|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
4.243.134.60
What are those speakers? Dunlavy's? Focals?
Where's the equipment? Where's the listening seating, and, if it's behind the camera, that's *one big room.
Room size alone tells me Mr Rubin knows how to negotiate a Producer contract; plus an early-on smell for good business. No useful comment on his actual Producer skills
Follow Ups:
is there a better link?
Is this guy into real stereo with a single pair of mikes?
Warmest
Timothy Bailey
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio Scrounger
And gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
I think we would have a lot to talk about.
...wonder which U2 albums he produced. Most of them do not sound too hot on a good system, but in one of the interviews it appears, most unfortunately, that there is a lot of pressure for compression, as we know.
Steve
Try "The Joshua Tree" on Island P35D-20034 made in Japan, the original release.
Regards,
Geoff
Nice room
I clicked on aca.gr
nice site, but I can't close the windows - aol errors off ... the sessions stayed up overnight ... sigh.
FYI ...
got it off. Had to max windows security and cookies, then open AOL. Easy. peasy ...
Seriously, he is a brilliant producer. His "American" series of recordings of Johnny Cash are pure genius and the best, IMHO, of the Man in Black's Career. Rick Rubin certainly has an excellent aesthetic.
Karl
Wholeheartedly agree. The five record set should be in any music lover's collection. Great sonics too.
"Dammit..."
I have been to Rick's place several times, and that is not his music listening room --it is his Foyer/entry area.
Rick has two places in Ca. and lots of great high end gear. He often attends the high-end portion of the shows at CES and is an avid music listener and audiophile--time allowing.
Rick owns an entire Ayre system--which was in his bedroom last time I was over. In his study, converted to listening room he has Manely 250 mono's, a Hovland pre-amp, and a Sony SCD-1 driving Audio Physic Virgo speakers. Elsewhere in his place in Hollywood he has some big Legacy speakers and Theta in a film room. In his Malibu place, from what I am told he has Avalon speakers and another great system of electronics, Ayre based again, I think.
Rick is a phenomenal ambassador for great sound and refers recording and mastering people he works with to high end companies --so the recording systems can be improved. He even has a studio in his Hollywood home, again using high-end products.
His discography speaks for itself, and is broader in range that any record producers past or present. It doesn't take much searching to see also that he has accolades from everyone he works with.
Most importantly though, he is an incredibly congenial, selfless person and very generous with his time. There is a great interview with Michael Fremer posted on Michael's Music Angle web. http://www.musicangle.com/feat.php?id=38
In the high end hobby and business, we are all lucky to have him on the team.
I had the opportunity to hang out with him numerous times in his office back in 1990 just after he and Russel Simmons split Def Jam Records in two with Rubin opening Def American Recordings. I had just started out at Geffen Records in the mailroom(only way to get to A&R) and Def Am was directly across the street at Sunset and Doheny. Extremely convenient because Geffen distributed Def Am's records.
Anyway, leading up to The Black Crowes first album in '90, there was a ton of logistical marketing/promotion stuff that had to be coordinated which required memos, artwork, checks, etc. to be shuttled back and forth across the street between the two offices.
Rick and George Drakoulias(Black Crowes producer) would often just be hanging out getting things done. Considering the success that Rubin had prior to The Black Crowes at Def Jam and the monster multi-platinum he had dominating the charts with the Crowes, he was always ultra-lowkey. It was like hanging out in the living room with a bunch of friends. He'd stop whatever he was doing, ask how the day's going, offer drinks, ask you to hang out, whatever. A true rarity in the entertainment business where people on the lower end of the totem pole are used for emotional canon fodder.
On slow days, we'd get into some really great discussions about music in general. The guy knows his stuff - an encyclopedic knowledge of recorded music.
What a great introduction to "The Business". He invited everyone, including us in the mailroom, to his "Death of Def" party where he officially dropped the word "Def" from Def American's name. It was held at a bowling alley in Koreatown. Great party, great time.
Too bad he and David Geffen had a falling out over the content and style of The Geto Boys album soon after. Geffen hated rap, supposedly over it's explicit lyrics, but that was a load of crap because heavy metal and hard rock were just as bad.
"Rick is a phenomenal ambassador for great sound...."
On first read I was all wtf?, rapmaster Rick?, then recalled he was the driving force behind the last Cash recordings for which we're all eternally indebted.
