Which eventide Harmonizer
Ian Thompson-Bell
one? I don't need 8 channels so the H8000 is out. The H7600 has oodles
of stuff and probably much more than I will ever need and it is not a
lot cheaper than the H8000. I don't need a sampler so the DSP7500 is
out, which basically leaves me with a choice between the DSP700 (at
about 2900GBP) and the Eclipse (at about 1600GBP). My basic needs are
for the reverbs and harmonizer facilities and the only real plus of the
DSP7000 seems to be the formant pitch shifters which the Eclipse lacks.
Given the material I record is 50s/60s R&R and pop I am inclined towards
the Eclipse which includes the classic harmonizer algorithms of those
days. Any views or experiences or indedd alternatives I should consider?
Cheers
Ian
Romeo Rondeau
Not to mean any disrespect, but if you are recording 50/60's r&r and
pop, why in the hell would you need a harmonizer?
Ian Thompson-Bell
Well, perhaps I should have said 50s/60s/70s - at least the early
harmonizers were there for the last decade.
Cheers
ian
Scott Dorsey
>> Not to mean any disrespect, but if you are recording 50/60's r&r and
>> pop, why in the hell would you need a harmonizer?
>
>Well, perhaps I should have said 50s/60s/70s - at least the early
>harmonizers were there for the last decade.
I don't remember the Eventide until the eighties, and then everybody
overused it until it became a cliche. Same with digital reverb systems.
--scott
Pilot of the Airwaves, here is my request....
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Romeo Rondeau
> Ian Thompson-Bell <ruffr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Not to mean any disrespect, but if you are recording 50/60's r&r and
>>> pop, why in the hell would you need a harmonizer?
>> Well, perhaps I should have said 50s/60s/70s - at least the early
>> harmonizers were there for the last decade.
>
> I don't remember the Eventide until the eighties, and then everybody
> overused it until it became a cliche. Same with digital reverb systems.
> --scott
>
> Pilot of the Airwaves, here is my request....
The first Eventide Harmonizer came out in the mid 70's. It wasn't until
the H3000 that it was totally abused, a crime that I'm guilty of as
well. :-)
![Dec [Cluskey]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXOIdicD27KLgvp612cXlqNm2cXRNukvx0eyr1XYcUrBeGQQfk=s40-c)
Dec [Cluskey]
> The first Eventide Harmonizer came out in the mid 70's. It wasn't until
> the H3000 that it was totally abused, a crime that I'm guilty of as
> well. :-)
Romeo
That comes as a shock!
I am sure I can remember using the unit as the Industry Standard for
ADT [Automatic Double Tracking] in the mid Sixties and then through
the seventies, Eighties. Perhaps Decca Studios in the UK [West
Hampstead, London] had a pre launch version ..... or it was on test?
Roy Wood etc. were all into that ADT thing. We used it for unisons
and harmonies.
Roy Wood then invented a unit which looked for all the world like a
turntable, about two inches high which had record and replay heads
on. By varying the speed ever so slightly and constantly it got a
very authentic double tracking sound ... that was at Keith Prowse
Studios in London, just off Bond Street. I should own up and say that
my band used it without his knowing ... but then again Moody Blues
used a phase shift pedal which I had built for my guitar ... first
ever! The designer [Mick Hinton responsible for the first Betamax
digital recording at Decca] left it in Decca Number One studio for me
to pick up ... the Moody Blues had a 'lock out' situation [probably
the first band to ever do that] and they found my pedal ... yep, all
over 'Threshold of a Dream'.
I play golf a lot with John Lodge [writer and bass player with the
band] .. so we laugh about those days.
Eventide? Yes, a mighty tool in the dim and distant past. They have
now outpriced themselves. If I remember rightly we had the left side
of the stereo chorus/harmoniser .03% sharp and the left .03% flat ....
from memory, but I could be wrong.
