rick36 wrote:Or, you could simply run the guitar through a phono pre-amplifier to a Walkie-Talkie speaker mounted in a cigar box (preferably Havana) cabinet and a big rack mounted studio compressor, as McGuinn says he did during the "5D" LP sessions. Personally, that's my favourite McGuinn sound...squashed and stinging!
yes, THAT sound is McGuinn's most "developed" sound. Fifth Dimension is my favorite Byrds album. The Rickenbacker was taken to a Higher Level. I think I stopped listening to The Beatles when I heard 5D.
The solo in "Mr. Spaceman" is an example of the sound I am referring to. A cutting slicing sound that reminds me of an acetylene gun. Also the 3 solos in Crosby's song, "What's Happening", is an even more impressive example of THAT sound. I've always wondered how it was achieved. I don't believe the cigar box story. The sound is way too rich to come out of a cigar box.
Also I think he used all 3 pickups to get that sound, my '66 370-12 sounds a bit like that when all 3 pickups are ON, but something is missing. Compression maybe, but McGuinn's sound is too bright, compressors usually "darken" and "dull" the sound. I have no clue. The rich sustain he got is unbelievable. Can anybody reproduce that sound today? then please post a MP3 sample and a recipe.
Maybe you could try something called side-chain compression. Basically, the compressed and uncompressed signals are mixed together to give a more heroic quality to the sound. Keeps the attack, but fills in the empty spots... so to speak.
Cigar box... well... it depends on the wood the cigar box is made from, how big it is, and what the driver used was. Wouldn't have to be very big to get proper loading for a small driver. Figure that the speaker was a small alnico magnet driver with a very short XMAX and an all-paper cone. The low-end would be severely limited. The top-end would be very compressed. Close-mic it with a decent microphone............ just might work! Want to thicken it a tad? Add in a tiny amount of plate reverb. Look at what Keith Richards did for the guitar sound on Jumping Jack Flash: cheap mid-60s cassette recorder (I'd bet it was a Norelco 1420), recording acoustic track to it with his Gibson Hummingbird, play that recording/machine back in the studio with it cranked up all the way and miked up.... then mix with everything else.
Keep in mind that an old compressor from the vacuum tube days typically had a lot of output drive capability; in most cases enough to put out an honest watt into the next piece of gear in the chain. (+24dbm) I could easily see one driving a small walkie-talkie speaker. Again, it would have to be miked, but it is plausible. You sure wouldn't have the cheesy qualities in the sound because the driving electronics *weren't* the output stage of a germanium transistor based radio.
The part I personally don't buy is the phono preamp. Plugging a guitar into a phono preamp would do just the opposite of what we want; attenuating the highs and boosting the lows. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization for the RIAA playback curve. Now unless McGuinn used an aux-input on a preamp or removed the RIAA EQ network (not hard), we wouldn't have what we hear on 5D.
OldTechnician wrote:Hi Zurdo;
Maybe you could try something called side-chain compression. Basically, the compressed and uncompressed signals are mixed together to give a more heroic quality to the sound. Keeps the attack, but fills in the empty spots... so to speak.
Cigar box... well... it depends on the wood the cigar box is made from, how big it is, and what the driver used was. Wouldn't have to be very big to get proper loading for a small driver. Figure that the speaker was a small alnico magnet driver with a very short XMAX and an all-paper cone. The low-end would be severely limited. The top-end would be very compressed. Close-mic it with a decent microphone............ just might work! Want to thicken it a tad? Add in a tiny amount of plate reverb. Look at what Keith Richards did for the guitar sound on Jumping Jack Flash: cheap mid-60s cassette recorder (I'd bet it was a Norelco 1420), recording acoustic track to it with his Gibson Hummingbird, play that recording/machine back in the studio with it cranked up all the way and miked up.... then mix with everything else.
Keep in mind that an old compressor from the vacuum tube days typically had a lot of output drive capability; in most cases enough to put out an honest watt into the next piece of gear in the chain. (+24dbm) I could easily see one driving a small walkie-talkie speaker. Again, it would have to be miked, but it is plausible. You sure wouldn't have the cheesy qualities in the sound because the driving electronics *weren't* the output stage of a germanium transistor based radio.
