MEAZZI Emulation

[Amanda]

Hi,

Justin Wrote:

"Regarding the steel wire on the Binsons, I am curious to know the difference to the sound compared to oxide. I have been told that even with a Meazzi circuit, an echo with a Binson style "wire bound" drum would sound different to one with oxide or tape. Amanda, once you've finished working on this Binson and have also completed the alterations to my drum echo I'd be very interested in conducting an A/B test."

It all depends on the difference in the BrH curves of tape versus steel wire, also different tape oxides have different BrH characteristics.

If you look at the pictures of the Vox / Sep echo on my site you can see the rubber ring, also the spring loaded
heads that press against the tape, if there were no rubber on them when they were made then they must have been
hellishly noisy and worn the heads out rapidly!

Amanda

[Amanda]

Right Here we go,

On record on a tape / cassette recorder / echo unit we insert filters
into the record path that emphasise the high frequencies more than the low
frequencies before recording on to tape.

On replay the reverse is done by the same amount which lowers the high frequencies
or de-emphasises them, this is done to improve the high frequency response of the system,
and also help with tape hiss reduction, which is of course high frequency.

As they say in a certain advert - Simples!

[Twangaway]

Ok Amanda,I'm sitting comfortably, please explain pre-emphasis and de-emphasis.
Des.

Binsons were more advanced IMHO compared to the Meazzi, but setting aside their own distinctive characteristic sound I am not surprised by their advanced innovative use of premphasis and de-emphasis on playback as stated By Amanda. That is the first time I have heard this, but in practise it makes for better signal to noise ratio. Everyone was aware of the poor frequency response of the old tape systems much due to low speed operation and early electronics would have been noisy, no to mention the obvious tape hiss.

These days design engineers carefully select components for low noise or higher fidelity. The renown Dolby system eg Dolby B were the original patented designs that employed the principle of pre-emphasis in encode ( record ) mode and de-emphasis ( playback ). So successful were the benefits that sound engineers in the days of tape machines, even the 2" type, always added extra presence to the signal eg from normal 12 o'clock ident on mixer EQ knob, which would have been flat response, they would advance maybe to 2,00 o'clock position. To the ear the signal would be too tinny, but on playback some of this exaggerated high end treble would be less shrill due to the tape circuitry etc and effects of a sound coming off the tape, and then the engineer would nudge the control to maybe an 11.00 position to tale back off the remaining tinniness. The net result is you should have a sound coming through the desk and off tape that sounds very close to the original sound before pre-emphasis, but much of the tape hiss has now been relegated to a less noticeable effect.

In the case of tape echo designs, if you didn't employ such a technique as each recording head dealt with the playback sound of the delayed echo it would be adding more and more noise and hiss to the echo regeneration process. So Meazzi must have done some other neat trick I suspect to minimise these side effects.

A well maintained Binson would give a click free signal ( no tape splice thud as with Copycats ) and the solidness of the magnetic wire would be common sense in design compared to a tape where oxide shedding was very much a problem in the early days of tape recorders and indeed echo tape units alike. I daresay that a Meazzi fitted with modern tape and biased accordingly would sound significantly better. But I doubt very much that the Meazzi owners of today have had their machines re biased to suit todays technology tapes. I heard that the Meazzi drum with rubber tyre then with tape somehow fitted over the rubber was so unreliable that Hank had many a catastrophic failure and finally gave up on the Meazzi in favour of the studio quality Binson's which were really in a Ferrari league of their own and took over where Meazzi left off. So there is much merit in having a modified Binson for the best of both worlds in design use for the benefit of the modern Hank guitarist. Hope my intervening explanation goes some way to explaining the question posed to Amanda.

Twangaway

[des mcneill]

Hi David,
Thanks for your insight in the Meazzi / Binson comparisons. The reason I raised the issue was because of my surprise re. the engineering shortcomings of a tape stretched over a rubber band over a wheel. The meazzi echos sound amazing but this system must be troublesome,- the Binson wheel is a much better engineering job. You made the comment re. a well maintained Binson and this is important,they need to be looked after and many of the ones I have heard over the years have suffered from careless handling.

Justin, I was at the Friday night and did hear your Meazzi. What type is Colin Price Jones using?

Amanda, Thank you for your explaination,it makes sense,but if this system was not used in the Meazzi how did they compensate?

Sorry for so many questions but an intriguing subject.

Des.

[Twangaway]

Hi David,
Thanks for your insight in the Meazzi / Binson comparisons. The reason I raised the issue was because of my surprise re. the engineering shortcomings of a tape stretched over a rubber band over a wheel. The meazzi echos sound amazing but this system must be troublesome,- the Binson wheel is a much better engineering job. You made the comment re. a well maintained Binson and this is important,they need to be looked after and many of the ones I have heard over the years have suffered from careless handling.