I used the H3000 on a dance project about 15-20 years ago ... the
track had good success in the USA but the cost of hiring was
horrendous!
Dec [Cluskey]
Fletch
> Ian Thompson-Bell <ruffr...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Not to mean any disrespect, but if you are recording 50/60's r&r and
>>> pop, why in the hell would you need a harmonizer?
>> Well, perhaps I should have said 50s/60s/70s - at least the early
>> harmonizers were there for the last decade.
>
> I don't remember the Eventide until the eighties, and then everybody
> overused it until it became a cliche. Same with digital reverb systems.
> --scott
>
> Pilot of the Airwaves, here is my request....
My memory goes to 1979 when a friend brought one in to one of our band's
rehearsals. He owned a studio and it was a new toy. He hooked it up and
we sounded like Mickey Mouse. He couldn't get it to work right. They
were very sensitive back then...
--Fletch
Scott Dorsey
Wait, I thought it was SUPPOSED to make you sound like Mickey Mouse?
--scott
Romeo Rondeau
> On Mar 26, 3:43 am, Romeo Rondeau <evey...@ease.com> wrote:
>
>> The first Eventide Harmonizer came out in the mid 70's. It wasn't until
>> the H3000 that it was totally abused, a crime that I'm guilty of as
>> well. :-)
>
> Romeo
>
> That comes as a shock!
>
> I am sure I can remember using the unit as the Industry Standard for
> ADT [Automatic Double Tracking] in the mid Sixties and then through
> the seventies, Eighties. Perhaps Decca Studios in the UK [West
> Hampstead, London] had a pre launch version ..... or it was on test?
>
> Roy Wood etc. were all into that ADT thing. We used it for unisons
> and harmonies.
I think you smoked a little too much reefer, dude! :-) Eventide wasn't
even formed as a company until 1971. The first harmonizer was the 910,
it came out in 1975. The Harmonizer that most older guys remember was
the 949, which came out in 1977. ADT isn't the same thing as a
harmonizer anyway, it's really just a chorus unit. The first ADT
machines were tape machines with motors that had speed controls hooked
up to oscillators (like the one that the Beatles' engineer Ken Townshend
built for them in 1966). It more than likely you used something like
this. Another possibility is that you were using a BBD type device that
modulated delay time, like an analog chorus unit.
Ian Thompson-Bell
> On Mar 26, 3:43 am, Romeo Rondeau <evey...@ease.com> wrote:
>
>> The first Eventide Harmonizer came out in the mid 70's. It wasn't until
>> the H3000 that it was totally abused, a crime that I'm guilty of as
>> well. :-)
>
> Romeo
>
> That comes as a shock!
>
> I am sure I can remember using the unit as the Industry Standard for
> ADT [Automatic Double Tracking] in the mid Sixties and then through
> the seventies, Eighties. Perhaps Decca Studios in the UK [West
> Hampstead, London] had a pre launch version ..... or it was on test?
>
According to the eventide web site their first harmonizer came out in
the mid 70s. Prior to that they made the Instant Phazor and Instant
Flanger. They did not start as a business until 1970 so I doubt you
would have heard them in the 60s.
Cheers
Ian
Fletch
Yeah, he tried to tell us it was right, but we weren't convinced!
Now, I'm not so sure. ;)
--Fletch
david gourley
in...news:fseenm$1tpr$1...@energise.enta.net:
Right - IIRC, Richard Factor started that company and they had one of the
first digital delay lines. It was stepped and had very short delay
times. The Instant Phaser and Flanger were analog products, using all
pass filters and BBD devices, respectively. As the technology improved,
the Harmonizers(tm) started appearing. Even my 949 is a primitive bit-
slice design, using LM1496 sideband modulator chips.
david
jakdedert
My first memory of it was a late night in the studio--late 70's, IIRC.
Singer had just laid down his part...producer patched the Eventide
through the channel, asked him to come in to listen to the playback.
