Interview w/ Phil Taylor (Pink Floyd)

[brendondp]

Hey,

Here's a link to a TapeOp article in which Phil Taylor talks about Astoria (David Gilmour's personal house-boat studio). Neves, ATCs, EAR, V72, V76, V77, V78s... it's a slutz wet-dream, (figuratively speaking of course). Not much music stuff, but lotsa gear.

TapeOp Article

Love and hugs,

bdp

[brendondp]

And for all you complete sceptics, he discusses the importance of mains power, cables (down to the internal wiring of the ATCs), connectors, and getting rid of RF, EMI, and microwave interference.

Seriously.

Cheers again,

bdp

[doorknocker]

Thanks for the link, brendondp!

You made my day!

Andi

www.doorknocker.ch

[threm]

Great article. What a place!


"Hello, this is Phil Taylor calling from England.
I'd just like to order 23 km (14.3 miles) of Van den Hul cable."

[C.Lambrechts]

Phil's also a 12 times world professional darts champion fwiw :

http://www.philthepower.com/

[dim light]

awesome, thanks!

[mac black]

Originally Posted by C.Lambrechts

Phil's also a 12 times world professional darts champion fwiw :

http://www.philthepower.com/

ha ha ha u joker ...

[Hysteria]

Originally Posted by brendondp

And for all you complete sceptics, he discusses the importance of mains power, cables (down to the internal wiring of the ATCs), connectors, and getting rid of RF, EMI, and microwave interference.

Seriously.

Cheers again,

bdp

Hmm, well there's no reason why the pros can't get taken in by Audiophoolery. He seems to cover a lot of ground too, we've got cable directionality, solid silver digital interconnects, burning in cables, Weiss boxes sitting on some kind of magic stands filled with god knows what to eliminate any kind of distortion and interference entering the signal path while at the same time preferring tape and using a valve mix-bus (so here comes the distortion again).

And what's this about you can't make a perfect digital copy...You lose resolution...

So does that mean that when I copy a file on my computer or forward an attachment on an email or send a file over a network, it's going to be corrupted. Of course not.

I think what happens here is that some concepts are easier to grasp that others and not every audio engineer will understand them all. And, being human we all are susceptible to psychological suggestion and the concept that we must be able to improve everything and if it costs more then it's likely to be better.

All right, bring on the flames , I'm ready for you

[De chromium cob]

I think Phil's having some fun at the writers expense.

[midnightsun]

Yep, I'm with Hysteria on this one. Gear Slutzs are Gear Slutzs. The gear has become more important than the music. "THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES" Spend on and on and on. For many that is easier than making music.

[Jose Mrochek]

I think you guys need to get the "Gilmour Live in Concert" DVD, and you will undertand what this boat is about. That thing sounds ridicoulosly better than anything I ever heard by far. Extreme sluttism is worth it.

Does it help the music ? Ofourse it DOES!!! Because that music needs to be heard in order to call it that. I am willing to bet anything, that people are more willing to listen to music for longs periods of time that sounds great than not so great.

It's also funny to think that because you are a "audio engineer" you have better ears than "joe public". Like you were blessed with these "un-human" set of ears.
So hey, let's mix it in the box because "joe public" won't notice anyway, to me is stupidity to the maximun.

The best selling records of all time happen to be the best sounding records of all time to. at least the ones I like. and other billion or so people.

The "standard" equipment used in '73 , beats the shit out of what's standard in 2005. Isn't that weird ?

[mac black]

I Had the pleasure of meeting Phil and he is one of the most knowledgeable guys when it comes to highest end audio. The Astoria is simply a dream studio (I spend 6 weeks there) and everything from leads to the inner design (they tried to keep the early 20’Th century vibe as authentic as possible) to the equipment is the best of the best and the people around are amazing (the food is as good as the equipment).

