazam! sound the same as Hank did without overdubbing. Maybe he found a way to make the bottom E string sound whilst simultaneously picking a higher string.

Hank's early echo units were rather noisy, so I would not be suprised if some treble and low bass cut were used on Hank's guitar sound to reduce noise. They had the Pultec EQ available at Abbey Road.

That's an interesting thought. There's very often a lot of bass rolled off the early records, so maybe some top was taken off, too (which was, I assume, the frequency the noise would have affected). The slight boost of the mid-range is what interests me most. Again, we'll never know whether it was intentional or not (maybe it was just the natural effect of the valves in the desk), but that extra bit of mid makes a big difference to the sound and makes it even warmer.

J

[roger bayliss]

The bass and top end roll off would be done with High pass and low pass filters in studio EQ and the Meazzi Pre amp also added to this roll off above and below around 1kHz.

This rolling off produces what is sometimes termed Mid Focus EQ in that it makes the mids more up front in the mix. Some low mids are probably added to thicken the sound again and some mids are often cut / boosted such as 500Hz and 800Hz with guitar and some others too depending.

[ecca]

It's difficult to hear. I've always found it impossible to make the intro to Shazam! sound the same as Hank did without overdubbing. Maybe he found a way to make the bottom E string sound whilst simultaneously picking a higher string.

If you pan the stereo you can hear another guitar doubling the intro.
It's not Bruce, who's playing acoustic.

[JimN]

It's difficult to hear. I've always found it impossible to make the intro to Shazam! sound the same as Hank did without overdubbing. Maybe he found a way to make the bottom E string sound whilst simultaneously picking a higher string.

If you pan the stereo you can hear another guitar doubling the intro.
It's not Bruce, who's playing acoustic.

That's the 1963 studio version, which will have had overdubs.

I feel sure that Justin meant the 1961 (or any later) live version.

[Didier]

The bass and top end roll off would be done with High pass and low pass filters in studio EQ and the Meazzi Pre amp also added to this roll off above and below around 1kHz.

As far as I know, the "direct sound" coming out of the Meazzi was rather linear, it's only the echoes which had a lot of cut, this because of a limited bandwidth in the recording/playback circuits.
These circuits were very crude, and didn't use the usual pre-emphasis (at recording) and de-emphasis (at playback) as usually done on analog tape recorders to extend bandwidth and improve signal to noise ratio (this is done on Binson echo units).

Didier

[Didier]

Also, Didier, at the Olympia you'd have heard the clarity of the Top Boost amp, not a sweet-sounding AC30/4 as he was using on the records at that time. I'll conjecture that Hank didn't use a Top Boost AC30 in the studio until 12th April 1962

In the book "The Shadows by Themselves" published in 1961, Hank is quoted saying about their AC30s : "My own has been especially sort of souped up like a car, to give a clearer, cleaner tone at high volumes. Bruce's amp is the same as mine, but without the extra booster as he doesn't need it."
So obviously Hank had a pre-production "Top Boost" model very early on, I don't know if he used it only on stage at this time.

Didier

[MeBHank]

That's the 1963 studio version, which will have had overdubs.

I feel sure that Justin meant the 1961 (or any later) live version.

That's right, Jim. I still can't quite tell. I've listened to it a lot and I'm sure there's a lower note being picked at the same time as a higher fretted note. It has echo, so it's not Bruce or Jet. There's either some studio trickery going on, or Hank had developed a clever way of playing that part of Shazam!, or my ears have started inventing sounds that aren't there.

These circuits were very crude

A very interesting comment. I have long held the opinion that the human ear is attracted to imperfection. A digital echo that perfectly reproduces the guitar signal, such as a Zoom RFX unit, sounds cold and far less pleasing to us than a crudely manufactured, wobbling, inconsistent sound as produced by a Meazzi. I always try to make sure my echo is set so that it is very slightly threatening to distort. It just sounds better.

I've decided that I don't actually play guitar. I play the sound (probably to my detriment, as anyone who's seen me play will likely tell you ).