About halfway through the excellent take, producer furtively sneaks his
hand down to the harmonizer and just 'slightly' tweaks the track flat,
then slightly sharp, and back to 'even'. Vocalist gets a funny look on
his face...says nothing. A few seconds later, producer pulls the same
trick...vocalist starts to look worried; says something about maybe
another take. Nobody says anything...all feign concern. Producer
throws the knob to Mickey Mouse mode; and everybody in the control room
just rolls on the floor as it dawns on the singer that he's been had.
'How'd you do that?'
jak
Ty Ford
It got used more in the early digital days to time compress voice tracks for
commercials.
I did use it once to take a tempo wrinkle out of the intro of a Tom Larsen
tune we had recorded. The variation really didn't bother me until days after
the session. I unwrinkled it manually after may tries and then we edited the
new intro on to the song during mastering.
Most of the algorithms and many parameters made this sort of a "because we
can" box to me. Perhaps I was just not creative enough to figure out how to
use all of them.
It would be nice to hear what a true H3000 power user was able to do.
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU
Mogens V.
Since you seem not to need the full goodie bag of an Eventide and also
talk about price, I'll humbly suggest a Digitech TSR-24.
Sure, it's not an Eventide, but it's harmonizer and pitch effects are
pretty good. Reverbs are ok/good, though not Eventide or Lexicon class,
but combining multi taps with a bit reverb sounds just fine.
And you won't have trouble combining enough multi effects chains..
TSR's can be set to various line voltages, should you shop offworld.
--
Kind regards,
Mogens V.
Ian Thompson-Bell
I can't seem to find that model anywhere from European suppliers? is it
a current model?
Cheers
Ian
david correia
david gourley <davidg.no...@verizon.net> wrote:
I still have my early 80's 949. In fact I used it yesterday to
stereo-ize a mono keyboard sound. It sounded great. What a nice box to
have around.
I remember opening the lid in the mid 80's when it went down, to see if
I could find something obvious. I remember finding a mass of wiring,
like it was packed with spaghetti. I immediately put the screws back on
the lid and sent it back to the factory.
I have always been curious how they got it to work with the technology
of the day. Anyone care to describe it for a simple mind like me?
David Correia
www.Celebrationsound.com
DC
> I remember opening the lid in the mid 80's when it went down, to see if
> I could find something obvious. I remember finding a mass of wiring,
> like it was packed with spaghetti. I immediately put the screws back on
> the lid and sent it back to the factory.
>
> I have always been curious how they got it to work with the technology
> of the day. Anyone care to describe it for a simple mind like me?
There was something about buckets, I remember.
DC
>> My memory goes to 1979 when a friend brought one in to one of our band's
>> rehearsals. He owned a studio and it was a new toy. He hooked it up and
>> we sounded like Mickey Mouse. He couldn't get it to work right. They
>> were very sensitive back then...
>
> Wait, I thought it was SUPPOSED to make you sound like Mickey Mouse?
Or Todd Rundgren.
Ian Thompson-Bell
>
> I still have my early 80's 949. In fact I used it yesterday to
> stereo-ize a mono keyboard sound. It sounded great. What a nice box to
> have around.
>
> I remember opening the lid in the mid 80's when it went down, to see if
> I could find something obvious. I remember finding a mass of wiring,
> like it was packed with spaghetti. I immediately put the screws back on
> the lid and sent it back to the factory.
>
> I have always been curious how they got it to work with the technology
> of the day. Anyone care to describe it for a simple mind like me?
>
>
Well today we have powerful microprocessors and plenty of memory and
that's what you need for lush delays, reverbs and harmonizing. The
memory as a big digital delay line to hold the sound and the
microprocessor to decide what to put where in the memory and how and
when to take it out again and (number) crunch it up together to make a
nice sound. Even today's regular microprocessors are not really up to
the number crunching job but now we have special one's that are really
good at numbers called DSPs (digital signal processors). So today we use
DSPs and memory. Even so, today's DSps are very general purpose - thay
can be programmed to do almost anything based on a few basic functions
like adding subtracting multiplying and dividing.