He is indeed one of a rare dinosaur breed ...as we are slowly moving into the mp3 world (actually we are living in it already) and music with no quality or sonic art (the usual ..."it’s all about the song" attitude) Phil is a true sonic lover and I wish the world had more people like him.

mac

[De chromium cob]

I wonder why the old Floyd albums sound better than the new ones.....Even if there is a real difference, its infantesimal. The high end gear, room and monitor system are more likely why it sounds so good.... Not some cable or patchbay differences- and certainly not because one piece of gear is on a stupid cone!
As Bugs Bunny used to say- What a gullabull!

[Jose Mrochek]

=Sounds Great]You need to listen to 'The Division Bell' again. It is an awesome sounding record, as good as they get. Whether or not the songs are up to par or not (I think they are) is another question, but the sound quality is fantastic.

I personaly don't like it (songs) except for well.. "high hopes" which is a masterpiece on it's own. but does sound fantastic. I really recomend getting the gilmour in concert DVD if you guys don't own it. It's a step above anything live. The cello player, the bass player, the drummer.. and well michael kamen on keys and oboe ?
I love bob geldof's performance on confortably numb.. gave me the chills. No one represented water's better. in my humble opinion. and the relation between the movie made it even better. Whats the guy doing today ? boomtown rats was a great band to ?

[brendondp]

Originally Posted by De chromium cob

I wonder why the old Floyd albums sound better than the new ones.....Even if there is a real difference, its infantesimal. The high end gear, room and monitor system are more likely why it sounds so good.... Not some cable or patchbay differences- and certainly not because one piece of gear is on a stupid cone!
As Bugs Bunny used to say- What a gullabull!

I think the fact that Floyd have been committed to sound quality for a long time (as has James Guthrie) means that there's a consistency to the Floyd catalogue which is, IMHO, pretty rare for any band, especially with a catalogue as big as theirs. Gilmour in particular has been very selective on the gear, and those associated with the use of that gear, in the making, mixing, mastering and remastering of the Floyd albums.

I think too, that while the argument for the use of, say, a cone to support a piece of gear, can be dismissed fairly easily on it's own, I believe the cumulative effect of minor contributions (from cones, support, cables, placement, "fairy dust" or whatever you want to call it, etc) can add up to a significant audible difference overall. I've heard it on systems myself, but I've also had others who swear black and blue there is no absolutely no difference to be discerned.

But if you hate the music (and I've heard plenty of beautifully recorded, mixed and mastered albums where the music causes almost instantaneous vomiting), then any discernable difference in perceived sound quality will be of little consequence for the listener. I have friends who detest any Floyd post-Wish You Were Here, and know others who only have The Division Bell and Pulse.

But you know, each to their own, etc etc

bdp

[Hysteria]

Originally Posted by De chromium cob

I wonder why the old Floyd albums sound better than the new ones.....Even if there is a real difference, its infantesimal. The high end gear, room and monitor system are more likely why it sounds so good.... Not some cable or patchbay differences- and certainly not because one piece of gear is on a stupid cone!
As Bugs Bunny used to say- What a gullabull!

I couldn't agree with you more and would add that having people who know how to get the best from the equipment is going to be a major contributer and great musicians, songwriters, arrangers that we know Pink Floyd to be.

Sure, use the best stuff, cables that are very well engineered with very high quality connectors, best converters, monitors etc. but this cable nonsense is like having a Rolls Royce made of gold. Sure it'll be better then everyone elses cost many times more but it won't make a better car other than for ego purposes.

I can't really see how technology from 1973 can be better than 2005 especially if we are comparing high-end to high-end. It maybe that we associate Floyd's sound with characteristics that equipment from that era gives to the sound (i.e. higher distortion, more noise, tape compression) but surely we can't be arguing that the equipment was better.

As to why old Floyd Albums sound better, maybe more work went into them, maybe the sounds had to be carefully created and temptation the layer the tracks with endless synth patches wasn't there, maybe they were better songs that had better arrangements and better use of dynamics. Maybe we're all just very nostalgic

[PlanB]

I had the honour and pleasure of mixing an album at Astoria last year with engineer/mixer Jon Kelly and producer/arranger Andrew Powell.
I can vouch that the studio is really top notch.
Phil, his lovely wife and Damon, the in-house engineer, are all wonderful people who made our stay there really an ultimate pleasure.

