APACHE eTap2hw - HEAVY STRINGS

[cockroach]

Have a listen to the live Shadows version from the 1960 radio broadcast on the Let Me Tell You Baby It's Called Rock'n'Roll CD...similar guitar sound, but little or no echo at all...

Ironic....I suspect Hank never got that exact sound of the original recording again...

[Twang46]

Hank never really did try to get his recorded sound "live" or indeed in any of the re-recordings that he did.
He always seemed to me to be satisfied with getting a decent sound using the familiar strat/burns-echo-vox amp, system.
The one time to my knowledge when he did have a proper go at getting a more accurate "vintage" sound (on the "reunion tour") didn't work properly at the concert I attended.....

Have a listen to the live Shadows version from the 1960 radio broadcast on the Let Me Tell You Baby It's Called Rock'n'Roll CD...similar guitar sound, but little or no echo at all...

Ironic....I suspect Hank never got that exact sound of the original recording again...

[abstamaria]

Thank you, Paul.

I again sent one of the comparisons to friends, several of them serious or casual Shadows or Ventures fans, some singers, two pianists out of the conservatory, the odd jazz guitarist, and others just casually into music. About half of them about my age, the others very young, and a combination of male and female. I also asked my wife to listen on our large Mac with very good speakers. I have the comparison on my iPod and have been listening with an excellent pair of headphones, but I have this theory that 20-year-old or so females can distinguish better than 64-year-old guys. Females hear better generally according to studies, men's hearing abilities tend to drop off alarmingly as they age, and musicians have greater hearing loss than the average age fellow. (So all this may be academic to the average Shadows fan!) But I am curious.

I am happy that strings do make a difference, it seems from Dave's recording, although I know that is a hot issue here as well!

I'll report when the results are in, but it would be useful to hear from others.

Best to all,

Andy

[ecca]

What are you telling all these people to listen for ?
The 'best' echo ? the 'best' tone ? The 'best' playing? or what ?
I know what my wife would tell me to do........

[abstamaria]

I told them that 1 and 3 were original, and then asked which of brand A (2) and brand B (4) was closest to the original, playing particular attention to the echoes. My wife humors me in these strange undertakings. Ask your wife the same thing, Ecca. She might have the same opinion as my wife.

Andy

[AlanMcKillop]

Is it really that important? The demonstrations are about the capabilities of the eTap2hw, the parts of which cost circa £70, simples.

All this talk of getting the recorded sound, imho, really is a non starter. The add ons at the desk in Abbey Road had a massive influence on the final sound. The Shadows never even sounded like their own records, whether live in concert, on TV or on radio even during the 1959/60/61/62, the Meazzi period and even tracks recorded using the same combination of guitar, echo and amp sounded different.

The added studio effects can be clearly heard on the records, so take a listen through headphones to Dance On (listen to what the reverb is doing) and Midnight (listen to what the compressor is doing). A problem that Charlie Hall had some difficulty with, was getting the correct echo balance, simliar to the TVS guys with The Savage, that when you get the echo correct in the tune, the tails (or wap wap as it now seems to be called), isn't as pronounced. Bring out the echo level in the tails and the tune is too echoey. I am firmly of the view, that the fading cascading echoes in the likes of The Savage, Kon Tiki etc, were probably further compressed at the desk to bring out a dynamic effect at the end of the tunes as an enhancement.

A better objective (or goal) would be to achieve the sound that we heard live in concert, on TV and radio and there is plenty of good quality material that would enable such a comparison to be made. That being said, I think that both the eTap2hw and TVS both do that. To many, Hank's sound in the re-union tour was a disappointment, but why? It was a clearer, brighter sound and he hadn't produced anything similar since 1995, but it still lacked (for many) a more ambient echoey feel that we heard on the records.

PS It was Hank's choice to go down a route post 1995 that produced what was the most muddy sound he has ever produced, nothing to do with EFTP.

Anyway, enough said, these are just my thoughts on the matter and we are getting close to another thread being locked if we continue asking for comparisons between one unit and another. Enjoy what you have and the music you make.

[ecca]

Well said Al.

[dave robinson]

Here's what a set of Gibson 12/56 L5 strings do to the sound . . . . . . . todays re recording. I won't be adding anything else, I think we all get the picture.

APACHE with Gibson 12/56 strings same settings. http://www.4shared.com/mp3/ltCx9xur/APA ... ap2hw.html?

[Bojan]

Is it really that important? The demonstrations are about the capabilities of the eTap2hw, the parts of which cost circa £70, simples.

All this talk of getting the recorded sound, imho, really is a non starter. The add ons at the desk in Abbey Road had a massive influence on the final sound. The Shadows never even sounded like their own records, whether live in concert, on TV or on radio even during the 1959/60/61/62, the Meazzi period and even tracks recorded using the same combination of guitar, echo and amp sounded different.

The added studio effects can be clearly heard on the records, so take a listen through headphones to Dance On (listen to what the reverb is doing) and Midnight (listen to what the compressor is doing). A problem that Charlie Hall had some difficulty with, was getting the correct echo balance, simliar to the TVS guys with The Savage, that when you get the echo correct in the tune, the tails (or wap wap as it now seems to be called), isn't as pronounced. Bring out the echo level in the tails and the tune is too echoey. I am firmly of the view, that the fading cascading echoes in the likes of The Savage, Kon Tiki etc, were probably further compressed at the desk to bring out a dynamic effect at the end of the tunes as an enhancement.

A better objective (or goal) would be to achieve the sound that we heard live in concert, on TV and radio and there is plenty of good quality material that would enable such a comparison to be made. That being said, I think that both the eTap2hw and TVS both do that. To many, Hank's sound in the re-union tour was a disappointment, but why? It was a clearer, brighter sound and he hadn't produced anything similar since 1995, but it still lacked (for many) a more ambient echoey feel that we heard on the records.

PS It was Hank's choice to go down a route post 1995 that produced what was the most muddy sound he has ever produced, nothing to do with EFTP.

Anyway, enough said, these are just my thoughts on the matter and we are getting close to another thread being locked if we continue asking for comparisons between one unit and another. Enjoy what you have and the music you make.

Well said Alan. By the way, I think the official term is "wap wap wap" . . . (you missed a "wap")

[Bojan]

Here's what a set of Gibson 12/56 L5 strings do to the sound . . . . . . . todays re recording. I won't be adding anything else, I think we all get the picture.

APACHE with Gibson 12/56 strings same settings. http://www.4shared.com/mp3/ltCx9xur/APA ... ap2hw.html?

Dave, the sound is THE SOUND!!!

BTW, I have been using Gibson 12/56 L5 strings (former Sonomatics -- more or less) ever since they were recommended to me many years ago by our dear friend Roberto, who said that the Shadows had used Sonomatics throughout the entire early period. For me they are the best !!!

Cheers,
Bojan