Back in the 80s there were no powerful microprocessors and not much
memory so the Eventide solution was to make their own number crunching
chip that was hard wired to do *only* the math they needed and no more
and then they hooked it up to as much memory as they could get. Result,
something no-one had done before and equally important, something that
is still quite hard to do today even with the best general purpose DSP
chips.
HTH
Cheers
Ian
Les Cargill
> david correia wrote:
>>
>> I still have my early 80's 949. In fact I used it yesterday to
>> stereo-ize a mono keyboard sound. It sounded great. What a nice box to
>> have around.
>>
>> I remember opening the lid in the mid 80's when it went down, to see
>> if I could find something obvious. I remember finding a mass of
>> wiring, like it was packed with spaghetti. I immediately put the
>> screws back on the lid and sent it back to the factory.
>>
>> I have always been curious how they got it to work with the technology
>> of the day. Anyone care to describe it for a simple mind like me?
>>
>>
>
> Well today we have powerful microprocessors and plenty of memory and
> that's what you need for lush delays, reverbs and harmonizing. The
> memory as a big digital delay line
Multiple delay lines, really. Potentially thousands. For convolution
reverbs, each bit of the convolution signature acts as one delay line,
and they can be thousands of bytes longs.
> to hold the sound and the
> microprocessor to decide what to put where in the memory and how and
> when to take it out again and (number) crunch it up together to make a
> nice sound. Even today's regular microprocessors are not really up to
> the number crunching job but now we have special one's that are really
> good at numbers called DSPs (digital signal processors). So today we use
> DSPs and memory. Even so, today's DSps are very general purpose - thay
> can be programmed to do almost anything based on a few basic functions
> like adding subtracting multiplying and dividing.
>
> Back in the 80s there were no powerful microprocessors and not much
> memory so the Eventide solution was to make their own number crunching
> chip that was hard wired to do *only* the math they needed and no more
> and then they hooked it up to as much memory as they could get. Result,
> something no-one had done before and equally important, something that
> is still quite hard to do today even with the best general purpose DSP
> chips.
>
> HTH
>
> Cheers
>
> Ian
--
Les Cargill
delpr...@gmail.com
I cannot keep quite any longer. Hi everyone!
I worked for Richard Factor in 1975. I soldered the memory boards for
the 1745 M's and I saw the scematics on the drafting table. Guy had
thought that I might steal the Idea. I was a student at IAR. at the
time not a electronic engineer.
So, they came out in 1975.
Elaine
Mogens V.
> Mogens V. wrote:
>
>> Ian Thompson-Bell wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Since you seem not to need the full goodie bag of an Eventide and also
>> talk about price, I'll humbly suggest a Digitech TSR-24.
>> Sure, it's not an Eventide, but it's harmonizer and pitch effects are
>> pretty good. Reverbs are ok/good, though not Eventide or Lexicon
>> class, but combining multi taps with a bit reverb sounds just fine.
>> And you won't have trouble combining enough multi effects chains..
>> TSR's can be set to various line voltages, should you shop offworld.
>>
>
> I can't seem to find that model anywhere from European suppliers? is it
> a current model?
Nono, mid 90's, but don't let that bounce you off. It's often on evilbay
Colin Hill
> Since you seem not to need the full goodie bag of an Eventide and also
> talk about price, I'll humbly suggest a Digitech TSR-24.
I'll second that. Given it's age (first came out around 1994 IIRC), it's still a
very nice box. There are 2 things, though, I think you need to be aware of
before considering it an alternative:
1. There are different models: TSR-24 and TSR24S. The latter has more features.
Both can be upgraded with an additional RAM-Chip (PPC-200)for longer delays,
seamless program change etc. So, check carefully what you buy / bid for!