I can't believe that I have to explain who Rick Rubin is on a web site about audio and music. He made Time's "100 Most Influential People In The World" list! You guys might want to take a look at Rubin's discography before ignorantly dismissing him as some sort of deaf, tasteless metal goon. Rubin produced the highly acclaimed American albums by Johnny Cash that revived Cash's career. Rubin has also produced recordings by U2, The Dixie Chicks, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Weezer, Neil Diamond, Lucinda Williams, Jakob Dylan, Shakira, Mick Jagger, Cheryl Crow, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Rubin's no hack.
N/T
"...You're all welcome to stay for the next set...we're going to play all the same tunes, but in different keys..." -Count Basie
Not Dunlavys.
Duntech 2001s are still the speaker of choice for many music business professionals, especially the "old school" types. My friend Bob Saglio sold his ex-Jeff Rowland pair of 2001s to Steely Dan mastering engineer Scott Hull.
2001s have sealed bass loading, so no room boom (assuming a large enough room and semi-decent setup), two 12-inch woofers per side, and a cabinet large enough to guarantee within 2 dB at 27.5 Hz and very usable output at 20 Hz. The Dynaudio soft dome tweeter means that you can listen all day and not want to shoot yourself.
Furthermore, they are dirt cheap--even if you privately import a new pair--they still make them in AU.
Ciao,
JM
...both Dunlavy SC-IVA's and Aletha's, at this point in life I might give my left nut to audition the entire Duntech line. I suspect that makes me a cheapass audiophile; I'd give my nut rather than spending a bunch of money to do so. ;-)
See ya. Dave
"High Fidelity audio has been like a dog chasing his tail. High Fidelity in my marriage has been much more rewarding cause she knows where I sleep."
Hullo Mark!
JD's business was based here in Canberra for quite a while.
he 'respected' the Audiosphere model 3's that I still have, too!
watching him inject silicon into those old Audax cone-domes was a lesson!
one pair of sovereigns in a system I know well, in a large room where they were(?) being driven by a rebuilt LEAK Stereo 20 which did 16 watts 20 t0 20k after the work, but it's still a small amp.
I use two of the Leaks - rather more radically rebuilt - to drive the 'sphere 3's. 8inch 2-ways no low pass, 1970's Fostex (nee Foster japan) drivers!
you can listen right down to Ella's diaphragm! Coloured well all spkrs are, fast revealing, and engrossing, yep!
What do you think of the 2" Morel dome's potential, and what is its sensitivity number. Fs is? .... and its Q is ...... ? / Could it be used with a 1st order LP slope!? and how low!?
TIA
WarmestTimbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio ScroungerAnd gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
http://www.theanalogdept.com/tim_bailey.htm
Hi, but it's "John."
A problem, having a New Testament name followed by a kind-of New Testament name.
Anyway, I always thought that Duntechs were better than Dunlavys; I think he was trying to prove that brilliant crossover design could triumph over cheap drivers, and I think he failed.
RenAudio:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Nominal Power Handling (RMS) P 200 W
Transient Power - 10 ms 1,000 W
Nominal Impedance Z 8 Ω
Sensitivity 1W/1M 90.5 dB
Frequency Response 450 6,000 Hz
Resonant Frequency 340 Hz
VOICE COIL
Voice Coil Diameter φ 55 mm (2.17
Voice Coil Height 7 mm (0.28")
Voice Coil Former aluminum
Voice Coil Wire hexagonal shaped aluminum
Number of Layers 2
DC Resistance RE 5.2 Ω
Voice Coil Inductance @ 1 kHz LBM 0.19 mH
MAGNET SYSTEM
Magnet System Type ferrite, chambered
BL Product BXL 6.4 NA
OPERATIONAL PARAMETERS
Mechanical Q Factor QMS 0.90
Electrical Q Factor QES 0.66
Total Q Factor Q/T 0.39
Moving Mass MMS 3.2 g
Cone / Dome Material hand treated fabric
Effective Piston Area S 30.0 cm2
Dimensions Faceplate Diameter
Faceplate Thickness
Cutout
Mounting Depth 140mm (5.51)
3.5mm (0.14)
107mm (4.21)
69mm (2.72)
Net Weight 1.3 kg (2.95 lbs)
http://www.renaudio.com/rawdrivers/midrangesandmidbasses.htm
Personally, my attitude is that time is so "expensive," if I was to get back into DIY I'd not mess with affordable drivers, in this case I'd go straight to ATC's 3-inch dome midrange. Or even a Raven ribbon, except even the biggest of those might not go down far enough to mate with a woofer large enough to give solid bass.
