|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 2, 2015 10:26:33 GMT -6
I read Glyn Johns book “Sound Man” this week. There are lots of rock star anecdotes that I could care less about, but there was one thing he writes about that really interested me. He writes that studio owners, with exceptions like Allen Sides at Ocean Way, “succumbed to the commercial pressure of having SSL consoles and Hidley acoustic designs, both of which have been responsible for systematically reducing the quality of recorded sound like some invidious cancer”. Does anybody want to comment on what it was specifically in SSL consoles and Hidley acoustic designs that made Mr. Johns dislike them so much? “Reducing the quality of recorded sound” is a broad statement. So, I am curious to hear the board’s thoughts about what specifically the SSL/Hidley combination did to change recorded sound so drastically in his mind. Appreciate any thoughts.  |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jan 2, 2015 13:50:24 GMT -6
I've never liked the sound of SSL's...clean and crispy.
|
|
t3
Junior Member
I'm in the hi-fidelity first class travelling set.
Posts: 54
|
Post by t3 on Jan 2, 2015 13:59:24 GMT -6
Is he referring to the, "track on a Neve, mix on an SSL," approach?
|
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Jan 2, 2015 14:40:01 GMT -6
SSL...Clean with Presence. Definitely a sound! I will have to google Hidley Designs but Im assuming modern aggressive in your face.
|
|
|
|
Post by unit7 on Jan 2, 2015 15:27:10 GMT -6
“Reducing the quality of recorded sound” is a broad statement. Could be as simple as a bit of overreaction(?). When something you don't care much about gets widely popular you sometimes learn to really hate it. |
|
t3
Junior Member
I'm in the hi-fidelity first class travelling set.
Posts: 54
|
Post by t3 on Jan 2, 2015 16:07:25 GMT -6
Then there's this: www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct13/articles/bop.htmThe "Tom Hidley" and "The Non-Environment Control Room" sections at the end give the gist of it, but the whole article is fascinating, especially the description of Studio 1. |
|
|
|
Post by matt on Jan 2, 2015 16:48:29 GMT -6
Johns is also extremely critical of Spector's production of Let It Be, and of the band in general. I know that there is a widespread sentiment that the album is not The Beatles' best, and Glyn most definitely agrees with this. He pulls no punches. He says that he is not trying to be controversial in this book, but methinks he is being a bit disingenuous. He has gotten significant press coverage, in part due to the juicy content therein. Good for him, controversy always sells.
Listening to Let It Be now. Is this The Beatles at their worst?
1. Two Of Us
2. Dig A Pony
3. Across The Universe
4. I Me Mine
5. Dig It
6. Let It Be
7. Maggie Mae
8. I've Got A Feeling
9. One After 909
10. The Long And Winding Road
11. For You Blue
12. Get Back
Maybe, but it's most certainly not "garbage". What songwriters they were, even in disarray! Old Glyn has got his knickers in a twist, 55 years on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 2, 2015 17:12:50 GMT -6
He is by no means alone in his opinion of both Hidley rooms and SSL. LEDE was also not the answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 2, 2015 17:39:36 GMT -6
Is he referring to the, "track on a Neve, mix on an SSL," approach? I have no idea. He did most of his great work out of Olympic Studios' Studio 1, which he characterizes as "an amazing space. Incredibly versatile. You could record anything from a 60 piece orchestra to the loudest rock and roll in there and somehow it would adapt". He also used a Dick Swettenham designed console for recording. I presume he both recorded and mixed on that, but I'm not sure. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jan 2, 2015 19:11:06 GMT -6
that albums great,
the SSL's are crispy and the eq's do weird phase things, I only booked an SSL for a personal project once back in the day and hated it! I think it was a G series? On other sessions i was part of involving them, they left me even more cold, just not my thing i guess, I prefer api all the way. That said, the SSL J series is supposed to be by far the most hifi console they ever built, as well as the most expensive, the eq's were supposed to be waaaay better, i've never turned knobs on the J, i'd like to see what its about though.