2. If I'm not completely mistaken NONE (!) of these models offer an
("intelligent") harmonizer - so it may not be the thing you are looking for!
HTH
Colin
Scott Dorsey
>
>I cannot keep quite any longer. Hi everyone!
>I worked for Richard Factor in 1975. I soldered the memory boards for
>the 1745 M's and I saw the scematics on the drafting table. Guy had
>thought that I might steal the Idea. I was a student at IAR. at the
>time not a electronic engineer.
>So, they came out in 1975.
Aha! So YOU'RE responsible for everyone sounding like Mickey Mouse for
the next decade!
--scott
Ian Thompson-Bell
Ah, that explains it. I'll check out the DArk Site.
Cheers
ian
david gourley
in...news:noemail-952A92...@comcast.dca.giganews.com:
The core of the unit basically uses sideband generators, which is more of
a radio design technique. If you listen to a single-sideband radio
broadcast slightly off-frequency, you'll immediately hear the artifact in
a raw form.
The rest of the circuit, outside of the A/D stuff, involves a quadrature
oscillator and 4 bit-slice processor design to handle the math. I'm sure
Scott could articulate this better than I could, though.
david
Mogens V.
>
>> Since you seem not to need the full goodie bag of an Eventide and also
>> talk about price, I'll humbly suggest a Digitech TSR-24.
>
>
> I'll second that. Given it's age (first came out around 1994 IIRC), it's
> still a very nice box. There are 2 things, though, I think you need to
> be aware of before considering it an alternative:
>
> 1. There are different models: TSR-24 and TSR24S. The latter has more
> features. Both can be upgraded with an additional RAM-Chip (PPC-200)for
> longer delays, seamless program change etc. So, check carefully what you
> buy / bid for!
To clarify: TSR-24 is the single DSP version, TSR-24S has dual DSP's.
Pretty hefty processing needs will be needed to require dual DSP's.
The most significant benefits with dual DSP's are ring-out and ramp-up
features. Yes, longer delays too (which may hardly be needed), and 5
secs sampling/looping (IRRC).
Ring-out means that whatever effects/sounds are already in memory will
continue till it's gone by natural death, when a new preset is loaded.
Ramp-up means that the new preset can gradually blend-in.
Either feature, or both combined, allow for some nice smooth transitions
when switching presets. Killer when using multitap delays et al..
WRT uprading a TSR-24, Digitech doesn't manufacture the PPC-200 or
PPC-210 modules, nor sell old stocks, nor answers any questions.
Dieter Wachter from chronotronix.com reverse-engineered the PPC-210, and
has produced them for some years, but as the it's not virtually
impossible to get the custom DSP processors, he has made the last
series, unless we find a miracle solution.
He originally made those for the GSP-2101 guitar processor. I was the
first to upgrade a TSR-24 with his modules, so we've had extensive
communication on this, plus I proofread install instructions et al..
As mentioned, unless ring-out/ramp-up and/or heavy processing is needed,
the standard TSR-24 is more than enough.
But do contact Dieter to obtain a kit to upgrade the control cpu speed
to 20Mhz and have v.2.00 firmware. It's a pretty cheap kit.
It's make preset switching bitchen fast plus allow a much more smooth
digital whammy.
Upgrading all electrolytic caps is recommended, as with most older gear.
If not, then at least in the powersupply section; make sure to use
hi-temp ones here, as this part is cooling wise a bit too sealed IMO.
> 2. If I'm not completely mistaken NONE (!) of these models offer an
> ("intelligent") harmonizer - so it may not be the thing you are looking
> for!
Correct, though I do find the harmonizing and pitch transposings works
amazingly well. Of cause, YMMV depending on needs.. ;)
For the low used prize, it's difficult to beat.
Ian Thompson-Bell
Thanks for the interesting detail. I am an electronic engineer so the
upgrade is no problem for me. I'll look out for one on Ebay.