Justin, I was at the Friday night and did hear your Meazzi. What type is Colin Price Jones using?

Amanda, Thank you for your explaination,it makes sense,but if this system was not used in the Meazzi how did they compensate?

Sorry for so many questions but an intriguing subject.

Des.

Thanks Des, I have always believed the Binson far too delicate to be a gigging machine, and certainly not taking kindly to rough handling by the likes of roadies and stagehands, and all the vibrations of Transit van travelling up and down the A1 as would have been the case all those years ago. The truth is that it is amazing how the Meazzi drum version ever survived such conditions and speaks volumes why the tape looped models are still in use today. So what I would love to know, is what type of Meazzi did Hank use on the classic Hits drum or wheel model ( he definitely had ) and which recordings did that beast finally debut on. I have never found anywhere any details on which echo model was used on which recordings. Is their a defnitive accurate documentation of those earlier years up to Roland Space echo use ? I read a few years ago of a Meazzi drum echo surfacing and in the possession of a forum user undergoing a restoration on it. Has that excitement gone all quite or did it surface to be heard and admired ?

How does the Long Tom Vox differ in signal processing compared to a Meazzi, was it a licensed Meazzi type design, or independent Vox interpretation of the Meazzi circuitry, or was the head transport area the only likeness.

[MeBHank]

Oh dear, Des, you heard one of the worst sounds I've ever head live with my Meazzi. I was using a graphic equalizer which distorted that night and I didn't have time to correct (I've since ridden my backline of that gadget), and I selected the wrong speed setting for the echo! Anyway, excuses over! To answer your question, when he started using it on gigs, Colin's echo was indentical to mine as both units had been nursed to full fitness by Roger Allcock. I have since had further alterations made to the circuit of my Meazzi to suit my ear, so they are no longer identical, but still very similar. From the outside, our Meazzis look different as mine is an Echomatic whereas Colin's is a Factotum.

David, first of all I should mention that I think your knowledge regarding Binsons is excellent. Thank you for sharing it with us, I've learned a lot

Regarding Hank's units, the Meazzi that features on the earliest Shadows records is the Model F. Put simply, to recognize the Model F, listen for a quick slapback type echo, followed by two clearly defined repeats, giving the disjointed, quirky echo of Apache. This machine was used all the way up to Kon-Tiki, which seems to be one of the first tunes to feature the Model 2, or Echomatic 2. However, the Model F makes another appearance on record after the Model 2 had appeared, namely on The Frightened City which was recorded after Kon-Tiki(!). Apparently the Model J makes an appearance briefly, but it is extremely similar to the Model F in head spacings, and IMO it is hardly as significant a machine, seeing as it was used so little. I'm not even sure on which recordings it can be heard (the Model J was not used on any Shadows tunes, as far as I'm aware; just a smattering of Cliff's material). Only in the last few weeks have I been aware that Hank ever owned more than two Meazzis. The Model 2 was used heavily, though, and was a huge factor in creating some of the most delicate yet powerful sounds that Hank ever had. It gives a raindrop-like effect and sounds more fluent than the Model F. It is the Model 2 that you hear on Wonderful Land, as are all the records that have the same sort of rippling echo effect. When you change style slightly and play with a heavier, more deliberate touch, the same settings on the Model 2 (as used on WL) also provide the rhythmic, beating echoes that can be heard at the end of tunes such as The Savage and Kon-Tiki. In short, the difference between the two units in terms of head patterns is vast, so much so that for 95% of the time you can tell just by listening which echo machine is used on which tune. As a simple rule for recognizing which echo was used on which tunes just think: Apache pattern = Model F; Wonderful Land pattern = Model 2.

The drum Meazzi you have heard about is probably the one that is now owned by Alan Jackson. Work has been going on for years on this echo machine, although it seems from Amanda's comment that Alan's wait might be over before long. I'd be intrigued to hear it, as I want to hear how much of the strength of the echoes we hear on recordings was due to the studio compression. All TV clips of the Shads (ie: uncompressed) have extremely weak echo sounds. This makes me think that the best way to recreate the recorded sounds live is by using a tape Meazzi, as the clarity of echoes from a drum unit will be lost due to lack of compression. The only thing you'd not be able to absolutely recreate is the slight "honk" in frequency response that the drum echo gives. The presence of that "honk" is due to the way the heads read the drum surface: the two should never contact directly. This is opposed to the way a tape wipes across the heads on the units such as Phil and I own. I often wonder why Hank never switched to tape Meazzis. He would have achieved a far better sound live with a tape machine than he could have with a drum echo, and IMO they look far better.