For a gearslut it really is a terrific experience to say: hmmm, I'd like a Fairchild compressor and a Binson Echorec echo, just turn around to the effects rack and plug it in... Gearsluts heaven.

BTW, the boat used to belong to Charlie Chaplin.

Cheers
Arthur

[Ruphus]

The older PF albums sound better because of the vibe.
In fact the pure sonics are better on their newer stuff, but it can´t compensate for the generating mood of the originals.

What some of the "snake oil" is concerned I have been told months ago about significancve of AC quality by a competent person. http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...urrent+quality ( Interestingly he had been doubting about the relevance himself until he made his experiences with high end installations like mastering studios.) I couldn´t understand it all technically, but think to have understood that the best gear won´t help you to max at sonics as long as you havn´t ensured AC quality.

I at least will be trying to provide that point next time that I move to a new place. The man kindly promissed to me that he will help in laying down a plan of how to get there.
I suppose the materials could cost me at least as much like a very good mic, but what can you do.

Ruphus

[gyraf]

Hysteria,

I think you have a good and valid point there...

Jakob E.

[Jose Mrochek]

Also, if you don't have it, get the DVD on the making of DSOTM. This will answer some of the questions that have been posed here. You will see that the line between engineering and artistry was rather blured. VERY good documentary.

yep have that one also. awesome , i watched it 20 times and can't get bored of it : )

By the way, about the gilmour live dvd.. is there static coming from his vocal mic or is it just me ? there is a buzz right ? or am I hearing things that are not there ?

[Jose Mrochek]

I can't really see how technology from 1973 can be better than 2005 especially if we are comparing high-end to high-end.

High end stuff may be better, but the standard was lowered was what I tried to say. And I stand firmly to the thought that technology has had a huge negative effect on the music also.

Yes, I know many people will say that if you have 200 tracks available you don't need to use them. But still, to many options and easy editing has had a domino effect that leads to soul less music.

[isa215]

The guys @ astoria are really dedicated to getting 'the highest fidelity' possible. (a lot of tweaks you'd probably more readily associate with the world of 'hi-fi' than proaudio - but needless to say - also a stunning array of outboard). A friend of mine has done a fair amount of tech work for them.
They are quite prepared to spend the time and effort to really get the best quality possible from the equipment (or at least what they perceive to be the best - i wouldn't go as far as saying 'snake oil' but I'd question whether the benefits justified the effort and cost ) - and mods, rebuilds, tweaks and customisation are the norm.
It's not how you'd run a commercial studio - but it's nice to know that there are people who are that dedicated (obsessed!) - of course lots of time and plenty of private finance doesn't hurt!

[brendondp]

Originally Posted by isa215

It's not how you'd run a commercial studio - but it's nice to know that there are people who are that dedicated (obsessed!) - of course lots of time and plenty of private finance doesn't hurt!

I concur.

It's all about (repeating self for six-hundreth time) diminishing returns.

Does a cable that costs $1000 per meter sound 10 times better than a cable costing $100 per meter? Does spending $1000 on a carbon-fiber platform mean your D/A converter (that you spent $1000 on) sounds twice as good?

Many commercial recording facilities can't afford the time or money to experiment to find out (and don't care anyway), so it's left to wealthy individuals with private facilities to take the plunge. Although I suspect there are a few mastering facilities where that sort of costly experimentation takes place.

I personally applaud anyone who has the means to explore the outer limits of audio production and reproduction and seeks the highest ideals from their gear, but from my own experience, no amount of money I've ever spent gave me more experience or made me a better musician.

If we could buy talent however, I'm sure I'd be very indebted to the bank manager right now.

Cheers,

bdp

[greggybud]

would anyone care to explain or give a link as to where I can learn more about cable directionality?

