What happened to the 'secret' pedal thread ?

[leadguy]

Real Echoplexes seem to be going up in value, the FET solid state EP-3 and EP-4 and the tube EP-1 and EP-2.

Better off grabbing a real Echoplex rather than go on a pedal that Ed has never been seen with wild goose chase.

The Echoplex preamps are ok but they are not Echoplexes.

There is tape delay all over Ed's early sound, so if someone hasn't got that then they are missing it.

A lot of Ed's signal is going through the tape heads and on and off the tape before it even gets to the amp.

Just the heads and tape alone affect tone.

There is also a very good chance that Ed had the compressor board EP-3's.

In fact I would lean to nearly a 100% chance myself from the release dates of the compressor board EP-3's and when Ed is seen with his new EP-3's.

In the early years, Ed is never without these particular EP-3 units that he bought in early 1977.

Of course don't forget all the other stuff as well, 12 series Plexi and variac, probably Blackbacks, overwound pickups etc etc.

There are really no accounts of Ed using a standard PAF because Ed (and Seymour) said that he got them rewound (by Seymour) so that really rules out the standard PAF.

There are also the high output ceramics, Mighty Mite, Seymour's Custom.

If Ed needed a signal boost, it would have been originating in his pickup output and not in some pedal that no one has seen Ed with.

I'm not ruling out the MXR EQ used as a boost or as a tone equalizer but if the pickups boost then not much more boost is really needed for Ed's gain level which isn't ultra gain but more like a cascaded amp level with a PAF but with sustain and presence, and a cascaded amp has one extra 12ax7 gain stage and by the time the pickups are overwound and the effects of his Phase and Echoplex (compressor board) are added up, then Ed can nearly make the gain of an extra 12ax7 stage cascade, but with different dynamics from a cascade.

Roughly

1: PAF->Echoplex->mid boost Plexi, falls short of Ed's gain IMO.

2: PAF->Echoplex->Cascade, just about hits it but the dynamics seem wrong IMO.

3: PAF->Pedal->Echoplex->mid boost Plexi, would just about hit it but the dynamics are different IMO plus the fact that Ed was never seen using a pedal.

4: PAF->MXR EQ->Echoplex->mid boost Plexi, would just about hit it and it would sound EQ'y, meaning that some frequencies would dominate others and 2 things highlighting the mids (the mid boost Plexi and the MXR EQ) just might be too much mids.

5: Overwound pickup->FET Echoplex->mid boost Plexi, just about hits it and the compressor board might be involved in Ed's gain/sustain as well.

Other combos such as overwound pickups into a pedal or MXR EQ are probably too much but Ed is apparently using overwound pickups with MXR EQ's live and Ed's live rig in 1978 was full of long cables to the Univox and Echoplexes and then the amps, so just long cables make a signal level and signal frequency difference and can lead to alterations in the setup of the rig as opposed to a shorter cable rig.

When Ed drops the Univox and starts going wireless, then the EQ's get dropped, no more cable problems.

So Ed and Seymour said overwound pickups and so 1,2,3 and 4 can really be relegated to not being that likely.

[wjamflan]

We've come a long way here LG. But...

If Ed needed a signal boost, it would have been originating in his pickup output and not in some pedal that no one has seen Ed with.

I'm not ruling out the MXR EQ used as a boost or as a tone equalizer but....

When Ed drops the Univox and starts going wireless, then the EQ's get dropped, no more cable problems.

This does not jibe with what Ed said himself in the 1/15/80 interview talking about the VHII tour. Just b/c you didn't see it in a picture does not mean it isn't happening. This isn't specualtion, he came right out and told us. Ed used eqs to boost his signal in 1979.

Jas Obrecht: Do you use wireless transmitters?