The part I personally don't buy is the phono preamp. Plugging a guitar into a phono preamp would do just the opposite of what we want; attenuating the highs and boosting the lows. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA_equalization for the RIAA playback curve. Now unless McGuinn used an aux-input on a preamp or removed the RIAA EQ network (not hard), we wouldn't have what we hear on 5D. Ben
thanks Ben,
that is one great analysis, although to be honest I would need to see it to understand what you explain, but I'm sure you know a lot more about this stuff than I do. For example, first time I hear of a side-chain compressor, sorry but true. I've always been a live-music musician, from private parties to Caribbean Cruise ships, very little studio experience like many here. The truth is I've yet to find a guitar compressor that does what studio compressors do; From my MXR Dyna comp to a zillion others I've tried, they all "dull" the sound and kill the brilliance, they "muddy up" the sound. But I've never tried the one that McGuinn reccommends in his website, so it might make me revise my opinions. For all practical purposes, it seems my Rickenbacker does not like compressors, it sounds better by itself especially when cranked up, producing a certain "sweetness" and "musical richness" that gets killed by the compressor. And yes, "heroic" is the word for the sound that McGuinn produced in the Fifth Dimension album. Still amazes me today.
thanks Ben,
that is one great analysis, although to be honest I would need to see it to understand what you explain, but I'm sure you know a lot more about this stuff than I do. For example, first time I hear of a side-chain compressor, sorry but true. I've always been a live-music musician, from private parties to Caribbean Cruise ships, very little studio experience like many here. The truth is I've yet to find a guitar compressor that does what studio compressors do; From my MXR Dyna comp to a zillion others I've tried, they all "dull" the sound and kill the brilliance, they "muddy up" the sound. But I've never tried the one that McGuinn reccommends in his website, so it might make me revise my opinions. For all practical purposes, it seems my Rickenbacker does not like compressors, it sounds better by itself especially when cranked up, producing a certain "sweetness" and "musical richness" that gets killed by the compressor. And yes, "heroic" is the word for the sound that McGuinn produced in the Fifth Dimension album. Still amazes me today.
Hi Zurdo;
Yep... the standard stomp-box effects tend to leave me cold as far as sound quality goes. I have a few of the better old ones stashed, but the vast majority of them sound terrible to me... especially the DOD/Boss effects and many of the digital effects that everybody had in the 1990s. Most are based on what are IMHO op-amps that are being expected to do far more than they were ever designed to. Clarity is one of the first things to be lost.
The chips I mentioned would go a long way to building a decent compressor. It would be tough to beat the NE5534, and even more difficult to beat an OPA2134. McGuinn's basic processing chain would be relatively easy to build into a small project box nowadays, and come darned close to 1960s-studio-quality. The one thing that can't be ignored in the build: a stout well-regulated +/- 15V power supply; nothing battery-operated here. Might take a bit of time to dial in the exact sound, but it could be done.
Sidechain compression in a nutshell... Take your guitar signal, split it in two with a "Y" adapter. Feed one side to the compressor, and the other side don't process. Mix the two signals together (compressed and uncompressed), and adjust the two signals to your taste. That's it!
Again, what I *suspect* was done: Guitar signal split as above. First compressor feeds an EQ that gooses the top-end and cuts the bottom end. That feeds another compressor. Take the processed and unprocessed signals, and mix them together. There could have been some EQ on the unprocessed side... but again, this is all a guess on my part.
I always remember what FC Hall said about what gave him the idea of a 12-string with reverse stringing: more attack, which is what rock'n'roll had going for it. Compression squeezes a signal and reduces attack, so somehow you have to put the attack back into the signal. Sidechain compression would achieve that goal.
Gents, I don't pretend to know everything. There are plenty of guys who know more about electronics and recording than I do. I can only offer my opinions based on my own personal experiences and knowledge. McGuinn and the original recording engineers are the only ones who know the real answer.
Very interesting take on compression. Interesting to me because it's completely opposite my experience.
I vividly recall how disappointed I was when I played my first Ric 12-string more than 30 years ago. I was so thrilled to finally get my hands on a beautiful mapleglo, but when I plugged the guitar straight into a Fender Showman it sounded, to use Roger McGuinn's description of uncompressed Ric 12-strings, just "dull and thuddy". Even played loud, it hardly resembled the bright, chiming sound of the Byrds records or "Ticket to Ride". The arpeggiated licks I played simply died — no sustain at all. It was only after I learned about and then added compression that I was able to achieve the sound I loved.
