Old Eventide H910. I LOVE it!

[Jayy]

Rough recording, one take, no EQ or mixing, my playing sucks and sucks even worse as soon as I hit record, and all that. Still, that old H910 is just awesome.

 

[shredhead7]

I think it sounds great. You definitely can hear that mid 80's VH sound in it. I bet it sounds killer in the room with you. What is your signal chain?

 

[Jayy]

I think it sounds great. You definitely can hear that mid 80's VH sound in it. I bet it sounds killer in the room with you. What is your signal chain?

Thanks. Yeah it sounded so mid 80's VH with the H910 mixed in that I just HAD to play 5150. lol. It does sound better in the room, especially with some decent volume!

Well, the signal path is kind of crazy. lol. The amp is a Marshall 1959SLP reissue that I gutted and reworked with a PTP/turret board. It is basically set up like a 69 plexi for doing the VH thing. Sozo Nexgen caps, 5000pF bright cap, EH6CA7s, and on a variac set at 95 volts and amp biased at that voltage. I'm running my unfinished guitar straight into the top left input with no boosts, no EQ, nothing between amp and guitar. The guitar has a EVH Frankenstein pickup in it that I have tinkered with. Still about 14K with an A2 magnet. It was the unpainted guitar you see in the video clip. The amp is everything dimed except the channel one volume is at about 7.5 or so.

From the amp the signal is going into my Suhr reactive load and an SM26 running as a splitter to send the dry signal and signals that is going to effects. All of that goes to the SM82 stereo mixer and is mixed in parallel. The only effects in that clip are a little reverb mixed in low and the Eventide H910. The dry signal is going to my left 2X12 cab and the H910 is going to my right 2X12 cab. It is being re-amped and sent to the cabs by the Matrix GT1000FX power amp. The reverb is mixed into both sides evenly. Each cab is loaded with Scumback BM75 65 watt speakers. I have an SM57 on one speaker of each cab and going into my PreSonus interface. If you listen to the clip with headphones the dry signal is panned left and the H910 is panned right. No EQ or mixing work was done, just panned the dry left and H910 right. It was recorded at really low volume. Our puppy was asleep on the couch 4 feet away. She freaks out with any loud noises and she slept through the whole thing, so it was quiet. lol. I'm talking low TV volume, so I am sure it would sound better if I could get a chance to record it louder and actually get the speakers moving. Getting the speakers moving really adds a lot to the tone.

 

[reverymike]

I LOVE the 910. . .set it to .99 and BOOM instant late 70s to late 80s VH.

I'd dial down the mix and little bit here, but otherwise, it's killer.

Question. . .how close does the Pitchfactor 910 setting get to this sound??

 

[reverymike]

I've always wanted a simple pedal that would basically be a 910 at .99 setting, with a mix control. Done.

Now, if I could just find a pedal maker to make me one of those???

 

[SavageRiffer]

Sounded great man. I love that kind of tone.

 

[Jayy]

I LOVE the 910. . .set it to .99 and BOOM instant late 70s to late 80s VH.

I'd dial down the mix and little bit here, but otherwise, it's killer.

Question. . .how close does the Pitchfactor 910 setting get to this sound??

Thanks! The PitchFactor gets really close to the H910. It has a lot of the character and sound of the real H910, including the little funky, brief drop out of the reader passing the writer type thing the H910 does. The Pitchfactor sounds cleaner, has a little less whine, and is dead stable. You set the Pitch on the PitchFactor to .998 or whatever and it is rock solid and never drifts. So, it does H910 well, but has a little less of the funk and lo fi warmth of the real H910. It is the closest thing out there to the real H910 though, no doubt about it. Usually I do just use the PitchFactor because it is so close.

I debated on the mix too. The way I recorded it the SM57 on the right side is seeing nothing but the H910 affected signal. I panned it 50% right on the recording and the dry 50% panned left. The only way I can reduce it a little is pan them farther apart, which I considered and probably should have done.

 

[Jayy]

Sounded great man. I love that kind of tone.

Thanks man! I appreciate all of you guys digging it. I'm always so self-conscious about my playing. I can't play in front of people at all and always play 10 times worse as soon as I hit the record button. It feels good to hear you guys enjoying the stuff I'm monkeying around with.

 

[SavageRiffer]

Sounded great man. I love that kind of tone.