EVH: Yeah, I always do because I bounce around a lot. My first one was a Schaffer-Vega. It took me a long time to get it working right with my system because at the time my amps were so powerful that the thing was overdriven and wouldn't work. It was too much power. Then when I got weaker amps I could use it. If you use it with too high of an amp it will just freak out; you get the weirdest feedback noises you ever heard in your life. And then I got a Nasty Cordless. Now the Schaffer-Vega is tuned to a fixed frequency, and one of the advantages of the Nasty is you can dial in the frequency, just like a radio. The Schaffer-Vega has a built in compressor in the transmitter, which is kind of cool, depending on what amp you use it with. I think that the Nasty is weaker. Like with the Schaffer-Vega I'm always reaching at my knob, trying to get 11 out of it instead of 10. And with the Nasty, I'm reaching for 14, so I use an equalizer to boost it. But it is actually a cleaner sounding system. When we played the Budokan in Japan I couldn't use either one because there were heavy radio signals everywhere.

As I' said at the outset, we've come a long way from the complete denials, but I don't understand why there is this rush to dismiss Ed boosting his signal. Is it that threatening?

Furthermore, I still have not seen a reasonable explanation from the threatened "amp only" builders why Ed would carry and setup multiple eqs boosting different frequencies in his chain if he wasn't using them. They'll go out on a limb and say that he lied about using re-wound PAFs on record to fit their "theory", instead of dealing with what's right in front of their face. The most telling thing is that none of these folks is satisfied. They're still tweaking away, because in all honesty, they haven't nailed the right tone shape yet - no matter how impressive their playing chops are....

[leadguy]

The Schaffer-Vega has a built in compressor in the transmitter, which is kind of cool, depending on what amp you use it with. I think that the Nasty is weaker. Like with the Schaffer-Vega I'm always reaching at my knob, trying to get 11 out of it instead of 10. And with the Nasty, I'm reaching for 14, so I use an equalizer to boost it.

I think I just said as much in my previous post.

When some things change in gear setups then that might cause other changes.

If Ed is running the Univox and Echoplexes and amps on long leads live, to keep them out of the way, then some boosting and EQing on the cable lines might be necessary and it's what we all see in the photos.

I don't know that much about Ed when he went wireless, but wireless basically gets rid of the long cable problems but those earlier units might introduce other problems (I have an earlier one that I got from a dude that had hits around the world and how he used it I don't know because it sucks tonewise IMO) and from what I've read about Ed and the Schaffer (the Schaffer already had a boost), Ed ran a long cable from the receiver to the amps to try to tame the brittleness by using cable tone suck and from the above he seems to have used a EQ to boost the different Nady system.

All changes to compensate for other changes.

Setups can also change from show to show depending on the venue and how the venue pans out acoustics wise.

Ed's setups would have changed from venue to venue somewhat, number of amps on, how much cable compensation, Acoustic differences etc.

If someone has a setup that gets a sound they think is ok in their bedroom when they are on top of their amp and attenuated and then use that same setup at a venue then they might be surprised by what ends up happening to their ok bedroom tone.

What Ed did in the studio under different conditions, who knows.

Ed might not have used long cables in the studio, I don't know.

It's also interesting what Ed said about the compressor in the Schaffer in regards to the possibility that Ed's EP-3's might contain compressors.

The Schaffer-Vega has a built in compressor in the transmitter, which is kind of cool, depending on what amp you use it with

[wjamflan]

Understood. Changes in setup lead to changes in gear. What didn't change, was the fact that when Ed wanted a boost, he used an eq to do the boosting.

[MrBeasty]

About the Japan pictures. EVH had his wireless unit by the time they went to Japan on the first world tour. When we see pictures, Ed's signal goes from the Schaffer-Vegas (off-stage) to his board (front stage) back to the echoplexes (stage rear) to the amps. That's a lot of cables and one may want to EQ to compensate for some signal loss.

[wjamflan]

About the Japan pictures. EVH had his wireless unit by the time they went to Japan on the first world tour. When we see pictures, Ed's signal goes from the Schaffer-Vegas (off-stage) to his board (front stage) back to the echoplexes (stage rear) to the amps. That's a lot of cables and one may want to EQ to compensate for some signal loss.

Are you sure about that Beasty? The Day On The Green concert was after the Japan '78 tour and he was using cables.

[Good Guest]

You do pretty well with the C mod ...if it were meant for you to have the carrot dangler mod it would be disclosed if not by me by guess who?

plexivanhalen says he's figured it out too...maybe work on him...actually he is not the only one either ...get that old noggin

worken...

That's nice. Once again, kindly disclose. Thank you!

I'm here to share best practices, and you are too, otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned this in the first place, or repeatedly naysay other member's guesses. Share.

Just a reminder this was brought up as a backing proof to N***'s statement about the use of a box on VH1 as related to him by Jose..and that is why it was mentioned in the first place ...once again figure it out for yourself ..I'm going the colorsound route to leave no stone unturned...which by the way is originally an other members guess not nay saying anything..if anything I encourage guesses that to me sound like they are on the right track...and share my experience and knowledge about the same..Thank You

[fhn_lopes]

No one is taking in account that the early VH tones DOES NOT sound like the studio tones, by far... really far... You probably have listened to more clips and boots them me to prove this...
Remember hearing a clip from the VHI demos when "i'm the one" still called "show me your love"... it sounded NOTHING different from a cranked plexi with NO pedal in the front, plus, it had nearly half of the gain/compression of the studio tone... By the audio clipping, you can realize that amp was FU...ING LOUD (pre-variac maybe?)

Things change, he got into a studio and used some gear from it? Post recording compression/EQ also have to be considered... get a PROCESSED tone out of a RAW rig is not the way to go IMHO... You need to sound in your bedroom/stage like he did, and then record and process the tone as he did.... just a thought...

On the other hand, there's many different ways to nail it as some forum members did... DSDs, what so ever, cascaded and modded amps, blackbacks, etc.... Probably every single marshall sounds unique in certain way that you have to use the right gear for YOUR amp to get that tone... Maybe that's why David Br**Y listen to the amps he mod before actually modding them?....

[rgorke]

No one is taking in account that the early VH tones DOES NOT sound like the studio tones, by far... really far... You probably have listened to more clips and boots them me to prove this...
Remember hearing a clip from the VHI demos when "i'm the one" still called "show me your love"... it sounded NOTHING different from a cranked plexi with NO pedal in the front, plus, it had nearly half of the gain/compression of the studio tone... By the audio clipping, you can realize that amp was FU...ING LOUD (pre-variac maybe?)

Things change, he got into a studio and used some gear from it? Post recording compression/EQ also have to be considered... get a PROCESSED tone out of a RAW rig is not the way to go IMHO... You need to sound in your bedroom/stage like he did, and then record and process the tone as he did.... just a thought...

On the other hand, there's many different ways to nail it as some forum members did... DSDs, what so ever, cascaded and modded amps, blackbacks, etc.... Probably every single marshall sounds unique in certain way that you have to use the right gear for YOUR amp to get that tone... Maybe that's why David Br**Y listen to the amps he mod before actually modding them?....

I wouldn't say "no one" is taking the studio into account. Some would argue that what ever is "different" or "extra" is whatever was done from the board and in a different studio. That is why the subsequent albums sound different than VH1 and also from the live boots.

[Good Guest]

When I here those iso clips of vh1 ..that's what I think is the VH1 tone, especially when I just listen to the guitar track and not the heavy reverb track ...the studio mix is just that, a great mix, mastered to perfection. Then I look at the after zero boots , which say a lot also and are pretty raw sounding...any one of those 2 tones or close is fine with me.

EVH thinks the compressor is cool depending on the amp...well if that doesn't say he likes it , I don't know what does I think Leadguy may be right and there is still a big wide open door for the ep3 + compressor. I guess from our point of view ..not another pedal Nooo, but from the standpoint of the fact that EVH used an ACTUAL echoplex and not an ep3 fet booster...one would have to do some serious tech work to try and emulate the effect of tape heads and transformers that's is for sure and I doubt that will ever happen but at a minimum the compressor might be necessary for EVH tone.

It's sounding from interviews EVH was running into problems of too much compression and too much gain..so we know they were paramount features of his tone..

[somethin'else]

When I here those iso clips of vh1 ..that's what I think is the VH1 tone, especially when I just listen to the guitar track and not the heavy reverb track ...the studio mix is just that, a great mix, mastered to perfection. Then I look at the after zero boots , which say a lot also and are pretty raw sounding...any one of those 2 tones or close is fine with me.

EVH thinks the compressor is cool depending on the amp...well if that doesn't say he likes it , I don't know what does I think Leadguy may be right and there is still a big wide open door for the ep3 + compressor. I guess from our point of view ..not another pedal Nooo, but from the standpoint of the fact that EVH used an ACTUAL echoplex and not an ep3 fet booster...one would have to do some serious tech work to try and emulate the effect of tape heads and transformers that's is for sure and I doubt that will ever happen but at a minimum the compressor might be necessary for EVH tone.

It's sounding from interviews EVH was running into problems of too much compression and too much gain..so we know they were paramount features of his tone..

This, is about where I stopped, the compression part of it. It was hot talk right about when ADKOT came out and the 5153 clips, and compression was topic through it all.
So I did grab my first compressor ever , a cheapo Joyo , cause I've never sniffed compressors before, I thought, "what's to lose?"
also, I wanted a little more FW tightness.
So yeah, lots of good options with a compressor in the chain but I know it's another pedal and should be used subtly.
It sure can help with the smoothing sustain factor, as well as add punch to the front too.
And chicken picken and pedal steel country licks are a blast!

[Good Guest]

The next pedal should be an ep3 w/comp built in type of pedal..built to those ep3/dynacomp specs..maybe having an ep3 and dynacomp in one integrated pedal would probably be a low noise way to go also for both pedals, no need to artificially boost the ep3 signal so guitarists don't feel ripped off, but rather the 3 D tone and phase shifting effect enhanced with the compression and sustaining effect of the custom circuit...more accurate for EVH but not chicken picking.

I can hear that meanstreet riff now with that compression thump and all

[leadguy]

This dude has a EP-3 with a compressor board.

It has the extra compressor board on the top of the other boards.

It's a EP-3 with a older logo that is before the 1977 logo change to a wider logo and seeing that the compressor boards were mostly installed in the newer wider logo EP-3's and EP-4's in 1977, this compressor board EP-3 with the older logo must be pretty close to when the logo change happened in late 1976/early 1977, so I'm guessing it's from late 1976 just before the logo change.

Ed's early 1977 EP-3(s) are the wider logo EP-3's when they had compressor boards installed.

He gives a bit of a clean demo of it in part 1 and at the end of part 2.

Don't know about anyone else, but to me it sounds pretty good with the compressor board, so I don't really know why some dudes around the net would want to remove the compressor board.


[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWpj85HN7H4[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5uH6y7yWOI[/youtube]

[MrBeasty]

I never tried it for myself but I always heard that the EP-4 was not as good as the EP-3 ... and the EP-3 wasn't as good as the EP-2. Fulltone went after the EP-2 for those reasons ...

[leadguy]

It's all about taste and the style someone is playing, I think.

Some players like the tube EP-1 and EP-2 then some like the FET EP-3 and the EP-4 is FET as well and doesn't differ that much to the EP-3 except that it has better output buffering.

The compressor board will lead to more sustain and presence and when it's under gain conditions in the signal line of a variaced Plexi on 10 etc, then I would assume it adds more Ooomph and presence and still has that Echoplex 3d space sort of thing that is all over early Ed as well, but I've never actually heard a compressor board EP-3 in a Ed like chain so who knows for sure.