Cheers
Ian
Colin Hill
Thanks for the in-depth info on the TSR24. I'm a bit confused about this, though:
> To clarify: TSR-24 is the single DSP version, TSR-24S has dual DSP's.
> Pretty hefty processing needs will be needed to require dual DSP's.
>
> The most significant benefits with dual DSP's are ring-out and ramp-up
> features. Yes, longer delays too (which may hardly be needed), and 5
> secs sampling/looping (IRRC).
I think for the seamless program changes, you need not only the S-Version of the
TSR24 but also the PPC-RAM upgrade.
I have a TSR24S (= dual DSP) but not the PPC upgrade, so 5 secs of
delay/(mono-)sampling but no seamless program change. :-(
> WRT uprading a TSR-24, Digitech doesn't manufacture the PPC-200 or
> PPC-210 modules, nor sell old stocks, nor answers any questions.
AFAIK, they've "outsourced" their "support" (for older products!?) to one (!)
guy. I did get an answer from him once (lucky me;-)) but can't find his
email-address, right now. Can sort it out for you, if you want me, though.
> For the low used prize, it's difficult to beat.
Agreed - still consider it among my all time best-buys!
Cheers,
Colin
Mogens V.
>
> Thanks for the in-depth info on the TSR24. I'm a bit confused about
> this, though:
>
>> To clarify: TSR-24 is the single DSP version, TSR-24S has dual DSP's.
>> Pretty hefty processing needs will be needed to require dual DSP's.
>>
>> The most significant benefits with dual DSP's are ring-out and ramp-up
>> features. Yes, longer delays too (which may hardly be needed), and 5
>> secs sampling/looping (IRRC).
>
>
> I think for the seamless program changes, you need not only the
> S-Version of the TSR24 but also the PPC-RAM upgrade.
> I have a TSR24S (= dual DSP) but not the PPC upgrade, so 5 secs of
> delay/(mono-)sampling but no seamless program change. :-(
Well, I don't know exactly how/what Digitech did it in those days. From
your comments it's possible the TSR-24S was build with dual DSP's and
meant to be ram upgradable.
Dieter's PPC-210 module is/was build with both the DSP and ram.
>> WRT uprading a TSR-24, Digitech doesn't manufacture the PPC-200 or
>> PPC-210 modules, nor sell old stocks, nor answers any questions.
>
>
> AFAIK, they've "outsourced" their "support" (for older products!?) to
> one (!) guy. I did get an answer from him once (lucky me;-)) but can't
> find his email-address, right now. Can sort it out for you, if you want
> me, though.
Dunno about this 'one guy'. I did see Dieter Wachter announcing his last
PPC-210 build on Digitech's forum sometime last year, so as they allow
this, we may be talking about the same person; dunno..
>> For the low used prize, it's difficult to beat.
>
>
> Agreed - still consider it among my all time best-buys!
Yup, my second one just cleared dk customs and should be here monday, so
I have the dual DSP one in my main rig and the other single DSP in my
future spare rig + I'll use this one with my home studio.
WillStG
> Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RZJ9MptZmU
Never had the patience, but on a record I worked on the arranger
flew the out of tune bits of the lead vocals out through an H3000 and
manually pitch shifted them back in tune onto another tape track. I
found that dreadfully boring and tedious.
I do still have a HM80 "Baby Harmonizer" on a shelf in my
garage... And now I see they're asking over $500 on Euro Ebay for the
puppies! Zow! And here I thought the $25 Eventide wants just for a
HM80 manual was kinda high...
WIll Miho
NY TV/Audio Post/Music/Live Sound Guy
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
Mogens V.
> Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I still have a 3000 with several program ROMs and the sampler.
>>
>>It got used more in the early digital days to time compress voice tracks for
>>commercials.
