
Auctioneer to sell off Pink Floyd recording console - teh_klev
http://www.goldminemag.com/news/auctioneer-pink-floyd-console
======
danjambur
Fun fact, my dad installed this.

~~~
sofaofthedamned
Nice. My old boss Mike Grimwood worked for Neve in the 60's and 70's and told
us loads of tales about making bespoke desks for the likes of Led Zeppelin
etc. Would have loved to have been around then, but I suppose they say the
same about the digital era.

~~~
bogomipz
It's pretty interesting how bespoke much of this gear was. It's also
interesting that lots of the better known studios like EMI/Abbey had their own
in house electrical/audio engineers designing and making the house gear rather
that purchase off the shelf.

------
quakeguy
All the console does can be done with a laptop nowadays, the nostalgic value
is of course a big point in purchasing it. Still, who would aquire this
monster, if not a museum? I can't see any modern recordings done with it, but
solely for the goal of achieving said nostalgia. "It belongs in a museum".

~~~
dcwca
One thing people fail to understand about consoles like this, or the Neve, is
that they do produce a unique sound, but not for any technical reason. Yes,
everything this machine can do can be done in a laptop. Sure there are small
differences related to audio signal paths and headroom and distortion, but for
the most part those can be simulated or ignored.

The big reason working with hardware like this produces unique results is more
about the layout and workflow than the tech inside the machine. The workflow
makes the sound. The lack of automation forces you to make choices. Forces
your hand, literally. The sound is in the physical design.

Another example is the MPC sampler, which has a workflow that can be heard in
hip hop music. Of course software samplers can do everything the MPC can do,
and more, but you can hear the signature sound of someone working on an MPC.

~~~
riprowan
> The workflow makes the sound. The lack of automation forces you to make
> choices. Forces your hand, literally.

You raise an excellent point here. A full-blown DAW is practically without
limits: hundreds of tracks, unlimited effects on every track, any signal chain
is possible.

But making art is about _working within constraints_. Most of the best art
derives from the constraints as much - or more - as the capabilities of the
devices or instruments used.

However there is a technical reason why these devices _do_ sound different,
and that is that they all impart euphonic distortion. Bass sounds "bigger."
Treble sounds "clearer." Mixed tracks "glue together." Vocals "pop out." A
sense of "depth of field" may be imparted. Technically speaking this is all
"distortion" of the original signal.

~~~
dcwca
> However there is a technical reason why these devices do sound different,
> and that is that they all impart euphonic distortion. Bass sounds "bigger."
> Treble sounds "clearer." Mixed tracks "glue together." Vocals "pop out." A
> sense of "depth of field" may be imparted.

Digital advocates are quick to point out that all of those phenomena can be
perfectly modelled in the box. We have convolution reverbs and tube amp models
and emulation that can be scientifically proven to match the analog gear.

By point is, you _can_ do all that, but will you? You have a world of
possibilities, and so the likelihood when working with a digital / software
workflow is that you'll stick to the relative strengths of that setup.

Another thing to note about the hardware console interface is the nature of a
classic design. Consoles like the Neve or SSL are familiar to engineers, they
are instruments with a hand feel. A recording or mixing engineer can go into a
studio and get similar results from similar gear. The listeners ear can pick
up a je ne cest pas familiarity from it, what you call "good sound" in another
comment, without quote knowing what they're hearing. The same way the
Telecaster just "sounds good". It's not better, it's just familiar. Digital
workstations are all different and don't achieve the same familiar sound.

~~~
riprowan
> all of those phenomena can be perfectly modelled in the box

Nope.

How you gonna model the interaction between a microphone and the preamp load
it's driving, and the compressor _that 's_ driving, and the EQ _it 's_
driving, and the nonlinear summing bus _that 's_ feeding, when all of these
are interacting in a live signal chain, and all entering various forms of
nonlinear behavior based on the age of components, their tolerances which vary
from box to box, heat, etc? It might be theoretically possible, but past a
certain point, to model these devices requires modeling physics at the
materials level. In point of fact most digital "simulations" of these sorts of
devices are not simulations at all, but _approximations_ that impart similar
EQ, dynamics, and harmonic distortion.

I'm a dev by trade, been doing audio for decades too. I used to believe this
was all modellable too. I think there's a tendency for people who are strong
in digital signal processing but naive to what these devices are really doing
to the signal to be overconfident in our ability to simulate them in realtime.

You can definitely achieve a reasonable facsimile! But if you want the sound
of _this console_ then you're going to have to make one or buy one.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
This is all true, but there's a point beyond which it stops being
musically/artistically relevant.

I've probably been doing this stuff as long as you have, and I'm not actually
sure where that point is any more.

I actually hate the sound of most of the Beatles albums. I think they sound
crap by modern standards - tinny, rattly, clogged-up, mid-heavy mixes with no
deep bass.

Put them up against a modern trance single mixed ITB and the latter sounds
huge, dynamic, cinematic, and infinitely more polished.

Which is better? It depends...

The Pink Floyd albums hit a sweet spot by being musically ground breaking
while also being the first examples of hifi multitrack recording in its modern
form.

Now I tend to think ITB is fine for electronica and dance, because sometimes
you want polish and a slightly unreal shine. But for rock, country and maybe
even hiphop the older hardware is going to give you more character, bite, and
depth.

Ultimately they're just colours you can use. If you have talent, it doesn't
matter if you mix ITB or not.

If you don't, it doesn't matter either.

~~~
riprowan
> I actually hate the sound of most of the Beatles albums. I think they sound
> crap by modern standards - tinny, rattly, clogged-up, mid-heavy mixes with
> no deep bass.

Of course the whole point of bands like the Beatles was that they stood
"engineering" on its head, as it was understood at the time (actual scientists
wearing actual lab coats attempting to capture sound as accurately as
possible).

EMI engineers making classical records were trying to create photographic
style recordings. The early Beatles records sound, mostly, like you're
standing at the Cavern club in front of a late-1950s sound reinforcement
system. Photographic.

The Beatles helped to change the idea of making "photographic" records into
making records like painting on canvas. Together with the other influential
artists of the time (Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, Mike Oldfield, etc) they
transformed modern music.

When yo

>Put them up against a modern trance single mixed ITB and the latter sounds
huge, dynamic, cinematic, and infinitely more polished.

>Which is better? It depends...

I think you make my point here.

If I were making a Crystal Method record, of course I would use a different
signal chain that if I were making a Dawes record.

That's the whole point.

------
Neliquat
A link to the auction with amazing pictures of the details. True nerdporn.

[http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23878/lot/35/?category=list&...](http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23878/lot/35/?category=list&length=10&page=4)

~~~
teh_klev
Yeah I know....and I'm usually so anal about getting or linking to original
sources. Hopefully a mod will update.

------
Clubber
It is certainly capable of making a good album.

------
jessaustin
What a goofy headline; why emphasize auctioneers like that? "Pink Floyd
recording console at auction" would be better.

------
m-i-l
Don't have space for it, couldn't get it up the stairs, and got distracted
reading the linked article "How to view 'The Wizard of Oz' with 'Dark Side of
the Moon'... Urban legend claims that if you play Pink Floyd's classic album
while watching 'The Wizard of Oz,' there's an incredible synchronicity. Well,
we've tried it! Here are the results."
[http://www.goldminemag.com/features/how-to-view-the-
wizard-o...](http://www.goldminemag.com/features/how-to-view-the-wizard-of-oz-
with-dark-side-of-the-moon)

