Your opinion would be valued...

[roger bayliss]

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

My source is the TVS site article on amps used by the Shadows Justin and I tend to agree with it.

Even HBM himself has said you would be surprised of how many of the early stuff were recorded on the AC30/6 TB. The issue really is the studio and EQ where the sound gets altered and it is difficult to tell. Peace Pipe I have recorded it on ef86 and TB channels and to my ears it is the TB channel that wins. The honky and sound on the Savage would be down to adjusting mid range with EQ but it is true the AC30/4 has more mid range.

The Burns era used a later amp setting than the post AC30/4 sound which was bass up full and treble till it starts to bite around 70%ish and that is where the nasal Burns era sound came from and this setting was used for some pre Burns such as Foot Tapper, Dance On.

In short the studio changes the lower and upper mids as well as the bass and high end and makes you think you hear a certain amp sound and lower mid range honk is emphasised at times which tends to sound a bit more like the earlier sound. You think you hear the honkier AC30/4 but the EQ is making the AC30/6 honk as well !

The one thing that is difficult to copy is the fullness and plummyness for want of a better expression that Abbey Rd's gear gave the sound. That is difficult to replicate with home studios for sure.

[KurtFroberg]

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.

I have long felt it might be a piano playing along the intro of Shazam! In the 1963 studio version. Maybe Norrie or Hank?

[rogera]

This has been a very interesting thread to follow even though it has wandered off subject.

If a Meazzi Echomatic model 2 were to come onto the market it would of course be difficult to guess what anyone would be prepared to pay for it.
The wording of Jim's original question asks for opinions on what such a unit might be worth having been restored to perfect working order, and I
am of the opinion that for any valve equipment that is over fifty years old restoration and testing would be essential.

One member has said that they would "pay far more for a working echo in original condition, complete with some cosmetic damage than a sparkling,
pristine one that, due to being refinished, looks like it has just come from the factory". The thing to bear in mind is that the 'sound' that many of
us like so much was achieved with equipment that was new at the time and in tip top condition.

I know after repairing, restoring and modifying numerous old echo units including Meazzi, Selmer, Vox, Binson, Schaller, Dynacord, Echolette,
Watkins and Roland that many of the components used in the early sixties will have deteriorated to an extent that would seriously affect the sound
and for that reason it's not reasonable to expect one in original condition to work as it should.

[JimN]

I have long felt it might be a piano playing along the intro of Shazam! In the 1963 studio version. Maybe Norrie or Hank?

There's definitely a piano in the rhythm on the studio version of Shazam!.

[Iain Purdon]

Absolutely and if we'd had a piano player at ShadowsFix we'd have done the same, because you can't replicate the sound of that record without it.

Ditto Flingel Bunt

[MeBHank]

My source is the TVS site article on amps used by the Shadows Justin and I tend to agree with it.

Even HBM himself has said you would be surprised of how many of the early stuff were recorded on the AC30/6 TB. The issue really is the studio and EQ where the sound gets altered and it is difficult to tell. Peace Pipe I have recorded it on ef86 and TB channels and to my ears it is the TB channel that wins. The honky and sound on the Savage would be down to adjusting mid range with EQ but it is true the AC30/4 has more mid range.

The Burns era used a later amp setting than the post AC30/4 sound which was bass up full and treble till it starts to bite around 70%ish and that is where the nasal Burns era sound came from and this setting was used for some pre Burns such as Foot Tapper, Dance On.

In short the studio changes the lower and upper mids as well as the bass and high end and makes you think you hear a certain amp sound and lower mid range honk is emphasised at times which tends to sound a bit more like the earlier sound. You think you hear the honkier AC30/4 but the EQ is making the AC30/6 honk as well !

The one thing that is difficult to copy is the fullness and plummyness for want of a better expression that Abbey Rd's gear gave the sound. That is difficult to replicate with home studios for sure.

I'm not convinced. The Top Boost can't provide the "plummy" quality, or "bounce" to the sound that the EF86 can. Remember that the AC34 (the TV-front version that the Shads used; they never actually used AC30/4s, which were the later split-front type) was the third Vox circuit, which adds more depth to the sound than a modern equivalent such as a Heritage. Anyway, I'm going to play with the settings on my Top Boost AC30/6 and see if I can get the same honky quality as I can with my third circuit AC15. The problem is the control of the middle, which can't be done with the Top Boost. The REDD.17 console also controlled top and bass, but again, not middle. As Abbey Road's website says, the desk provided "silky smooth EQ curves", suggesting subtlety, which would not change the overall character of the sound. Whether by accident or design, the desk added an arc which did slightly accentuate certain middle frequencies (my tests tell me it added more high mids than low mids), but not enough to change the character of the sound. Phil Kelly, Colin Pryce-Jones and Dave Robinson will tell you that the true sound of the early records, including just about all the tracks recorded in 1961, seemed unachievable until they tried the EF86, which they all first tried after Roger Allcock designed his excellent "Vintage Unit". Roger's pre-amp can't quite emulate the third circuit entirely, but it completely transforms the sound and gets you 95% of the way there. In my opinion, after spending an extended time testing a Heritage amp, an AC30 fitted with Roger's Vintage Unit gets you closer to the recorded sound than a Heritage.