So I leave it to the pros.
JM
Hi John:
I tend to agree that Duntechs are slightly better than DALs, model for model. However, I never heard them side by side. And I happen to own Duntechs, so, pride of ownership?
Based upon listening to DALs at dealers and several times at the CES (where John Dunlavy himself set them up), my impression has been that the Duntechs are more open sounding (surprisingly close to a monitor for a large floor standing cabinet) and have even lower colorations overlaid on the music. This could be respectively because of the stepped back baffle design on the Duntechs (more expensive to build and I do believe John became more cost conscious with his DALs) and higher quality drivers.
However, this is not intended as any sort of put down for the DAL speakers. I still consider them to be among the better designs and they too can offer some exceptional bargains on the used market.
Hi-
I try to avoid taking sides, let alone picking fights.
But I always thought it was no contest between the old OZ company and the new US company. I don't know whether it was a mission statement thing or a business plan thing, but I certainly gathered that Mr. Dunlavy on several occasions stated that if you got the crossover "right," driver quality and cabinet complexity were substantially less important. It almost seemed to be a chip on the shoulder thing, and my policy on those has always been to steer clear rather than to engage.
And it's not just my opinion on the relative merits. Sony Music Mastering continued privately to import Duntechs, despite the availability of Dunlavys on the new and used markets. And mastering engineers such as Scott Hull don't go chasing after old Dunlavys, they go chasing after old Duntechs. I don't think it's just nostalgia.
As of a couple of years ago, Duntech in Australia was willing to send speakers over to private individuals, cash in advance, of course. I think that privately importing a new pair of 2001s is a very valid solution.
Cheers,
JM
I've filed some pages and bookmarked the site!
I've never heard a bad Dunlavy design, and his MC head amp was very good!
WarmestTimbo in Oz
The Skyptical Mensurer and Audio ScroungerAnd gladly would he learn and gladly teach - Chaucer. ;-)!
'Still not saluting.'
http://www.theanalogdept.com/tim_bailey.htm
Its amazing that Duntech and Osborn are not distributed in the US
Hi-
Twenty plus years ago, "aspirational" magazines in the US such as Playboy and Esquire would run lifestyle articles that would show huge, room-dominating stereos. No longer, and not for some time.
Except for professional engineers (e.g. Sony Music Mastering imported Duntechs direct up to a couple of years ago), most people just do not want refrigerator-sized objects in their living rooms any more.
It's a shame that Duntech has not US representation any more, but, if you see what 2001s go begging for on audiogon ($3500-$6500/pr.) you would understand hat importing new 2001s for sale at full pop retail is not a sustainable business model.
Cheers,
JM
He's obviously a highly enlightened man possessed of the exquisite good taste that can only come from a career of producing heavy metal recordings.
One of many in his home.
Watch the video for God's Gonna Cut You Down by Johnny Cash.
Apart from being a great song and well done video there's a shot of Chris Rock sitting on the couch in another room. He's listening to a pair of Avalons with a nice stack of electronics between them.
my guess is he ate em'
That rug on the other hand, has got to be worth a couple hundred g's...
"Live life as if you'll die tomorrow... -Gandhi
Learn life as if you'll live forever..."
I'd guess the electronics are behind them, and you'd think they would resonate like hell. He probably needs those huge Dunlavy's(?)to drive that room. I think he's on the listening...bed I guess. On the whole, not the best listening room or setup.
is not a piano. I think it's a harpsichord. Take a look at the photo closely. The left hand instrument has 2 keyboards and at least 5 pedals. I don't know of any pianos with 2 keyboards or 5 pedals, much less both. On the other hand I have heard of double manual harpsichords.
David Aiken
David Aiken,
Yes, the instrument on the left is a double manual harpsichord. With the pedals and slanted "cheeks"- the panels to the sides of the keyboards, the pedals and unpainted case- traditionally only Italian and somewhat rarely German harpsichords were finished.