In the book "The Shadows by Themselves" published in 1961, Hank is quoted saying about their AC30s : "My own has been especially sort of souped up like a car, to give a clearer, cleaner tone at high volumes. Bruce's amp is the same as mine, but without the extra booster as he doesn't need it."
So obviously Hank had a pre-production "Top Boost" model very early on, I don't know if he used it only on stage at this time.

My ears tell me that, though Hank was using a Top Boost amplifier on stage, it was quite some time before he took it into the studio. The earliest tunes on which I can detect the Top Boost circuit are Perfidia and South of the Border, both recorded on 12th April 1962. The recorded sounds made before this date are far more mellow, far sweeter, but it's a lot harder to determine any switch that may have occurred between the AC30/4 and the AC30/6 (that's if Hank ever used a standard, non-Top Boost AC30/6 in the studio).

We seem to have digressed from discussing the market value of a Model 2 echo (sorry Jim!), but this has turned into a fascinating and enlightening thread. Great fun.

J

[roger bayliss]

The bass and top end roll off would be done with High pass and low pass filters in studio EQ and the Meazzi Pre amp also added to this roll off above and below around 1kHz.

As far as I know, the "direct sound" coming out of the Meazzi was rather linear, it's only the echoes which had a lot of cut, this because of a limited bandwidth in the recording/playback circuits.
These circuits were very crude, and didn't use the usual pre-emphasis (at recording) and de-emphasis (at playback) as usually done on analog tape recorders to extend bandwidth and improve signal to noise ratio (this is done on Binson echo units).

Didier

There is a frequency response curve that supports the Bass/treble roll off on the Meazzi echos. I have a copy.

As far as the AC30/4 was concerned that was used on Kon Tiki to Blue Star and then they switched to AC30/6 with Hanks having the TB unit add on for Shadoogie onwards. Apache to Gonzales was the AC15 prior to them.

[MeBHank]

As far as the AC30/4 was concerned that was used on Kon Tiki to Blue Star and then they switched to AC30/6 with Hanks having the TB unit add on for Shadoogie onwards. Apache to Gonzales was the AC15 prior to them.

Where did you get that information, Roger? Has someone catalogued it somewhere? My ears tell me something very different. Shadoogie, Sleepwalk, Nivram, and My Resistance is Low were recorded using a Top Boost AC30? The Savage, Peace Pipe and Wonderful Land too? If that's correct, where's the characteristic deep bass the Top Boost provides, or, more importantly, all the "top" that's supposed to have been boosted? Those tunes were recorded with an EF86-equipped amp - I'd stake my own AC15 on it.

It's accepted by just about all respected guitarists I speak with that the amps used on stage and TV were not the same amps that were used in the studio. As we all know, audiences needed to hear the lead guitar above the rest of the band and so Dick Denney developed the Top Boost circuit to help Hank's sound cut through. It meant that his sweet lead guitar sound had to be sacrificed for live work, but listen to the live recordings that exist: the shows were energetic, sharp and gritty, and the sound matched the band's performance style. But the sounds being made at the same time in the studio were vastly different to those made on the road. For example, though fairly aggressive in style, Hank's honky amp sound on The Savage is a million miles away from the edgier live sound he was getting during the same period. Why would the group choose to abandon their famous rich quality of tone in the studio during that period? Recording was a setting in which Hank didn't need to cut through the rhythm section of the band, especially when recording slower pieces such as Sleepwalk and Peace Pipe. Hank's sound on the above-named records is still middly and mellow (yes, even on The Savage) with the necessary bark when required - words I would never associate with the sound of a Top Boost amp. Yes, the Shadows would eventually carry a Top Boost AC30/6 into Abbey Road, but a full year after recording Shadoogie.

The switch to the Top Boost amp made a much bigger difference to the sound than the change to Burns guitars, IMO, and its sound is far more easily detectable and identifiable. No other Vox amp sounds like a Top Boost, which is why I'm so surprised how someone's come to that conclusion.

J

[ecca]

Spring is nearly here, there's another echo that cocks your ears up.
Distorted more than most others.