I'll let you know what I find out after experimenting with the Top Boost AC30.

This has been a very interesting thread to follow even though it has wandered off subject.

If a Meazzi Echomatic model 2 were to come onto the market it would of course be difficult to guess what anyone would be prepared to pay for it.
The wording of Jim's original question asks for opinions on what such a unit might be worth having been restored to perfect working order, and I
am of the opinion that for any valve equipment that is over fifty years old restoration and testing would be essential.

One member has said that they would "pay far more for a working echo in original condition, complete with some cosmetic damage than a sparkling,
pristine one that, due to being refinished, looks like it has just come from the factory". The thing to bear in mind is that the 'sound' that many of
us like so much was achieved with equipment that was new at the time and in tip top condition.

I know after repairing, restoring and modifying numerous old echo units including Meazzi, Selmer, Vox, Binson, Schaller, Dynacord, Echolette,
Watkins and Roland that many of the components used in the early sixties will have deteriorated to an extent that would seriously affect the sound
and for that reason it's not reasonable to expect one in original condition to work as it should.

Hi Roger (just for the record, I'd typed up the above reply to Roger B before I'd seen your comment).

I was really only talking about the cosmetic restoration required on old gear. I fully support whatever work is necessary to make sure all of the wonderful equipment we are privileged to use and own performs to its full potential. To keep something working properly is a duty of the custodian of any original equipment. To neglect to do so would mean not being true to the purpose of the item. But, as you and I have discussed before, it's a shame to lose the patina and character of something that's usable. Licorice has told me that if someone resprayed his well-worn 1960 Precision Bass it would lose much of its meaning to him, even though he has had it since new. I love that attitude. I like to keep things in tact if at all possible, especially cosmetically, but that's just me being my usual sentimental self. One side-effect, though, pertinent to this discussion, is that completely restoring something cosmetically, such as stripping and respraying a vintage Strat, lowers the monetary value significantly.

J

[roger bayliss]

Here is the TVS crew with their recordings note that Wonderful Land and Peace Pipe are on Top Boost circuits and mid range is boosted at times. They sound close enough Justin ?

[MeBHank]

Here is the TVS crew with their recordings note that Wonderful Land and Peace Pipe are on Top Boost circuits and mid range is boosted at times. They sound close enough Justin ?

They do sound very close, Roger. There are a couple of issues, though.

Firstly, Paul says they're using "the Top Boost channel of the AC15 clone". AC15s never had a Top Boost channel. If a Top Boost pre-amp has been added to a replica of a third circuit AC15 then the TVS team have used a channel that never existed in the sixties, resulting in a sound that never existed in the sixties. The Top Boost will colour the sound as intended, of course, but the third circuit will affect it, too, adding more middle than a Top Boost AC30/6 could provide. A standard non-Top Boost AC30/6 gives less mid-range than a third circuit Vox amp, so adding a pre-amp which only boosts treble and bass is only going to accentuate that lack of middle. All of this means the prior-to-EQ sound on the TVS video is different to Hank's, therefore affecting the EQ arcs that they subsequently had to create.

Secondly, given the facilities, it's not difficult to take a close sound and get it spot on with post-production, trying to match an already existing sound. Yes, the TVS team have a version of the core sound before adding their EQ, but I would aim to reach the final result from a different starting place.

Due to my age I came in late, but, as I said before, I know that introducing the EF86 immediately helped everyone on the "Grail Quest" to get far closer to the sounds they wanted. Included in the list of tunes which became far easier to emulate were Shadoogie, Peace Pipe, Wonderful Land and yet more from the post-April 1961 period when, according to the TVS site, Hank had moved on to the Top Boost. Well, he had, but only for live work, I believe. There were no ear-splitting volume levels in the studio and the screaming girls were nowhere to be seen. In Abbey Road Hank could retain the richness that had to be sacrificed for live work.

Lastly, the TVS guys freely admit their dates are largely based on TV footage, photographs and promotional material, which have no relation to individual recordings. Going solely by the sounds we hear, though, there's little-to-no change in tone between Blue Star and Shadoogie, which is when the suggested change occurred. I'd expect a noticeable difference to the sound: the AC34 and the Top Boost AC30/6 are worlds apart. The only real tonal differences I hear, though, are down to pickup selection and Hank's picking technique (which he did to suit the style of tune). During my time with the Foot Tappers I was accused by a couple of people of "listening with my eyes", which I was doing, I admit. I went away and put that right. The sounds themselves are what should be analysed, and any visual references from the same period need to be completely ignored unless dated photographs of specific recording sessions exist.

Wow, this is just like the old MSN site, isn't it?! I've missed this!

J

[Iain Purdon]

I haven't!

[MeBHank]

I haven't!

Awww, come on, Iain! This is my favourite sort of Shads-related discussion.