The one on the is easy to recognise as a non-traditional instrument probably made in Germany in the 60's to 80's by a company like Neupert, Speerhaake, or possibly Sabathil. These German harpsichords were made in an attempt to make them stable and reliable, but are typically immensely heavy- (up to 4 times) compared to historic ones and the timbre is typically tubby and mushy. They very often used long string scale lengths to get a longer sustain which required a heavy structure and with the scale shortening required, there often used overwound strings in the bass- nasty. The structure was made even heavier as these have open bottoms- like pianos in an effort to radiate more sound, but they lose both resonance and structural strength. The photo harpsichord has seven pedals and is therefore sure to have the dreaded 16' stop (one octave below normal) Even quite short instruments of these makers were often encumbered with a 16' stop that encumbered the soundboard- used on only a few really large German instruments, and the 16' stops on these modern instruments are pure mud. The 16' also added a row of jacks, the weight of which made the keyboard feel heavier and sluggish- making rapid ornaments difficult. With 7 pedals there's probably also a Lute (nasard) stop too- yet another row of jacks to lift.
You can hear this kind of harpsichord in old Vox recordings by Anthony Payne.
I don't know Mr. Rubin's work, but he made one of the worst possible choices for harpsichord !
Cheers,
Bambi B
I know that sort of harpsichord sound.
In my late teens I was trying to learn how to play classical guitar. My introduction to Bach played on the harpsichord was an LP by Wanda Landowska and I became an instant convert to the harpsichord rather than piano for Bach. Then I started to hear some recordings of more historically correct harpsichords and Wanda faded from my life.
Great intro to a wonderful instrument, but not necessarily a good intro :-)
David Aiken
PHOTO: Pleyel harpsichord used by Wanda Landowska from the Harpsichord Clearing House
David Aiken,
Yes, the tubby, muddy timbre of the German behemoth harpsichords especially when the 16' is engaged is really unattractive.
I had a similar experience with Landowska's recordings, but I was fortunate in hearing a lot of old harpsichords in recitals early on in my interest. She used specially commissioned Pleyel harpsichords- what used to be denigrated as "plucking pianos". They were immensely heavy as they had piano-style metal frames.
Years ago, I played a Landowska-era Pleyel in the Smithsonian collection and for me it was impossible- so heavy and overplucking, I couldn't manage it at all. My experience with the Pleyel made all those photos of Landowska attacking the keys from a great height with Eagle talons technique finally make sense.
It's interesting that harpsichords had had a brilliant, careful 300+ year evolution (about 1450 to 1790) and there were those- mainly Germans***- who thought they could throw out all the centuries of refinements and start over, using the piano as the paradigm.
Here's a 1931 Landowska style Pleyel currently for sale, that she apparently played:
http://www.harpsichord.com/List/list_frmset.html
-Scroll to the very bottom of the page.
*** There were also the wacky contraptions of John Challis (Ypsilanti, Michigan!) who made harpsichords with soundboards that were aluminium sheets with foam in between and drilled out aircraft aluminium bridges!
The traditional French style instruments are the usual for concerts and recordings, but I find them often so rich and lush they impose on the music, and like the slightly more articulate nature of Flemish ones better.
Cheers,
Bambi B
I'd love to hear one of those Challis harpsichords you mention. It would be very interesting to hear what kind of a sound those materials would produce. Judging from the sound of tuned aluminium hand bells I've heard, I'd expect a mellower sound than I'm used to, and probably a slower decay as well. I think that's a polite way of saying that I don't think it would sound like a harpsichord :-)
David Aiken
PHOTOS: John Challis harpsichord single manual, 1975 Opus 372, GG-g 61 notes. 3 foot pedals (8', 4', Harp/Buff). 58 spine, 35 w. > From Harpsichord Clearing House
David Aiken,
For three months in the early 70's I used a Challis single manual 2X8' harpsichord as a practice instrument, almost identical to the one on the photos above. This instrument was what I suppose would be Challis at his pinnacle of modernity- aluminium frame, open bottom, soundboard, wrestplank, and the drilled out aluminium bridges, wood case with reverse keys (ebony naturals and boxwood accidentals, pedal stop controls. The keyboard was a piano dimension octave span and piano keypad depth. The jacks were metals as well and, fatally, there was a separate set of jacks for the dampers.
Overall, this was a terrible harpsichord in all the important aspects except that the craftsmanship, materials, and finish were excellent. The action was among the worst I've ever tried- it felt like the keys were being retained by a foam strip- the feel was mushy and heavy from the metal jacks and the extra set for the dampers. Challis, failed as as an engineer in my view by actively subverted one of the elegantly efficient design aspects of harpsichords- just having a little square of felt jammed in a slot on the upper side of the jack for the dampers- which worked perfectly for 400 years.