[brendondp]

Originally Posted by greggybud

would anyone care to explain or give a link as to where I can learn more about cable directionality?

The problem with this is that there are cable manfacturers and reviewers who will be absolute converts to the idea of cable directionality, while others will be equally and vehemently dismissive. From just three manfacturers:

Wireworld state: "Copper and silver are not completely solid, their microstructure is actually a bunch of individual pieces (grains) stuck together. Unavoidable angular patterns in this grain structure cause cables to perform differently in both directions. Technically oriented readers may be interested to know that this effect also shows up in SWR measurements of transmission line cables. Most cable manufacturers do not take advantage of cable directionality because they haven't found ways to control it. Wireworld cables are manufactured utilizing a proprietary optimization process that specifically controls the grain structure of the metal to produce the lowest distortion when it's connected according to the direction of the cable printing and the arrows on the plugs."

van den Hul state: "In connecting the shield to ground only at one side of the cable and lifting it at the other side it functions as a true screen: It does not carry any audio signal; It screens the inner conductors and drains away unwanted noise to one location. This location (marked by the ground-end sticker) generally is chosen to be the signal source’s ground (*), however in a few cases better shielding performance can be obtained by reversing the cable, thus grounding the shield at the signal receiving side. Please note that reversing the cable here has nothing to do with the sometimes used term “cable directionality”; In van den Hul cables this effect is absent. Burn in effects and directionality found with some audio cables also partly can be pointed towards polluted contacts..."

Chord state: "Most cables are directional, they sound better when connected in one direction than the other. As yet, we have found no way to establish the direction by measurement. During development of an interconnect or speaker cable, we establish direction through blind listening tests carried out by ourselves, retailers and hi-fi manufacturers. The results are remarkably consistent."

I've read really complex articles on why cable directionality exists and why it's audible, and just as many articles on why it doesn't and why it's not.

I own cables with arrows and cables without. I'm not an electrical engineer and don't even pretend that I understand the electric-acoustical properties of wire, let alone the effect of capacitance, resistance, cold-soldering, connectors and cryogenic freezing.

What I do know is that I've learned to trust my ears more than anything else. I personally can't think of a more important thing for a musician or engineer.

Maybe Tim or EveAnna could give their opinions...

Cheers,

bdp

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Jose Mrochek

High end stuff may be better, but the standard was lowered was what I tried to say. And I stand firmly to the thought that technology has had a huge negative effect on the music also.
Yes, I know many people will say that if you have 200 tracks available you don't need to use them. But still, to many options and easy editing has had a domino effect that leads to soul less music.

So is Gilmour's place inferior because it offers and went through so many options?
Weren't bands like Pink Floyd and Queen the ones that pushed the track limit in the 70ies and pointed the way to today's '200 tracks' reality?
I guess you're contradicting yourself.
Do I have to Autotune vocals just because the technology is available? Absolutely not.
Without technology, there wouldn't be no recorded sound. I don't see any reason why the process should have peaked in 1973......

Andi

www.doorknocker.ch

[Neddy Seagoon]

Tha Astoria is a beautiful studio and it does sound great. Why not get "the best" (what ever that means) if you have (your bosses) virtually limitless reasources.

I get a little touchy if my assistant goes out and buys a dozen donuts without my permission let alone rebuild my studio while I'm on vacation.

Guess it's a different world for some folk!

[Hysteria]

With regard to cable directionality (unless for reasons of shielding/screening) my take on it is that there is science and there is pseudo-science (aka snake oil). The Audiophile industry prefers the latter - makes for better business.

Also, listening to, creating, playing, mixing and producing music is art but designing electronic equipment is science.

[De chromium cob]

I bet James Randi would offer Phil Taylor the million dollar prize if he could duplicate some of those claims in a double blind test. He's already offered it to the shysters who sell the shakti stones. Dont believe everything you read.
There's a big difference between buying the best you can get and taking it up the poop shoot from some scam artists...... tutt

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html