You mention the Long Tom, David. Hank used a Long Tom in the studio - he is pictured with it - and it is likely it is the Long Tom that can be heard on The Rise and Fall of Flingel Bunt. I have owned the earlier MkII "Short Tom", and in comparison to the Meazzi it is much brighter. The Vox tape machines actively boost the top end significantly, whereas the Meazzis simply filters out some of the bass, not really boosting any frequencies in the dry signal. Dick designed the Vox tape machines to sidestep the problems that a drum Meazzi presented. He heavily based it on the Meazzi but the two brands were far from identical, and the Vox circuit lacked the depth that the Meazzi's gave.

Wow. Seeing as I'm not actually an amp or echo technician, I'm really an anorak, aren't I?!

J

[Didier]

The renown Dolby system eg Dolby B were the original patented designs that employed the principle of pre-emphasis in encode ( record ) mode and de-emphasis ( playback ).

Analog Dolby noise reduction systems, Dolby A, Dolby B, Dolby C and Dolby S are based on compression at recording and expansion at playback. Several clever tricks are used to avoid the usual shortcomings of compression/expansion.
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/zz-_ ... ystems.pdf

In the case of tape echo designs, if you didn't employ such a technique as each recording head dealt with the playback sound of the delayed echo it would be adding more and more noise and hiss to the echo regeneration process. So Meazzi must have done some other neat trick I suspect to minimise these side effects.

There are no neat treaks on Meazzi drum echo units to overcome the basic and crude design of their recording/playback circuits.
What makes the Meazzi sound specific comes from its defects...

Patrice's Meazzi clone reproduces these defects, including noise !

Didier

[Didier]

The Model 2 was used heavily, though, and was a huge factor in creating some of the most delicate yet powerful sounds that Hank ever had. It gives a raindrop-like effect and sounds more fluent than the Model F. It is the Model 2 that you hear on Wonderful Land, as are all the records that have the same sort of rippling echo effect.

Patrice's Meazzi clone is based on this model.

Didier

[Twangaway]

Thanks Justin, that is enlightening. I suppose the three different models are suggested by you as all the rubber wheeled or drum type ?, So would be nice if on Amanda's site we could eventually see a features comparison guide to the specs of each model side by side , and also of the tape versuons.

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 .

Am joking of course in case anyone is daft enough to believe that .

So any drum echo has to have perfect toleranced drum diameters to avoid all these issues. I guess the Meazzi drum echo was doomed from the start as a rubber wheel simply cannot be manufactured to the exacting tolerance as required and achieved successfully by Binson



Maybe the Binson has hearing aid style induction playing a part in transferring the signal to the drum, but isn't that also the correct term for describing tape head processes anyway ?

On the Meazzi, I believe the heads were in contact with the wheel/drum, and the eliptical nature of such a low engineered wheel was the real culprit why Hank had immense problems with the tape coming off or getting screwed up. We should remember that with tape systems there is no lubrication, The Binson achieves better design objectives by use of metal components and lubrication.

I look forward to the emerging detailed comparisons if ever practical in a table on the Meazzi site, as am really interested in this topic.

Twangaway

[Twangaway]

The renown Dolby system eg Dolby B were the original patented designs that employed the principle of pre-emphasis in encode ( record ) mode and de-emphasis ( playback ).

Analog Dolby noise reduction systems, Dolby A, Dolby B, Dolby C and Dolby S are based on compression at recording and expansion at playback. Several clever tricks are used to avoid the usual shortcomings of compression/expansion.
http://www.dolby.com/uploadedFiles/zz-_ ... ystems.pdf

Hi Didier, what you describe is only half the story, I only touched on the subject of the request ie Pre-emphasis and De emphasis discussion.
Dolby is a combination of all three elements and not as seemingly implied that pre emphasis and de emphasis was in some way mis describing Dolby as an understanding. Just needed to re clarify that and why i didn't wish to elaborate on the technical workings of Dolby as a sound reduction system as that was not the core subject here.

In the case of tape echo designs, if you didn't employ such a technique as each recording head dealt with the playback sound of the delayed echo it would be adding more and more noise and hiss to the echo regeneration process. So Meazzi must have done some other neat trick I suspect to minimise these side effects.

There are no neat treaks on Meazzi drum echo units to overcome the basic and crude design of their recording/playback circuits.
What makes the Meazzi sound specific comes from its defects...

Patrice's Meazzi clone reproduces these defects, including noise !

I am prone to agree with you on the lack of sophistication in their design circuitry, but somehow marvel at how clever they were at setting these up in the factory to get the right result we hear, as there are so many variables that could destroy the whole process if not set up correctly. So there must be many presets or trimmers to set volumes or voltages to allow sensible regeneration. Overall I believe their transport tape system looks a superb design.

Twangaway

Didier