My commercial interest aside (we make the compressor Roger recommends on his website), a good pedal comp doesn't necessarily dull or darken the sound, though some stompboxes certainly can. Depending on the unit, I actually hear far greater articulation with compression. Whatever your take on compression, I don't think the JangleBox has ever been criticized for darkening guitar tone! .
When Roger performs live, I can usually tell whether or not he's using his JangleBox. My obvious bias notwithstanding, I always find his sound much more glorious when he adds compression to his Ric. YMMV, of course.
OldTechnician wrote:Sidechain compression in a nutshell... Take your guitar signal, split it in two with a "Y" adapter. Feed one side to the compressor, and the other side don't process. Mix the two signals together (compressed and uncompressed), and adjust the two signals to your taste. That's it!
That's not a sidechain scenario. Sidechain means one effect controls another. By definition, at least two effects are involved, although you may only actually "hear" one of them. Also, there's no reason why one effect can't control a wide number of different effects- a chain- which may be on different channels or tracks of a recording.
For example, in the studio I sometime use a compressor on the bass to sidechain to another compressor on the bus that controls a mix of other guitars or instruments. As the bass attack moves up, it squeezes the guitars a bit to allow the bass some space. I might choose to record just the uncompressed output of the bass, only using the compressor as a control device. Other times I'll use the bass or kick in a sidechain to control the other, so that simultaneous "hits" don't take everything to the rails.
Another common example is using a sidechained compressor arrangement on a music channel, to drop the music level when a voiceover announcer speaks.
What you describe is simply a processed/unprocessed "mix".
Roger's always said he originally used "back to back Fairchild's" in the studio. It's certainly possibly to connect them that way, although that would have been a bit touchy to control. It's more likely one was sidechained to the other instead, so the effect could then be tweaked in a more sophisticated compander-like arrangement. It should, therefore, be no surprise then that the chip we used on the LE circuit was described by the manufacturer as a "studio-grade compander".
janglebox wrote:Very interesting take on compression. Interesting to me because it's completely opposite my experience.
I vividly recall how disappointed I was when I played my first Ric 12-string more than 30 years ago. I was so thrilled to finally get my hands on a beautiful mapleglo, but when I plugged the guitar straight into a Fender Showman it sounded, to use Roger McGuinn's description of uncompressed Ric 12-strings, just "dull and thuddy". Even played loud, it hardly resembled the bright, chiming sound of the Byrds records or "Ticket to Ride". The arpeggiated licks I played simply died — no sustain at all. It was only after I learned about and then added compression that I was able to achieve the sound I loved.
My commercial interest aside (we make the compressor Roger recommends on his website), a good pedal comp doesn't necessarily dull or darken the sound, though some stompboxes certainly can. Depending on the unit, I actually hear far greater articulation with compression. Whatever your take on compression, I don't think the JangleBox has ever been criticized for darkening guitar tone! .
I've never tried your janglebox so I can't comment either way, and I've yet to see one in my few trips to the local GC where some of the the employees can't tell a guitar from a bass, much less heard of Black Nylon "Folksinger" strings
But hey, if that's the one Roger uses, there must be a reason, right? "Glorius" is the sound i've always seeked and never found. I only hear it on records, but never out of my amps.
Back in 1967 when I bought my 370-12 (actually my parents bought it ), there were no compressors, chorus, phasers, (or delays, unless you had the money for an Echoplex, and I sure didn't). So I learned to squeeze the juice out of my Rickenbacker by itself, no effects. 11 years later I got my first compressor, (MXR), and the first thing I expected out of it was an E-Bow sustain with the brilliance of polished Silver....Total dissapointment. It made the Rick sound dull and dark, nothing like the Fifth Dimension album and the sustain, WHERE IS THE SUSTAIN ? I kept asking. Never again I said, "I won't be fooled again" (The Who said that too).
so there you go Mr. Janglebox, that's been my experience. Maybe one day I'll try yours and find the holy grail.
Zurdo wrote:
I've never tried your janglebox so I can't comment either way, and I've yet to see one in my few trips to the local GC.