|
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 3, 2015 9:01:35 GMT -6
that albums great, the SSL's are crispy and the eq's do weird phase things, I only booked an SSL for a personal project once back in the day and hated it! I think it was a G series? On other sessions i was part of involving them, they left me even more cold, just not my thing i guess, I prefer api all the way. That said, the SSL J series is supposed to be by far the most hifi console they ever built, as well as the most expensive, the eq's were supposed to be waaaay better, i've never turned knobs on the J, i'd like to see what its about though. My guess is that Johns believes "commercial pressures" to get product out the door ASAP sent studio owners to SSL, which had automation and compression on every channel, but in his opinion the EQ's and perhaps the channel compression didn't sound good. As for the Hidley Rooms, it seems Johns liked the cavernous wooden spaces as opposed to spaces with lots of absorption and diffusion. He doesn't differentiate between tracking and mixing room. So, I have no idea what he liked for mixing rooms. It's gospel that mixing Control Rooms have lots of absorption today. I have no idea what kind of treatment-if any- was used in mixing Control Rooms by Johns, George Martin and at Motown. I suspect it wasn't radically different than the tracking rooms but I could be wrong. Whatever the case, there isn't a lot of information regarding whether they had a hard time getting their mixes to translate. They certainly recorded and mixed great sounding music. |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 3, 2015 9:15:31 GMT -6
I thought I'd share this interview with Glyn Johns. For me, the mix in the introduction is amazing. Of course my Avatar makes me biased. https%3A//soundcloud.com/aspen-public-radio/check-12-glyn-johns-final |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 3, 2015 13:09:52 GMT -6
Hidley is who brought us the ultra-dead tracking room, rock-covered control room walls and White 1/3 octave monitor equalizers. Ironically banks could relate to bling they had previously seen used in bars but not to conventional acoustic treatment. I know of several cases were a Hidley design was the only way people could get a bank loan for building their room!
SSL had the first automation that worked. The original appeal of automation was that it allowed one to run multiple identical first generation mixes having no splices. This replaced a workflow of mixing in sections, splicing them together and then running multiple copies to send different regions of the world for mastering.
Everybody I know who went by way of MCI to SSL thought the SSL sounded even worse. Remember Johns started out using the first Helios console which is still considered among the very best sounding transistorized desks ever made. www.philsbook.com/olympic.html
Today's worship of SSL and Neve is a real facepalm experience for those of us who were working in the industry during the '60s and '70s. |
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 3, 2015 17:20:32 GMT -6
Today's worship of SSL and Neve is a real facepalm experience for those of us who were working in the industry during the '60s and '70s. Johns tells a story in the book about trying to get the Motown sound with English musicians and never being able to get it. Then, he writes Dusty Springfield came to England to do a TV special with Motown musicians called "The Sounds Of Motown", which Johns prerecorded in an English studio. He was very worried that he would not be able to get the sound, but said that as soon as he put up the mics up and the musicians started playing he writes, "there it was, the Motown sound". I presume there was more to it, Bob's thoughts would be interesting, but he seems very adamant about the magic being in the musicians. Perhaps he's being self effacing. I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 3, 2015 20:22:39 GMT -6
APIs were great but not that many were made after the '70s. Used Neves and SSLs are plentiful. I'm not sure many studios that have either today bought them new.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 3, 2015 20:35:09 GMT -6
We were busting our asses in Detroit to get away from the Motown sound because we figured it was just a fad that would soon go away! My mentors in Detroit came from Atlantic in New York and United/Western/Gold Star in Hollywood. I didn't realize this until years later.
The degree to which it's about musicians and recording ensembles at once as opposed to gear is staggering. Shortly after we moved to Nashville I got to attend a reunion session with the remaining A-Team members and Bill Porter. You could have recorded the Nashville sound of the '50s with a lone 57 in the middle of the room! And there were no headphones.
|
|
|
|
Post by RicFoxx on Jan 3, 2015 20:46:29 GMT -6
I love Motown stuff...some of my favorite music to listen to. When I listen to that era of music I am not thinking to myself...wow, this is sonically mind blowing...Im simply moved by the soul of the music. Capture excellence but not sonic excellence. Just genius on all levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 3, 2015 21:03:43 GMT -6
We kept the best take even when it was an early distorted one. Performance trumped audio quality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 3, 2015 22:01:29 GMT -6
I was a guest at the mixing of live performances recorded in a top NYC studio of Neo, and then James Blunt. It had some monster SSL board, I wasn't paying attention to things like model numbers then. That recording sounded outright fantastic, but then those guys have some chops, whether you care for their music or not. I'm not the kind to fall for bad sound in a pretty package, and it sounded great to me. Possibly, the room was what I loved the most, but I had no complaints regarding any aspect of the sound quality. I began very young, so I've recorded at Bell Sound, Electric Lady, and Plaza Sound, (on top of Radio City Music Hall), where Toscanini conducted the NBC orchestra, so I've had a little experience on some vintage gear, but not enough to have an informed opinion, but the SSL seemed equally excellent sounding.
Bob, is there a soundboard you'd recommend for a singer/songwriter at home that has some mojo, that sells for under say.. $3G's? I'm aware there are some serious bargains to be had now that so much is ITB, so maybe there's something great I can keep my eyes out for. I've heard things like the Yamaha PM 1000 was overbuilt to compete with a Neve console, etc..
I'm also curious as to which mixer you would like to have if money were no object.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 4, 2015 0:30:58 GMT -6
I've never wanted to own a studio especially after managing one for a band. A vintage board isn't worth much without a shop to go with it and parts are rapidly becoming unobtainium. For that reason I'd probably go for a new API.
The PM-1000 was designed as a contract project by John Windt who I first met while he was our shop foreman at Motown. He and one of the other techs moved to LA around 1967 where he got a job helping build A&M and from there worked his way up to becoming one of the main people at Quad-Eight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 4, 2015 11:12:27 GMT -6
Thanks Bob. It makes sense that repairs and maintenance could become issues, especially for someone like me who hasn't used a soldering iron since forever.
I love that you know the designer of the PM-1000! Did you ever get a chance to listen to it?
Cowboycoalminer get great results with his modified Soundcraft Ghost. I wonder which would sound better after service and upgrades. I'm in no rush, a soundboard is somewhere like 95 on my list of 100 audio production things I need. I like to know where to aim my sites though, you never know what can show up sometimes.
I enjoyed the Glyn Johns interview posted on the previous page. My friend said the book was a big snore, but he sounds like a cool guy. Maybe he's feels some pressure to stay a bit politically correct, as he still might find work with some of the artists he's mentioned and might not want to burn bridges or scare any prospective clients off.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 4, 2015 16:40:02 GMT -6
John did Soundcraft and Neotech mods for a while. I've never played with any of them. I mostly used a Soundcraft 1600 that had been modified by a friend in San Francisco during the '80s. The few times I took a tape into an SSL room was a real ear-opener as to how bad they sounded relative to our cheap Soundcraft.
The thing I'd worry about with a PM-1000 is the amount of abuse it probably saw. Live sound is rapidly moving to audio over ip so there will probably be a big market in used high-end live consoles.
|
|
t3
Junior Member
I'm in the hi-fidelity first class travelling set.
Posts: 54
|
Post by t3 on Jan 5, 2015 2:15:53 GMT -6
Today's worship of SSL and Neve is a real facepalm experience for those of us who were working in the industry during the '60s and '70s. Why the Neve? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jan 5, 2015 10:06:02 GMT -6
Neves had a million transformers and sounded mushy or woolly for the lack of better terms. A Neve module doesn't sound as bad as a Neve console but it ain't an API or Electrodyne by a long shot, much less a Trident A-Range.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jan 5, 2015 10:36:12 GMT -6
Neves had a million transformers and sounded mushy or woolly for the lack of better terms. A Neve module doesn't sound as bad as a Neve console but it ain't an API or Electrodyne by a long shot, much less a Trident A-Range. This is where the old adage of "Track on a Neve, mix on an SSL" came from. |
|
