Apache minus Bruce - discussion topic

[rogera]

Martyn I carried out the work and modifications on the Meazzi that you spoke of and I assure you that the head spacings are derived from the delay timings involved in the EFTP patches.
As I'm sure you know Charlie carried out a great deal of work to calculate original echo delays and from the investigations that I've done I'm sure that he is correct.

[Lee Restarick]

Marvellous track, thanks for posting. It is amazing to me how just removing Bruce's part makes other parts stand out, especially as it was dynamically recorded so well originally. I thought all the instruments were extremely clear before I heard this track. It was actually very nice for me personally to hear those bass parts, yes even the mistake at 36s. Makes it all the more interesting because I've never noticed it before.

[JimN]

When Apache was new ... I would bet that most people listened to it in Mono.

That is certainly correct. The stereo version wasn't released in the UK until 1971, and not all that much earlier in Europe.

JN

[Uncleboko]

But you are disecting this in a way that was probably never meant to happen I suppose. Many thanks for posting this version as it will give me hours of fun on my multitrack. Is there any chance you could upload a wav or higher bitrate version to 4shared? That would be wonderful.

Actually I couldn't hear any mistakes - and if there are .....it's jazz

[Paul Childs]

Makes a nice UB Bruce backing track.

[Martyn]

Martyn I carried out the work and modifications on the Meazzi that you spoke of and I assure you that the head spacings are derived from the delay timings involved in the EFTP patches.
As I'm sure you know Charlie carried out a great deal of work to calculate original echo delays and from the investigations that I've done I'm sure that he is correct.

Hi Roger,
I confess that even without Bruce's guitar, it's still tricky for me to isolate Hank's echo repeats enough in my head to establish precisely what I'm hearing, which is why I posed the question really. It's just a suspicion nagging at me and although I've slowed down the track to hear the repeats more precisely, even after doing this I'm still unsure.
Charlie and I have discussed this specific tune at length and do occasionally revisit the subject. I've always had a nagging feeling that the emphasis or volume of the individual repeats on the original recording varied slightly in intensity from those I hear on my Magicstomp or previously owned Q2 - it's difficult to put into words but when Justin demonstrated his unit's Apache echo I thought he said its repeats differed subtly from his own M/stomp's EFTP version, but I could be wrong with this recollection, which is how this subject came about again and I wondered if maybe he'd modified his echo settings to his own specification, rather than use Charlie's.
Is it possible for the user to alter the spacings, timings and intensity or volume of each repeat on a Meazzi, unlike the M/stomp whose patches are essentially hardwired and not tweakable other than perhaps overall volume, tone or quantity of repeats? As you know, my technical knowledge is quite limited but I am trying to learn as I go along.

Regards,
Martyn

[Martyn]

Is there any chance you could upload a wav or higher bitrate version to 4shared? That would be wonderful.

That's the only file I have - don't have the original .wav file it was probably compressed from.

regards,
Martyn

[rogera]

Martyn it is possible to alter head spacings and alter individual head volumes but neither of these adjustments are easy or straightforward.
Altering head spacing involves mechanical work and changing head volume requires modifying the circuitry.

[Martyn]

Martyn it is possible to alter head spacings and alter individual head volumes but neither of these adjustments are easy or straightforward.
Altering head spacing involves mechanical work and changing head volume requires modifying the circuitry.

Hi Roger,
Thanks for the information - I did wonder as I've often seen Justin making adjustments in between playing tunes and wondered if he was simply changing 'patch' for the next one. Does the unit have patches or presets as such or is that just a modern term for pre-made settings on digital units?

It's interesting what Jim says regarding his various units owned over the years. I found with the M/stomp 'Apache' patch that the echoes trip over themselves in the gallop part and that's not what I'm hearing on the original. The end result sounds like a much more complex echo as the repeats and struck notes start to trip over one another and multiply - and I think this isn't correct. Here's a quick example of the repeats and then the gallop on my Magicstomp with Patch u01:

http://www.4shared.com/audio/LHrgU84a/Echo.html?

On the original recording I think I'm hearing the struck note, then the first repeat notably quieter than the struck note (rather than the same volume on the Stomp) with the second repeat slightly louder than the first and finally the last one as quiet as the first but almost instantly following the second one. I don't know if any of this is making sense or is even useful to ponder so maybe I just need to get out more . . .

Regards,
Martyn

[rogera]

Hello Martyn
After listening to the pattern from your Magicstomp the delays sound correct but the volume of the first repeat seems rather too high to my ears.
I think that is what is causing your concern.
I'm not familiar with the Magicstomp and so can't advise whether this could be changed.
Charlie is the person to speak to.

There is no such thing as a 'patch' with tape echoes. The controls consist of head selector switches, an echo volume control, a regen control (which sets how many times the echo pattern will repeat) and in the case of the Meazzi that you mentioned there is a motor speed control.