Thanks man! I appreciate all of you guys digging it. I'm always so self-conscious about my playing. I can't play in front of people at all and always play 10 times worse as soon as I hit the record button. It feels good to hear you guys enjoying the stuff I'm monkeying around with.

I'd love to hear the lead tone. Think you can record a clip?

 

[Jayy]

Sounded great man. I love that kind of tone.

Thanks man! I appreciate all of you guys digging it. I'm always so self-conscious about my playing. I can't play in front of people at all and always play 10 times worse as soon as I hit the record button. It feels good to hear you guys enjoying the stuff I'm monkeying around with.

I'd love to hear the lead tone. Think you can record a clip?

Yeah I can probably do that in a couple of days when I can get back to it. I won't promise any great playing though! It'll probably sound about as good as what you've paid for it! lol.

 

[reverymike]

I LOVE the 910. . .set it to .99 and BOOM instant late 70s to late 80s VH.

I'd dial down the mix and little bit here, but otherwise, it's killer.

Question. . .how close does the Pitchfactor 910 setting get to this sound??

Thanks! The PitchFactor gets really close to the H910. It has a lot of the character and sound of the real H910, including the little funky, brief drop out of the reader passing the writer type thing the H910 does. The Pitchfactor sounds cleaner, has a little less whine, and is dead stable. You set the Pitch on the PitchFactor to .998 or whatever and it is rock solid and never drifts. So, it does H910 well, but has a little less of the funk and lo fi warmth of the real H910. It is the closest thing out there to the real H910 though, no doubt about it. Usually I do just use the PitchFactor because it is so close.

I debated on the mix too. The way I recorded it the SM57 on the right side is seeing nothing but the H910 affected signal. I panned it 50% right on the recording and the dry 50% panned left. The only way I can reduce it a little is pan them farther apart, which I considered and probably should have done.

Actually, the mix was pretty good considering you were playing 5150. That album had a stronger hamonizer presence. I think I mentioned the mix just for personal preference. Also, the 1984 album and previous albums had a more subtle 910 happening, but you can totally hear it.

 

[syncrodude007]

 

[bobbyd]

your playing sounds great, and that 910 sounds amazing! i miss my 910 quite a bit....had one in the late 80s and early 90s and loved it. later got a 949, but i think the 910 does just as good a job at "that" sound...

 

[Jayy]

I LOVE the 910. . .set it to .99 and BOOM instant late 70s to late 80s VH.

I'd dial down the mix and little bit here, but otherwise, it's killer.

Question. . .how close does the Pitchfactor 910 setting get to this sound??

Thanks! The PitchFactor gets really close to the H910. It has a lot of the character and sound of the real H910, including the little funky, brief drop out of the reader passing the writer type thing the H910 does. The Pitchfactor sounds cleaner, has a little less whine, and is dead stable. You set the Pitch on the PitchFactor to .998 or whatever and it is rock solid and never drifts. So, it does H910 well, but has a little less of the funk and lo fi warmth of the real H910. It is the closest thing out there to the real H910 though, no doubt about it. Usually I do just use the PitchFactor because it is so close.

I debated on the mix too. The way I recorded it the SM57 on the right side is seeing nothing but the H910 affected signal. I panned it 50% right on the recording and the dry 50% panned left. The only way I can reduce it a little is pan them farther apart, which I considered and probably should have done.

Actually, the mix was pretty good considering you were playing 5150. That album had a stronger hamonizer presence. I think I mentioned the mix just for personal preference. Also, the 1984 album and previous albums had a more subtle 910 happening, but you can totally hear it.

I've always had a hard time hearing the harmonizer on 1984 with songs like Panama, Girl Gone Bad, House of Pain, etc. I can definitely hear it heavy in the guitar solo of I'll Wait, but otherwise it must be very subtle. I'm not doubting you that it is there, I just have a hard time picking up on it. Maybe I need to listen to it through good headphones. Fair Warning, on the other hand, is absolutely smothered in Harmonizer to varying degrees. I hear it everywhere on Fair Warning.

 

[Jayy]

your playing sounds great, and that 910 sounds amazing! i miss my 910 quite a bit....had one in the late 80s and early 90s and loved it. later got a 949, but i think the 910 does just as good a job at "that" sound...