But hey, if that's the one Roger uses, there must be a reason, right? "Glorius" is the sound i've always seeked and never found. I only hear it on records, but never out of my amps.
so there you go Mr. Janglebox, that's been my experience. Maybe one day I'll try yours and find the holy grail.
Hi Zurdo, I believe that you need to get a JangleBox directly from the company, not a retail store. You can check out sample sound clips on their website. I'm sure that there are a bunch of YouTube clips also. I have a Dyna Comp that I use for bass. The JB2 is not like the compressors that you describe. Light years better.
I have a nearly new, stock 360/12 and the JB2 gives me 'that' sound. It seems like whenever I post a new Byrds cover song to my website, someone from this forum will ask if I used a JangleBox on the track. I have 10 Byrds covers, 4 McGuinn covers, a Love cover, and a Searchers cover on my website and there is a JangleBox 2 used on almost of them. Sustain? On songs that end with a held chord, I always have to fade the song manually, because the chord will just keep ringing for so long. On an older 12, such as yours, I hear that the toasters will give an even better 'Byrds' sound.
The thing to do is to try one out. Chances are very good that you'll be thrilled. If you're not, put it up for sale on Second Strum. They usually get scooped up quickly when a used one comes up for sale (not very often). Most owners love 'em.
thanks for the advice and review. I've also been hearing about a "Princess"-brand compressor unit, anybody heard about it ?
otherwise all my effects are from 1978 when I bought them, (see my pedalboard below), I don't like digital effects,they sound "thin". Analog only for me. The wood box was from GIT (Guitar Institute of Technology, where I graduated from), everyone was given one that had a "Lab Kit" inside, with a cassette recorder, music stand, and other goodies. At the end of the year I bought mine from Pat, the Prez. of GIT.
johnhall wrote: What you describe is simply a processed/unprocessed "mix".
Roger's always said he originally used "back to back Fairchild's" in the studio. It's certainly possibly to connect them that way, although that would have been a bit touchy to control. It's more likely one was sidechained to the other instead, so the effect could then be tweaked in a more sophisticated compander-like arrangement. It should, therefore, be no surprise then that the chip we used on the LE circuit was described by the manufacturer as a "studio-grade compander".
Hello Mr. Hall! It has been about 22 years since we last exchanged letters. It is an honor and a privilege to address you again, sir.
I sit corrected on sidechain compression. You are indeed correct. My mistake.
Fairchild compressors.... I have worked on a 670; not a 660, though they share a similar circuit. They have a very definite sound. If Roger says he uses two Fairchilds, then that's what they were. I still have to believe that there was a Pultec thrown in there to goose the top-end at some point. Based on what I have heard, I believe it was done after the basic guitar tracks were recorded.
I have come *extremely close* to his sound by using an Altec 438 feeding a Pultec EQP-1R, and that feeding a CBS Audimax II. It is a noisy situation at best, and it really helps to have a good noise gate available. Compressors from that era really are noisy, until you rebuild them with modern components. Even then, newer designs are a lot more quiet. A Behringer Composer will run rings around them, and that's based on my own personal use.
Your chip on the E1 electronics... I changed my thoughts on it based on your words. I suspect you used a CA3080E. Makes more sense now.
I have found Ricks are very sensitive to is cables. I have made my cables out of Canare star-quad L4E6S with the Switchcraft right-angle plugs. The star-quad arrangement goes a long way to reducing inductance and therefore lets more top-end through. Only trick when making the cables is to use one pair of wires for the center and the shield, leaving the other pair alone unless you are wiring the stereo jack. After that, it is first-stage loading. What I did with a few of my amps was to change out 1meg 1st stage loading resistors to 3 or 5meg, and put a ferrite bead before the input network to reduce RFI in these days of personal wireless gadgets. If these two items aren't in place, the famous Rickenbacker top-end will be rather dulled out.
Amplifiers.... A silver-face Fender Twin or Dual Showman Reverb with the 135-watt UL output stage and JBLs (D drivers... K-series sounds way too honky for me... E-series if you reinforce the cabinets and don't mind the weight) goes a long way to giving you an amp with enough range for a Rick 12-string. Lesson learned by me: what works for a Fender Strat/Tele or a Gibson Les Paul *isn't* going to work for a Rickenbacker. A VOX AC-30TB is a good choice as well.
