APACHE eTap2hw - HEAVY STRINGS

[Twang46]

Well said Al.

+1 from me

[Twang46]

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?

Dick.

[abstamaria]

I'm sorry, fellows. I don't mean to sound argumentative. If the goal were to match the 1960 recorded sound of "Apache," I wanted to see which new recording did that. And whther people, listening to an A & b comparison, would generally come to the same conclusion.

We often speak of the "quest," which I have assumed to be to match the sound, maybe even the style, of the Shadows at Abbey Road. If one were to go through the many discussions on this and similar forums, one I think would come to believe that to be the goal. "How to get the Sound." The "Holy Grail." The fact that that the original, recorded sound is fixed and unchanging makes it a fine goal for hobbyists to aim for. When Piet was putting together the excellent eTap, That probably was his goal - to match Hank's echoes on those old records. And why Dave switched to fatter strings.

We've critiqued sound files and videos many times here, and I for one have learned a lot from that. The people who post those files usually encourage suggestions and accept them good naturedly. I'm in a number of hobbies, too, and think hobbyists do that all the time. But of course there is no room for personal insults, and I don't see any of that here. Reading the posts since mine, I wonder why the discussions so far would get this thread locked?

I appreciate your views and that your own goals might be different. I am also aware there is a huge price difference between the eTap and the TVS3 and a great part of me is rooting for the little guy here. The tiny Lotus 23 versus Ferrari and Porsche at the Nurburgring in was it 1962?

I would be interested in knowing how you assess the comparisons, if the goal were to match Hank's recorded echoes.

I am not connected with or trying to sell any of the products, etc. Just trying (without much success) to sound like Hank. If I offended anyone or touched a raw nerve, i apologize and please be assured I didn't mean to. Writing in a borrowed language is a treacherous thing, sometimes. And let me add that I value the opinions of those who have written after my post very highly; that is true and I say that sincerely. It wpuld be great to hear their view of the comparison, as Bojan did.

Best personal regards,

Andy

[dave robinson]

The problem with all of this has been highlighted by Alan McKillop in his post. The echo is in fact only a small part of the bigger picture, as there's the matter of studio EQ, reverb, reverb EQ, compression as well as microphone placement, all of which make an enormous difference in the final mix. I think I have illustrated here that the eTap2hw has the echo qualities in head accuracy, tone and nuances that were apparent in Hank's Meazzi machines. Piet has nailed those attributes spot on !
The key is in the tone and it's a case of trial and error in achieving the desired results.
A few tips for those who would like to have a go - I roll off a lot of bass and the extreme highs, slightly boosting around 850hz to 3k in and around that area that I call mid boost, there's a sweet spot that matches up with the sound of Hanks guitar and once you have that, the core sound is there to hear. Much depends on how much bass and high end you remove in comparison to how much mid boost you apply, not forgetting that you can move the mid boost either way, that is towards the bass end or towards the high end. The sweet spot is in there, that's how I did this. I compared with the Shadows track as much as possible until I felt it was close enough. The EQ on any added reverb makes a difference too, as does the manner of compression you choose to apply, it's all a matter of patience and listening and comparing. This isn't identical I know, but it's close enough for me and in practice does fool most people into thinking that it's the record they are hearing - at such an affordable price too, it'll do for me.

As an experiment and after hearing the dullness of Hank's strings on Apache, I saved these settings and made a recording of Apache using my Gibson ES137 that is at the moment fitted with 11/50 Flatwound strings and it sounds awfully close to the record, which reinforces my belief that it's in the tone, bearing in mind that this guitar is fitted with Humbuckers !

[abstamaria]

Sorry I haven't reported on my little survey, but I'm still in Hong Kong and only found time now to put this together.  I emailed Comparison 2 to about 15 people, mostly living where I reside, but a few abroad, with the following note: "Please suffer through this second test and respond to me.  Here a passage from a tune called Apache is played four times in this order:
1.      Original
2.      Brand A
3.      Original
4.      Brand B
Can you tell me which brand comes closest to the original?  I will appreciate it."

I also asked some staff at the office to take the test. All of them, as with some I emailed, were not guitarists and didn't really know the Shadows. As mentioned, I also asked my wife's opinion.                

Before I tell you the results, let me say that I believe some aspects aside from the echoes influenced the listeners’ perceptions, and Bojan already mentioned the backing tracks, giving an advantage to the TVS2.  There is also the mix,
Dave’s being lower in the total mix I believe than either the original or Gary’s.  

In addition, “sound” or tone and playing style have great impact.  Dave’s guitar sounds to me brighter (“more metallic” as one non-guitarist put it; my secretary said “mas matalas,” meaning “sharper”) than Hank’s.  Gary’s “sound” I think is closer to the original, and that is a consistent comment from those who responded. It is this difference that I think is the most prominent and placed Brand A (the eTap) again at a disadvantage in this comparison. I think Dave in his last email alludes to this problem.  

I think also that Gary’s style or interpretation is closer to Hank’s.  For instance, Dave’s has a nuance in the intro (Apache
Comparison at 7 seconds) that is very nice actually, but slightly different to my ears from Hank’s.  In Comparison 2, at 8 seconds, Dave introduces a note before the ultimate note (or is that an echo?).  Also, Dave has a more pronounced tremolo dip at 29 seconds, absent in the original.  This may be a lesson to me not to use that trem bar too much for the early pieces (Hank didn’t hold the bar then).  But I am aware I have poor ears and good imagination, so I will welcome any corrections.  I have to add that Dave I consider an excellent player and mean no disrespect to him, only that Gary seems to have made the effort to adhere more closely to the original recording, sacrificing his own personal style.  

All these may have influenced the vote of some, who simply wrote in or said that “Brand B is closer.”  

A professional guitarist in the US, whom I very much respect, added this comment “I'm surprised that with today's digital technology those two machines cannot match each other in terms of echo and tone.”  

Now, on the echoes.  Here I think that it’s the TVS2 that is more faithful to the original.  For instance, listen to the last note at 4 seconds in the original Shadows recording (Comparison2) and the prominent echo after.  Now listen to Dave’s version at 8 seconds; there is no perceptible echo.  Compare that to Gary’s version at 20 seconds; there is the echo, coming in at exactly the right time (to my ears) and with the right tone, albeit softer than the original.  A few who listened noted that independently, including my wife and also Anna, our bass guitarist.  You can listen to the echoes that preceded that final note and may discern other differences.  As usual, I am sure many of you will hear things I didn’t in both examples, and it would be great if you could point those out, so I can learn.

In this comparison, then, I think the recording by Gary with the TVS2 renders the more accurate reproduction of the original recording in sound, style, and echoes.  Sorry about that, Dave.  Others may have the opposite conclusion, and I respect that fully. 

The results of my survey?  This was a surprise to me.  About a third of those emailed did not respond or promised to reply later.  But all the responses, including those I solicited from staff, etc,, were unanimous in favor of Brand B - the TVS2.  As I said above, some were perhaps responding to the closer tone that Gary achieved or perhaps Dave's style. But at the moment, until a more controlled comparison (with the same player, amp, etc.) can be conducted, in this comparison of the two tracks submitted by Dave and Gary, I believe it is Gary's that is closest to Hank's 1960 recording.

At the very least, I think the comparison shows how unreliable memory is and how revealing an A and B test can be.

Dave, please don't take this as an indictment of your playing or the eTap.  If I could play as well as you, I would be in 7th heaven.  As mentioned by others, the two machines are in such different price ranges that they won't compete for the same market.  The eTap will continue to be tweaked and improved and in time indistinguishable from the original.  But it seems, to my ears and those surveyed, not yet at this time.  

I  do hope though that others will listen to the comparisons, whether or not they agree the recorded sound is the goal, or will try to get non-enthusiast friends to listen to it.  I would be curious about the results and what you think.  And if the analysis I made above is faulty, I would be very happy to be corrected.  This is just a hobby for me, and that is my only interest here.  I have nothing to gain or lose from the success of either product; in fact, I may be the only one on this forum who has not met any other member!    

Best,

Andy

[AlanMcKillop]

Andy, this thread is about the eTap2hw and it's capabilities, not the TVS and I don't know why you are persisting with these comparisons. If you (and others) think the TVS is better, buy one ............. I got an eTap2hw made by Ecca and I'm delighted full stop.

[dave robinson]

Andy, with respect you are talking a load of nonsense here with these pointless comparisons, my recording was made with a Fender Stratocaster with heavy strings through the eTap2hw into the Logic programme on my Mac, just to demonstrate that the string gauge makes a big difference in the voice of the lead guitar, thus making it closer to the desired original sound of Hank's guitar. I believe that this was proved and accepted.
If I was to be pedantic and go to the trouble that the TVS team went to, I know that we could obtain the same results. I play Apache this way every time I perform it and will not be changing any time soon, in fact I play most of the stuff we do in a similar manner, over two hundred gigs every year and so far no one has complained.
This is about the eTap2hw - nothing else. If it worries you or anyone else that it's a bit too close to the TVS then that's tough - I had the TVS3 and rejected it and was relieved to get my money back as it didn't sound anything special out of the box. You need to understand the TVS team have achieved those splendid results is by a lot of hard work recording and tweaking as they have gone along - what is it they say ? Give a monkey a pencil and he will eventually draw you a picture, it's all down to trial and error and a lot of patience. I'm delighted with where we are with the eTap2hw - I might even play it through my Vox AC30/4 one day, you should be careful what you wish for.

[abstamaria]

Alan, thanks. But the thread's premise is that the eTap recording is the closest reproduction of the original piece, and if you read the posts i think you will agree that is the assertion. So it would be logical then to do a compariso to see if that is so. I suppose the comparison could have been simply the eTap versus the original, and that would highlight I think the differences. The utility of then comparing the TVS with the original is that it may prove that, in fact, another recording can be closer. So it is relevant to the discussion. If someone had done a comparison with, for instance, the Q20 or the Amtech, that would be interesting too.

We discuss pickups objectively and compare them. I don't see the difference here, with due respect. You could for instance say that, to your ears, the eTap is closer to Hank's original recording in that comparison, and I would respect that.

I am glad you are happy with the eTap, and I would add that ultimately that is the important thing.

Best regards,

Andy

[abstamaria]

Dave, this is what you said -,quote="dave robinson"] I don't think I have ever heard an example of Apache as close to the original recording as this current one - I have compared it with the record and it's very close. I dare say that with a set of 13/56 Gibson Sonomatic strings played in for a week or two, it would be possible to achieve what we thought was impossible, but it's all in the tone of the echo and I certainly hear it on this. I stand corrected of course, as I'm sure I will be. Tin hat in place. :[/quote]

The comparisons do highlight differences, caused by the factors you mentioned, and it seems, for now, that what you posted is not the closest "to the original recording." But you could disagree with that and say that the comparisons show the eTap is closer, and that would be fine with me.

I would be happy if you put together a really good recording with an amp, etc., as I suggested before in all sincerity. If it illustrates the eTap is superior in matching the tone and echoes of the Meazzi, that would be exciting news for me, and I might build or buy one.

Don't take my comments badly, but you did say you had your tin hat on.

No disrespect intended, Dave.

Andy

[ecca]

Dave, dip your trem another 12 thou.......no, 13 thou at 23.6 seconds please and I'll ask my mother what she thinks.