Ergonomics of Classic Recording Studio Gear
Rent, or buy the DVD "Pink Floyd at Pompeii, the Directors Cut" Circuit City just had it on sale for $12.00. Therein you will see much of the EMI Abbey Road Studios, even Rick Wright laying down some of the piano tracks that were used on DSOTM. You will be shocked and awed at just how primitive the gear is. There are also great live performances of "Careful with that Axe, Eugene", "Saucerful of Secrets", etc. But it is the work, at EMI on DSOTM that really amazes. Marty |
Here's a link to a website featuring photos of classic 24 track recorders. Click on the links on the left side of the page under "information" to see photos of mic preamps, compressors, mixers etc. Viridian is right. By today's standards DSOTM was recorded using near primitive equipment. It just goes to show that it's the skill of the musicians and the engineers and not the equipment that makes great recordings. |
onhwy61 Getting warmer - yes, the Studer stuff is what I had in mind - a variety of big buttons for the transport and other functions, with some of them back lit and labeled with tiny letters. I am not sure what you guys mean by "primitive", but the older I get, the more I am less convinced of "progress" in the audio world in the last 30 years or so, other than just a few exceptions here and there, and once in a blue moon, some decent sounding digital gear. There is no doubt that the musicians and engineers for the records we mentioned were highly skilled, but I would also argue that the equipment had to also be amazing or those recordings would not still sound so good in 2006. If DSOTM, from 1973, can still challenge the best audio equipment we have today in terms of complexity, low frequencies, detail, imaging, dynamic range and contrasts, spooky realism etc. then how could it be possible that it was recorded on "primitive" equipment? One of the reasons that inspired me to write this thread was the wish that new equipment might perform, look and feel as good as the "primitive" pieces in the link you provided. Thank you for your posts. |
Huh, I don't find DSOTM challenging at all. Sonically, I find it rather thick and murky, in spite of all of the really cool musique concrete. I have four LP copies, regular Mo-Fi, British Harvest, German EMI and Japanese Pro-Use half speed. I had the UHQR on loan from a friend a couple of years back as well and I have no idea what you are talking about. None of them can hold a candle to recently recorded material for clarity, dynamics or detail. Maybe the recent CD version has something going on that my LPs lack, or maybe my system sucks. More likely, I am just going deaf. |
Viridian Having reviewed a few of your threads, I have great respect for your experience, opinions and in particular, your choice of "all time greatest" speakers. So perhaps you should have your ears checked? Im not saying that DSOTM is the holy grail of recordings for the rest of time, but let's face it, it ain't bad and it is still used as a "reference" recording by many audiophiles. Please do give us some suggestions for some recently recorded material that blows it away for clarity, dynamics and detail. Extra credit if the music is any good. And it would be really interesting to know what type of equipment this newly recorded music was made on. |
