The ShadowMusic Web Community

Blimey! That's getting a bit 21st century high tech to analyse a 50 year old guitar sound! You'll be asking Hank for a DNA test next! Then trying to clone him...

Seriously, a simple practical cheap way of tweaking sounds is to try a graphic EQ- the more bands, the better.

I had a Jap transistor copy of a Mesa Boogie amp years ago- it had a built-in five band EQ, very useful for achieving most sounds and/or fine adjustment of tone.

Interesting thought..

I have some quite serious RTA equipment capable of some in depth real time analysis also have the EASE suite of analysis software.. (including their real time module and gateway)
However how do we get a good recording of HM on his own to see whats happening..
If you look at just the composite signal you will have all the band which makes analysis a little pointless.

Not sure I agree with just using an EQ... most EQ's by their very nature seem to be something of a sledgehammer (axe) approach where you really need a tack hammer (scalpel).
Perhaps a very modern parametric EQ with heaps of filters you could play with ??.
EQ's, IMHO, cut or boost too many frequencies per filter. ( unless, once again, you are lucky enough to have one of the software driven units that you can set a squillion filter channels on)..

But the real problem is its all opinion isn't it ?? The best piece of test equipment ( and I have considerable, due to my work) are "ears"... how many of us have calibration certificates for our ears ?..
Without that and knowing the exact response curve of said ears its kind of hard to get a level playing field.. Are any two ears the same... very subjective stuff here.

Can you get a level playing field... I don't think so, just look at the comments you see on various peoples playing here in the video / audio section..
In my work I can do a performance for a band, orchestra or performer and I will have people come up and say.... great sound and on the very same show have people say " oh a little bassy, or too many highs, too loud, too muffled... you should turn it up man ... and so on..
I look at my lighting tech and he looks so calm..... sound engineers are stressed I tell you !!!

In the end its what pleases you.....( and maybe the guy who is paying you) no expensive test equipment required for that. !!!

Cheers

Ray
NZ

roger bayliss wrote:Has anyone done any RTA analysis on That Sound to see if they can shape their sound to match the early sound by analysing the frequencies ?

Patrice Bastien did that ten years ago to design the first version of his PB Box...

Didier

Hello Ray I could not said it better myself.

Didier wrote:

roger bayliss wrote:Has anyone done any RTA analysis on That Sound to see if they can shape their sound to match the early sound by analysing the frequencies ?

Patrice Bastien did that ten years ago to design the first version of his PB Box...

Didier

Thanks for that Didier I had suspected it thats why I asked and I think the TVS team my well have done the same sort of thing. Another person I think who gets a very close sound is GeTab and I noticed he used a Beringher Ultra Curve which is basically a professional EQ unit with some other things like compression / limiting built in and it is capable of doing some RTA as well. It has 61 bands of EQ and 10 parametric bands amongst its capabilities.

Ray thanks for your thoughts it can be difficult to get the same sound from one room to the next and did you know there is equipment that can sort that for you ! A good sound engineer would know about that and sorting feedback issues etc.. EQ is part of it though ! The Ultra Curve has these capabilities.

Cockroach I have got some Graphic EQs but unfortunately they do not work as well as hoped they do not target the relevant frequencies as good as say a parametric can and the Ultra Curve actually has a way of making the GEQ behave like a PEQ . Like you say the more bands the better.

This is why I think if we could isolate HBM from an early recording and look at the signal in RTA and find the frequencies we could then match them using something like the Ultra Curve which is fairy priced as low as around £210 on internet. Like I said I think this is the way someone like GeTab has got the sound close to HBM.

What's the best way to extract Hank from the record ? is it to remove him first with some software, then save the file with him removed then say load the original and the file with Hank removed and do a sort of signal combining of the 2 tracks to leave HBMs signal (as best as could) Then if we got it we could analyse in the RTA software and match frequencies using something like the Ultra Curve ?