Thanks man, I appreciate that. I'd love to try a 949 just to hear the different flavor of it and play with the difference in functions. I've never had a chance to mess with one. The H910 really is such a cool old machine. The mix is so important when using one for subtle detune. Too little and you can't hear it, but just put a tiny bit too much and it is too heavy in the mix. At least that is how it is for me. The panning is the same way if you are using the H910 the way I did in that clip. Pan both to center and the H910 just takes over the mix. Pan the dry and H910 hard left and right and you really can't tell the H910 is there much anymore at all except that it just sounds wider and more stereo than with just dry on both sides. I panned the dry and H910 to 50% left and 50% right respectively and the clip is how it turned out sounding.

 

[Alex_S]

That sounds amazing! How close do you find an H9 in comparison? I do own one, but have no comparison to the real deal...

Another question: I always thought Eddie used one + 1-2 cent and on - 1-2 cent in parallel. But your clip sounds spot on with just one -2. Do. I miss something or was that just a wrong information?

 

[Jayy]

That sounds amazing! How close do you find an H9 in comparison? I do own one, but have no comparison to the real deal...

Another question: I always thought Eddie used one + 1-2 cent and on - 1-2 cent in parallel. But your clip sounds spot on with just one -2. Do. I miss something or was that just a wrong information?

Thank you. I don't actually own an H9 and have never used one, so I really can't say how the H9 compares directly. My understanding, however, is that the H9 has the same H910 and H949 algorithms as the PitchFactor. All of the Eventide equipment I own are two old original H910s, a PitchFactor, an Eclipse, and an H8000FW. All of them are great and the Eclipse and H8000FW do amazing things, but the H910 algorithm on the PitchFactor gets closer to the real H910 than any of them. When they designed that algorithm for the Pitchfactor they were seeking to copy the H910 as closely as possible and they did a pretty good job of it.

On your other question, I am not sure how well I can answer it but I will try. I have read a ton of stuff about how Eddie did this or that with H910s, H949s, H3000s, and so on. Honestly from listening to everything from Van Halen II through Balance I think he used all of those Eventide models as they became available to him and used them with a lot of different settings and mix levels. In my clip all I used was the old H910 set to .99 and just under the point where it clicks over to 1.00 on the right side. I used no feedback or additional delay. My left cab in my stereo rig was all dry and my right cab was all H910. Then I put a SM57 on each cab.

The dry/wet mix level is critical no matter how you use the harmonizers or how many cents of pitch you are using. The resolution on the old H910 is less than the H949 and everything that came after it. The H910 readout goes from 1.00 to .99, then .98, then .97, etc. The machine is mostly analog and if you set it to .99 just barely underneath the 1.00 unison pitch it is just a few cents of pitch, maybe about .997 or .996, but if you set it to the lower end of .99 just before it clicks over to .98 it is a more drastic pitch change like maybe .987 or so (just guessing on the numbers because there is no way for me to be sure). So, you have to use it very mildly and use your ears for the slight detune type of sound.

Anyway, I am not convinced that ED used -9 and +9 cents and so much delay and so on all the time. Just Fair Warning alone has a lot of differences in how much harmonizer is there from song to song. Some songs I think I can hear Two H910s, other songs just one. It was also obviously before the H3000 was available and the only harmonizers out at the time were the H910 and H949. If you can, listen to the song 5150 on a good system and isolate and listen to the left and right sides separately. I hear harmonizer all over the right side, but I can't hear it on the left. The left sounds dry to me so if there is any harmonizer there it is very, very little. So, take that dry left and that wet right recorded at the same levels like I did and pan your mix on what you record at about 50% left for the dry and 50% right for the harmonizer and you get what I got in that clip.

I hope that helps man. I'm not great at explaining this stuff and it's all just my opinion and experience and what my ears hear anyway. As much as I would LOVE to ask Eddie myself exactly what he did on all those famous tracks it doesn't look like he is going to tell me. I can't get him to return any of my phone calls! lol.

 

[GraySlo]

Sounds great; makes me want to get out my H3000 D/SX.

 

[Crunchity]

That sounds soooo cool and slick! That would be a very difficult riff to try and double track the traditional way for width, yet with this method it sounds big and open without any goofy chorusing ill-effects, etc...luv it...and well played too!

 

[Jayy]

Thanks sounds soooo cool and slick! That would be a very difficult riff to try and double track the traditional way for width, yet with this method it sounds big and open without any goofy chorusing ill-effects, etc...luv it...and well played too!

Thank you. Yeah, there is no way I could play that twice consistently enough to double track the traditional way. Not a snowball's chance in hell!