• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Reverbs: Springs, Plates, or DSP?

T

Tom Wells

I'm using a Hammond 4 spring 18" reverb on the side with a separate input to my modulator, and am very pleased with
the result. I have read that many 1960's AMs used this exact unit, some used cheaper consumer units by Fisher or Lafeyette, and
WABC used a plate reverb. Does anyone know what reverb method was used by WCFL and WLS in the 60's?

I thought it might be a good idea to get a DSP plug-in for reverb, but the CPU load with a good, expensive DSP reverb is quite heavy.
While the money spent on Breakaway Broadcast Processor was very well spent and makes a major difference, I'm not so sure
that I would be happy with the sound of a plug-in DSP reverb, or whether there is much value in the adjustablility it would bring.
I'm using a side amp after the BBP output to run the drive on the tank, then its output goes into a separate input on the modulator
which I designed for a hi-z mike. This way I can control drive and blend individually.

Is anybody else still using a Hammond tank for on-air reverb? What about plates? ( I have room where I could hang one very conveniently)
The springs in the Hammond have different tensions, and two springs meet other at the middle, where the wind direction reverses into the next spring in order to minimize ringing at any particular frequency. Naturally the plate method should sound better, since there is
less reason for a reasonant point to be in the audio spectrum. Here's the big question: Does anyone know what GRADE and thickness of steel was used for the plate reverbs? I am looking for the next silly, unnecesary project for my AM.
I have transducers lying around, all I need is a plate. Anyone out there with experience in these units?
 
Search the web as I remember someone had a homemade EMT copy posted. I used to build studios and I always loved the EMT plate. The real trick of setting up the EMT was learning how tight to tighten the tension pull-bolts without breaking them. You also needed to put it in a padded closet to get the best isolation. Reverb was usualy side-chain inserted with the dry mix.

OTOH Lexicon has some excellent units that will save you a lot of time and give close results.
 
I believe those stations used the EMT 140.The link will show you the different models.Quite a few stations used the Fisher Expander Reverb which sounded great.Motown (Marvin Gaye & others)used the 140.Tom,i can tell by your posts,you sure don't like being bored.(ha).EMT's show up on Ebay sometimes.Good luck.........http://www.danalexanderaudio.com/emt.html
 
The Hammond srpings were the weapon of choice in my area back in The Day. The summum bonum of reverds though was a guy whose studios were in an old house. He put an Altec speaker at one end of the (standup) attic, and spaced a couple of 77DX mics away from it feeding a little M67 mixer. The result was mixed back into the priogram chain. It sounded AWEsome. They hadda turn it off during thunderstorms though.
 
littlejohn said:
... The summum bonum of reverds (sic) though was a guy whose studios were in an old house. He put an Altec speaker at one end of the (standup) attic, and spaced a couple of 77DX mics away from it feeding a little M67 mixer. The result was mixed back into the priogram chain. It sounded AWEsome. They hadda turn it off during thunderstorms though.
Click to expand...

Sure, many old studios had a concrete hallway/labyrinth as a sub-basement. A speaker at one end and several mics along the hallway would be switched in/out to vary the delay. Some stations also used their stairwells for the same purpose.
 
Wow, Tower. You just reminded me of a sponsor on WNWI's "Concert for a Sunday Afternnon" show, Urschel Laboratories.
They are a food processing equip mfr in Valparaiso, IN. The founder William Urschel, was a big hi-fi enthusiast in the 50s.
When he built a new facility he built an undergound concrete tunnel with exactly the same setup so he could listen to his music at work
with his own brand of 'verb.

And didn't Les Paul and Mary Ford make their recordings with a big empty tile bathroom for the reverb?
 
littlejohn said:
The Hammond srpings were the weapon of choice in my area back in The Day. The summum bonum of reverds though was a guy whose studios were in an old house. He put an Altec speaker at one end of the (standup) attic, and spaced a couple of 77DX mics away from it feeding a little M67 mixer. The result was mixed back into the priogram chain. It sounded AWEsome. They hadda turn it off during thunderstorms though.
Click to expand...

In the book "Recording the Beatles" the authors describe the two echo chambers at EMI (now "Abbey Road") London Studios.

One chamber was on the ground floor next to Studio 2 (the Beatles' usual studio), and the other was on the roof. Both rooms were odd-shaped, with random cylindrical interruptions (columns), and nearly every surface covered with ceramic (bathroom) tile. Since they were otherwise empty, the office workers were always trying to use them for storage!

George Martin recalled that the roof echo chamber had an opening that sent the sound upward and that, at one time or another, they would get reports of someone hearing the music from many miles away.

- - -

I too had a spring, but was never satisfied with the quality of the 'sproing' sound.
I tried to build a plate once about 30 years ago, but didn't know enough about designing a clean pre-amp to get a useful level out of the pickup I built.

I had a 4x8 sheet of plywood and a 3x6 sheet of thin steel. I 'drove' it with a speaker pointed to it, almost touching. I recall being pleased how sweet the sound of the plate was when I put my ear up to it. This boondoggle sat against the wall in my living room for many months, and was a bit of a conversation piece. ;)

These days any 4x8 sheet of plywood that would find its way into my house would become a model train layout! ;D

Kind Regards,
David
 
I would switch that 2-spring unit for a Type-9, three spring. Speaking in broad terms, the more springs, the better the sound (less boing). I build and fix guitar amps as a hobby; I always replace dead Fender cans with the Accutronics 3-spring - never had anyone ever want to switch back. I know a guy who used to drive two 3-spring units in parallel in his amps. He claimed the tone was pretty close to a plate (take that FWIW).
-D
 
David Reaves said:
I too had a spring, but was never satisfied with the quality of the 'sproing' sound.
Click to expand...

It certainly is a very fine line between sweet and wet vs. "sproing".

I have several other 'verbs, 2-3 aftermarket car under-dash units, one factory 1966 unit in my '66 Plymouth,
one of the Lafeyette home hi-fi units, and at least two of the Hammond units.

The Lafeyette, with built in tube amp and speaker, has the propensity to go into feedback, which is quite endearing. :D

All of them besides the Hammonds are pretty short, and have distinct reasonant peaks that cause me ear fatigue.
When the Plymouth was my daily driver, an odd thing happened. Using the reverb, which was only on the back speaker,
after months of use, I began to "hear" reverb even when it was not switched on. That is, my brain began to add the reverb
for me, to sounds in the real world. Before anyone asks, no drugs were involved in this process. After a few days of "rest",
everything was OK again. Since then I am very sparing in use of reverb, and can't quite accept anything besides the Hammond
spring or better.
 
littlejohn said:
What's depressing is, the AM radio in your '66 is light years better than today's OEM AMs in terms of response.
Click to expand...

The Bendix AM it came with was, but the factory '66 AM/FM Bendix I got to put in it had a pretty agressive rolloff cap
on all audio, and another one just for the FM that made the FM more dull than you can imagine.
In '66 wasn't most FM horizontal ony? I think wanted to make sure you never heard any hiss (or definition ) in the audio.
I lifted both of them out of circuit, there was yet another at the AM detector that was sufficient to
filter the IF leftover.

The thing I most appreciate about them is having a tuned RF pre-amp section, and they're slug-tuned like a Collins.
 
As I have 3 Darts, '65, '71, '72, and the '66 Belevdere, there are several good radios around here to share.
I will dig them out for you today and check 'em out. Not so sure about an extra plastic escutcheon plate.


The "early" Dart radios were only about 4-5 inches deep in '65, but the bigger models used in mid and full size fit in my '65 Dart just fine.

Do you like Motorola better or Bendix?
Both sound about as good.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom