Pink Floyd "Dark Side of the Moon"

[nonsqtr]

This was done on a Neve console, right? It's got that "sound". This has got to be one of the most amazing "simple" pieces of engineering ever. Any thoughts?

[peteroberts]

I don't think it was all that 'simple'...it was about 2 years in the making from what I understand.

[Mark Latimour]

There is no dark side of the moon really, as a matter of fact, its all dark.

[Adam Barkley]

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

This was done on a Neve console, right? It's got that "sound". This has got to be one of the most amazing "simple" pieces of engineering ever. Any thoughts?

You can listen to a record and know what type of console it was recorded on?

That is something I have trouble believing.


Not trying to be inflammatory with my post, just my opinion.

[Folmeister]

Whatever the console, it is an exemplary aural and artistic landscape. Its rich textural nuances are the stuff of rock legend. In other words, it's f***ing awesome!

[nonsqtr]

Originally Posted by abark000

You can listen to a record and know what type of console it was recorded on?

That is something I have trouble believing.


Not trying to be inflammatory with my post, just my opinion.

Yep. Believe it or not, each recording system has a "sound". That would be especially true in the old days, when analog technology was king. In today's digital world, many manufacturers' products sound more or less the same, and that's because they're "digital", they conform to a standard specification. Not so in the old days. Rupert Neve was an engineering genius. For instance, he stuck his upper poles at around 60 kHz on some of his preamps, just to get the smooth high end response that really pleases the ear. That would be kind of the same concept as Ampeg tuning their SVT cabs way above "low E", just so they could get the smooth low end response. Stuff that was done with old Neve consoles, has a "sound". It's nowhere near "digital". It has some very characteristic "nuances" that the ear can pick up, if one listens carefully. I've been doing studio engineering for many years now, and that stuff becomes pretty obvious when you've been "in it" for a while. Now, my guess on Pink Floyd here is exactly that, a "guess". I was just asking if anyone knew for sure.

[nonsqtr]

Originally Posted by peteroberts

I don't think it was all that 'simple'...it was about 2 years in the making from what I understand.

Agreed, from that standpoint. However, listening to the finished product, the "production" is nowhere near as extensive as, say, a Don Was effort, like the B-52's "Good Stuff" or something. They used 128 tracks for that one, and it's a masterpiece of engineering and production. Certainly not trying to downplay that kind of stuff. All I'm saying is, the Pink Floyd album is "reasonably simple" when it comes to the actual tracks, and the way they were put together. The really spectacular thing on that record, is some of the effects. I'll bet that's where most of that two years went.

[Adam Barkley]

Originally Posted by nonsqtr

Yep. Believe it or not, each recording system has a "sound". That would be especially true in the old days, when analog technology was king. In today's digital world, many manufacturers' products sound more or less the same, and that's because they're "digital", they conform to a standard specification. Not so in the old days. Rupert Neve was an engineering genius. For instance, he stuck his upper poles at around 60 kHz on some of his preamps, just to get the smooth high end response that really pleases the ear. That would be kind of the same concept as Ampeg tuning their SVT cabs way above "low E", just so they could get the smooth low end response. Stuff that was done with old Neve consoles, has a "sound". It's nowhere near "digital". It has some very characteristic "nuances" that the ear can pick up, if one listens carefully. I've been doing studio engineering for many years now, and that stuff becomes pretty obvious when you've been "in it" for a while. Now, my guess on Pink Floyd here is exactly that, a "guess". I was just asking if anyone knew for sure.

That was very informative, thanks.

Adam

[baba]

Not sure, but there is a DVD on the making of the Dark Side Of The Moon. It has plenty of studio shots that will probably answer your question. Also, Alan Parsons walks through how he added some of the analog effects while sitting at the board. His engineering on that album was nothing short of amazing. It flowwwwws...

[Lyle Caldwell]

Dark Side was done at Abbey Road, so most of the gear (and certainly the board) was in-house-built EMI gear. It was the same solid state board that was installed in 1968 and was such a departure from the older tube boards that they had used previously. Listen to Abbey Road by the Beatles (first major album done with that new SS board) and then to Dark Side- that's the sound of that board.

Rupert Neve might have had some input into the EMI gear, but I've not read that he directly did. He was directly involved with George Martin and Geoff Emerick in the design of AIR studios and their gear.

I think just about any high quality board/path will get you close if you're chasing DS sounds- it's the use of small diaphraghm condensers and very specific analog and tape-based effects that contribute the "aura".

DSotM is a perfectly sublime album, but it's not "perfect" in the sense of today's ultra-anal productions. You can hear the Speed King pedals squeak throughout, you can hear tape splices, there is amp noise/hum throughout, and the tempos vary a lot. But who cares? It's freakin DSotM!

[Red Wonder]

Alan Parsons is the MAN!

[canopener]

Originally Posted by Mark Latimour

There is no dark side of the moon really, as a matter of fact, its all dark.

You're just cruisin' for a bruisin'.

[nonsqtr]

Originally Posted by Lyle Caldwell

Dark Side was done at Abbey Road, so most of the gear (and certainly the board) was in-house-built EMI gear. It was the same solid state board that was installed in 1968 and was such a departure from the older tube boards that they had used previously. Listen to Abbey Road by the Beatles (first major album done with that new SS board) and then to Dark Side- that's the sound of that board.

Rupert Neve might have had some input into the EMI gear, but I've not read that he directly did. He was directly involved with George Martin and Geoff Emerick in the design of AIR studios and their gear.

I think just about any high quality board/path will get you close if you're chasing DS sounds- it's the use of small diaphraghm condensers and very specific analog and tape-based effects that contribute the "aura".

DSotM is a perfectly sublime album, but it's not "perfect" in the sense of today's ultra-anal productions. You can hear the Speed King pedals squeak throughout, you can hear tape splices, there is amp noise/hum throughout, and the tempos vary a lot. But who cares? It's freakin DSotM!

Excellent! Thank you.

[fraublugher]

i recorded on that very same board , its in Toronto now and has been moded , at halla music