I know you could use your ears and tweek the EQ listening to the original too but doing RTA would confirm the frequencies cut/boosted in the original recording ?

HI Roger..

Don't quite follow your thoughts here..

Ray thanks for your thoughts it can be difficult to get the same sound from one room to the next and did you know there is equipment that can sort that for you ! A good sound engineer would know about that and sorting feedback issues etc.. EQ is part of it though ! The Ultra Curve has these capabilities.

I am not sure if your comment above is meant as a snide comment or not.. " a good engineer would know about that"...
I may not be understanding your message correctly.

Yes, I am aware of many different pieces of equipment and software that can perform all sorts of tricks.. ( I have lots at my disposal) after all it is what I do for a living for about 50-60 hours a week.
I am surrounded by approximately a million dollars worth of sound & electronics gear every day at work. Have been an electronics and sound engineer for about fourty years now so do have a small exposure to the subject...

My point in my original reply was that, it isn't as easy as you may think to get accurate results. It could be difficult to accurately "isolate" HBM without destroying some of the actual information that we want and need to do an accurate analysis on, is one of my points. The only way to do this, I would have thought, is to use the odd parts of tunes where he is the "solo" guy (with absolutely no backing) or get a copy of the original lead track ( I assume very unlikely today).

Assuming you can, my second point was that, a "normal" EQ, say 1/3rd Octave rack box is such a "blunt" instrument that there are far better tools today. I fully agree, EQ's will be with us for many years to come and are a useful tool as such but are slowly fading to a secondary role in today's professional world.

I would be quite happy to do an analysis as best I could, if I could get a very good copy un-doctored if that's what we want to do. The first problem lies in getting that original ( without it being doctored in anyway at all).

If you mess in anyway with the original sound you want to emulate and analyse then you will not get a good result. "that sound" is not just made up of the primary frequencies but of many harmonics and interrelated frequencies that make up the composite signal that is the desired sound. Mess with that and you don't have 'the sound" you are looking for.
I am not saying it can't be done but may prove very difficult and time consuming to get a reasonable result. Probably very well worth while if you intend to produce an expensive piece of gear for sale.

Hence why in my first reply I said use your ears... satisfy yourself, because no one else is going to agree with you most likely as we all hear things differently.
I look at all the comments here and on other sites about HBM and his sound and the less than complimentary, at times, comments about the man's own current sound compared to the old days..
Personally I like some of his new sound, I thoroughly enjoyed the sound he and Bruce had during their recent NZ tour (blasphemy !!!)
If he is happy with his current sound and yet we want his "old vintage" sound.... mmmmmmmmm what does that say..... ears man !! they are different that a fact..!!! and things evolve and change that's inevitable, even HBM.

Interesting subject.... but a very subjective one..

Cheers

Ray
NZ

roger bayliss wrote:

Didier wrote:

roger bayliss wrote:Has anyone done any RTA analysis on That Sound to see if they can shape their sound to match the early sound by analysing the frequencies ?

Patrice Bastien did that ten years ago to design the first version of his PB Box...

Didier

Thanks for that Didier I had suspected it thats why I asked and I think the TVS team my well have done the same sort of thing. Another person I think who gets a very close sound is GeTab and I noticed he used a Beringher Ultra Curve which is basically a professional EQ unit with some other things like compression / limiting built in and it is capable of doing some RTA as well. It has 61 bands of EQ and 10 parametric bands amongst its capabilities.

Paul Rossiter, who developped the TVS, certainly did more recently the same as Patrice Bastien.

Getab (Gérard Tabis) worked with Patrice for the early development of the PB box, later he used many other devices for a closer emulation of the Meazzi sound.

Didier

Which (That sound)?

HI Roger,

If you visit the Italian site http://shadowsitalia.multiply.com/ you can see an interesting interview with the Swedish guitarist Ronnie Gustavson where he explains his sound and shows how it gets it using a graphic 10 bands EQ. You can see his settings and experiment with yours.