>>
>>I did use it once to take a tempo wrinkle out of the intro of a Tom Larsen
>>tune we had recorded. The variation really didn't bother me until days after
>>the session. I unwrinkled it manually after may tries and then we edited the
>>new intro on to the song during mastering.
>>
>>Most of the algorithms and many parameters made this sort of a "because we
>>can" box to me. Perhaps I was just not creative enough to figure out how to
>>use all of them.
>>
>>It would be nice to hear what a true H3000 power user was able to do.
>
>
> producer), as do David Evans ("The Edge" - U2) and Daniel Lanois.
Far more than what may be instantly reckonized use those or the 7500
series; they've just learned not to overdo the processing.
John Petrucci has two Eventides in his rack.
Can't find the info again, but I'm sure Lita Ford used Eventide quite
extensively on the semi-acoustic parts in Close My eyes Forever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy3fJ8Nmzyw
Chris from Salvatage used them for harmonizing effects. This clip,
though maybe not everyones cup'a'tea, shows a pretty common way of
extending a guitar's harmonc structure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKJHbKvwTeQ
Here's a very different view of creative use of an Eventide (one of the
Adadepot guys): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwoP_dExaOE
Dec [Cluskey]
wrote:
>> Chris from Salvatage used them for harmonizing effects. This clip,
> though maybe not everyones cup'a'tea, shows a pretty common way of
> extending a guitar's harmonc structure:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKJHbKvwTeQ
Mogens
<<<<<<<< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKJHbKvwTeQ>>>>>>>>>
That Salvatage track is pretty awesome.
Would you mind giving an 'in depth' on what he is using on the
Eventide and how he is using it. It sounds like straight double or
treble imaging but I am sure it is much more than that?
I am sure a lot of guitar guys and producers would love to hear about
what is going on in that track ... so clean, so tight. I know it's
the player who makes the excitement and the sound - but it's the extra
help that would fascinate us.
Dec [Cluskey]
Mogens V.
Wish I could, but I simply don't know about his settings.
Basically, to me it sounds kinda what I do with my TSR, which is
harmonizing combined with a non-obtrusive reverb (to create a 'big'
sound, but without sounding reverberated) and multipole chorous.
Different kinds of extended harmonic structure can be had depending on
whether chorous is before or after the harmonizing.
This is of cause just the basics; much more can be done, like using EQ
to avoid too much harmonizing smothering the low end while producing
this rich structure further up. Use the chorous sparingly.
Instead of reverb, or with a very minor reverb, the often used 20-30ms
delay on one channel can broaden the sound.
Whatever.. you're right, it's a great metal tone. I never listened to
them until quite resently, when mentioned on adadepot.com .
Fun how effects can either ruin or enhance a guitar. I never really
liked my (bridge) OBL 450XL, until I found the right presence settings
combined with kinda the same mentioned chorous/harmonizing effects.
Interestingly, it gives me a semilar tone, or at least effect, as Chris'
(IIR his name right; I believe he is no more).
Dec [Cluskey]
wrote:
> this rich structure further up. Use the chorous sparingly.
> Instead of reverb, or with a very minor reverb, the often used 20-30ms
> delay on one channel can broaden the sound.
> Mogens V.- Hide quoted text -
Yes, more than likely a case of 'suck it and see'.
The eventide has moved on a lot since the early days of being treated
as a useful ADT [Automatic Double Tracking] machine. From memory,
when we used it there was only a tuning setting available on each side
of the stereo .... so by setting one a tiny bit sharp [.03% comes to
mind for some reason] and the other side, similarly flat then we ended
up with a triple image .... and, I suppose by dropping out the middle
original image would get a good double image which was a favourite in
the Sixties, early Seventies. It was the perceived movement in the
tuning that impressed ... maybe that was chorus, although we did not
know what chorus was in those days.
I am still convinced we used one late Sixties.... even my brother has
confirmed that to me. Perhaps a test model at Decca?
Dec [Cluskey]