The ShadowMusic Web Community

I see only a disadvantage in using stereo heads - it would reduce the recorded area on the drum due to the gap between the two gaps on a stereo head. The two gaps are one above the other.

As far as how many heads to use, you will need one playback head per echo repeat. As Dave said for those of us trying to duplicate Hank's early echoes that will mean a minimum of four playback heads (plus of course the record head).

We'll call the stereo tracks A and B and the heads therefore having an A head and a B head.
1 recording head and 3 playback heads.
My initial thoughts were perhaps, take a first feedback from head 3 A and put it back via , lets' say , via recording head B and then pick it up from head 2 B... if you know what I mean.
I know very well that 4 are required and I'm aware of the possible quality issues but every Binson I've ever heard has been crap and although I used to hate it ( I've had 2 in my time ) on hearing it now it's great !
My thoughts are that 3 stereo heads may lead to a potential 6 head situation.

Have I gained any permutations ?.............

We need the site's heavy brains on this......

I'm just thinking out loud.

ecca wrote:I'm looking at getting some tape heads cheaply and started pondering as to whether there might be any advantage in using stereo heads. Both record and playback.

If you plan to use valve circuits, as on a Meazzi, you'll need heads with suitable high impedance, which might not be easy to source.

Didier

The stereo heads won't work Ecca as there needs to be space between each playback point to give the effect.
Dynacord tried having two record heads and three playback heads, which if spaced correctly should give the desired effect, but the one I had never could.

...I'm aware of the possible quality issues but every Binson I've ever heard has been crap and although I used to hate it ( I've had 2 in my time ) on hearing it now it's great !

The difference between Binson and Meazzi is that the Binson engineers went a long way to get more "HI-FI" so to speak - ie less distortion and wider dynamic range. Whereas Meazzi is more crude with potentially more distortion and certainly a more limited freq range. It's all in the circuit.

My thoughts are that 3 stereo heads may lead to a potential 6 head situation.

No, as pointed out by Dave and Roger. Think about it - you'll need one head at each time position, aprox 100 - 200 - 280 - 360 millisecs for the Echomatic 2 pattern. With 5 or 6 heads you can get the Echomatic 1 type echoes - but unfortunately you can't get both the Echomatic 1 and Echomatic 2 echoes (if that was what you are thinking) as the early heads are in different positions.

Valve spec heads are sourceable but expensive.

Erik

Ecca I see now what you were meaning by using 3 stereo playback heads and one stereo record head.

Using the method that you outlined I think that it would work OK although there will be some problems to overcome with the circuit design.

If I understand you correctly it would go something like this :-

Initial recording via track A of the record head, then use playback heads 1A, 2A, and 3A.
The playback signal from head 3A would also get routed back to track B of the rec head.

I guess that you might be able to use just one record amp although I can see a problem - At the initial recording the rec amp will have to feed only track A, but once you get to recording the playback signal from playback head 3A it will need to feed only track B of the rec head.

If you can get over that (or use two rec amps) then the idea could lead to some interesting possibilities.

What about - say- if the 3 playback head spacings were, just for the purposes of mathematics, 1=100msec, 2=150msec and 3= 200 msec. (Stereo heads )
1 stereo record head with tracks A and B
Record a signal using recording head A and then pick it up from playback head 2A putting it back to recording head B ( remember there's only one stereo recording head. ) This now has a delay of 150msec. Pick that up from head 3B and it now has a delay of 350msec.
Basic .......... or am I miles out. ?
2 recording amps......

Yes, if you use two record amps then it becomes a lot easier.

I'll start a new thread in case somebody starts sulking......

Back to the hypothetical stereo head situation ......
With a stereo recording head and tracks A and B and 3 stereo playback heads 1,2 and 3 set at 100, 150 and 200 msecs apart.

Record signal using head A , timings from heads 1A,2A and 3A then available being obviously 100, 150 and 200 msec.
Feedback sig. from head 1A to record head B, timings then available from heads 1B,2B and 3B are 200,250 and 300 msec.
Feedback sig from head 2A to record head B, timings then available are 250,300 and 350 msec.
Feedback sig from head 3A to record head B, timings then available are 300,350 and 400msec.

So.... without any more than that straightforward single bounce , 7 different patterns are available using 3 heads, with no mixing or generating complex patterns.

Moved from the "So, which echo is the best" thread.

....Record a signal using recording head A and then pick it up from playback head 2A putting it back to recording head B ( remember there's only one stereo recording head. ) This now has a delay of 150msec. Pick that up from head 3B and it now has a delay of 350msec.

Ahhh - I get it now (a bit late ). Interesting idea.
Is it possible to work out the "math" to get the serie A/B echoes at the right places for Echomatic echoes - needs further looking into.
I'm also wondering if the recorded A signal picked up from the drum and routed back to rec head B has degrades so much already that it will be noticeable/problematic.

From a building/circuit/cost perspective I think it might end up easier just to use mono heads the usual way (if you are going for the exact Mazzi Echomatic type echoes).

Give it a go Ecca

Erik