I have my own ideas on what would make for a proper Rick 12-string amplifier, and hope to be working on a prototype soon. More on this story as it develops.
OldTechnician wrote:Your chip on the E1 electronics... I changed my thoughts on it based on your words. I suspect you used a CA3080E. Makes more sense now.
That may be a suitable replacement these days but that certainly isn't what we used then. Frankly I don't recall the actual designation anymore, but it was a proprietary chip made by a small, specialty IC maker. Perhaps within a year of when we made these, much to our chagrin they stopped producing the chip. As I recall, this small maker was acquired by Signetics but they probably faded away during Signetics own decline.
Fascinating thread guys, and soaking up alot of knowledge!
One thing I'd really like to add here in regards to Roger's sound, is the fact that the 12 string was double tracked alot of time, especially in the early days.
First read about this (Along with the compression) on the liner notes to the "Never Before" album from 1987. At any rate, after digesting the "Journals" CDs thoroughly, this popped out like a holy revelation.
On take one of "Mr. Tambourine Man", The Rick pretty much sounds like you would expect a Rick-12 to sound by say, anybody besides Roger playing it. Then, around take 5 or 7, Roger comes back and lays the same part down again, and even in this pre-mix down state, it, out of nowhere, now sounds like the record.
The difference is so profound, I can't possibly say this enough (I believe someone has most of the MTM takes up on YT, but haven't checked recently), and of course, as we all know, double tracking sets off all kinds of overtones, so it's almost like a triple track.
In addition to this, last year I found out (Made a post about this a few months ago here) that there are also TWO Basses in the song as well...one played by Larry Knechtal, and the other by Bill, is it Putman? And this can be heard clearly during the "Noodling", and Terry Melcher talking to both guys about the basses at the same time.
So, I think this is the main reason why the intro to that song sounds so "Robust & Forthright"; two 12 strings & two Basses...And why in live situations, it's a big part of why so many of us struggle in not being able to fully capture that McGuinn recorded sound. For contrast, listen to the intro of "The Bells of Rhymney" (Which I'm 99% sure is DT'ed), and then listen to the album version of "The times they are a changin'", where it sounds like just one Rick-12 playing, and it's quite a bit more "Sterile & Small" sounding.
But hearing the 12 doubled on the intro to MTM was such an aural revelation, that I would say that this is just as important as the compression for geting "Byrdsound". So, how do you deal with it live?
Now, I'm not anything even remotely close to being as knoweldgable about the technical end of things like most of our fine folks here, and I won't even pretend to try, but what I do to "Simulate" this double tracked sound in a live situation, is throw on just a tinge, and I mean a VERY SMALL amount of chorus & delay (So little that you can't really tell the effect is on, but you notice if you remove the effect), and this is patched in between the JangleBox and the amp.
Obvously, as we all know, a little effect goes a long way on a Rick-12, and too much chorus, you end up with "Run like hell", David Gilmour, and it won't sound '60s obviously. But just a tease, and a tease of delay, it sort of "Tricks" the ear into thinking the 12 string is busier and more robust than it actually is, and this, coupled with the JangleBox seems to really hit the spot.
Now, I'm not even close to being up on all the latest gear, but one could surely also use an ADT effect of some kind for live situation playing.
Nothing too fancy or exciting here, one of those Digi-Tech 2700 "Double Play" boxes...please bear in mind that I'm not a gear expert in the slightest, and I'm using this because it's pretty much I have to work with at the moment.
It's a two in one delay/chorus unit, and the one neat thing about it is both effects are interactive together with several controls each, so there are alot of variations you can dial in. I also understand they have become something of a collectors item in recent years.
No question though, that there are better units out there, both rack mount & stomp pedal I'm sure.
That would be neat to have a couple of those old Fairchild units that the guys were discussing earlier though!
I'm sure that starting a thread regarding chorus & delay, will yield all kinds of good (And better) additional info.
Thanks Chris. I think what I'll do is go 'round the corner to my favorite music store and just try out two or three and see which one I like best. While I respect the opinions of all the members of the RRF, sometimes when one asks such an open ended question, one gets more information than one can take in, you know what I mean?
JimK
. 
and the sustain, WHERE IS THE SUSTAIN ? I kept asking. Never again I said, "I won't be fooled again" (The Who said that too). 