And, worse, was the sound. You're intuition serves you well, as the sound was alien harpsichord. A fundamental problem was the heavy metal structural frame. The Challis I used was under 6' long and I'd guess it weighed over 100 lbs- where a historic instrument the same size would be perhaps 70-80 lbs- an Italian would be 40 lbs or so. All that mass and the open bottom was a disaster- there was almost no resonance and the sustain was poor- less than a typical Italian, despite the long scale length and consequential high string tension, which typically gives a longer sustain. But the coup de grace was the aluminium soundboard and bridge. Challis was secretive about the soundboards, but I learned these were two sheets of thin metal- (and they're anodized a bizarre greenish colour) with a fairly low-density foam in between. There was little capacitance in the soundboard. The bridge is silly too, as it is a milled and drilled out for lightness, and I can't remember the detail exactly, but I think the bridge was screwed to the soundboard in such a way as to prevent the bridge from continuous contact with the soundboard- perhaps to keep it from buzzing. If I'm correct, this would mean far less- and far less even transmission of vibration to the soundboard.
As I've been writing, I've been trying to think of a similar sound - something we all come in contact with, but I've never heard anything like it- a kind of tubby, hollow sound that is somehow defocused, muddy- and over with all too soon. I could only suggest anyone serious about buying a Challis first buy two sheets of 12ga. aluminium, glue them to both sides of a sheet of 1/4" foam core of the kind used for architectural models and then strike the sandwich with a metal spoon. Is there such a term as "thumpblobby"?
Challis was another example of what happens when 400 years of refinement through craft is suddenly thrown out, combined with some really counter-productive engineering. A dog's dinner of poor design choices that favours innovation for it's own sake over results. The 20th C. Germans- Neupert, Speerhaake et al did a lot of terrible re-engineering, but at least the wood structures and soundboards produced a harpsichord sound and thought the keyboards were piano dimensions- the octave span and length of the naturals
Still, I suppose someone had to be John Challis and put the harpsichord through an experimental phase if only to expose the hubris of modern engineering when applied under false goals.
Cheers,
Bambi B
I so agree with your assessment of the Challis. John built for me a two manual 16,8,4. He and I discussed this configuration. I gave up an independent 8 foot and he placed the plectra to pluck the 8 foot on the upper manual in a different area so that it has it's own distinct sound. It has it's limitations but..the sound of the 16,8 and 4 on the lower manual is overwhelming! John was a dear friend from the old days in Detroit, MI and until the day he died...we remained good friends...he is always missed.
I know everyone is entitled to their own taste and opinion, but I couldn't disagree more with your scathing appraisal of the Challis harpsichord. Back in the 1960s, I studied harpsichord at Northwestern University under Dorothy Lane, and her instrument of choice was a Challis concert double; coincidentally, a few years ago I purchased that very instrument from the University since revival instruments are no longer in fashion. I love it. First, be aware that not all Challis instruments sound the same--NU also owned a single-manual model that I did not care for at all. As for the touch, the large Challis I now own has what I consider a perfect touch, light and not at all spongy the way you describe it. (Perhaps the instrument you encountered was not maintained properly.) But beyond that, Challis was not trying to slavishly duplicate the sound of historical instruments. My own feeling is that virtually no two harpsichords sound alike; a 16th-century Italian harpsichord does not sound like a 17th-century Flemish harpsichord, which doesn't sound like an 18th-century French harpsichord, which doesn't sound like an early-19th-century English harpsichord. Why shouldn't a 20th-century American harpsichord have its own sound? Good examples of what a Challis can sound like are the many Scarlatti recordings made for Westminster by Fernando Valenti, the set of 60 Scarlatti Sonatas recorded by Ralph Kirkpatrick for Columbia, and the recordings made on a Challis pedal harpsichord by E. Power Biggs. I also refer you to the section on Challis in Wolfgang Zuckermann's book "The Modern Harpsichord." Zuckermann had a real agenda with that book; he essentially hated revival instruments and lobbied heavily for only historical copies--and in making that point, his book was remarkably successful. Yet even he couldn't hide his reluctant admiration for Challis's instruments. I also own an historical copy of the 1665 Ridolfi instrument in the Smithsonian, but like many "authentic" harpsichords, it has to be tuned virtually every day, almost like a violin. As a result, it is virtually never played. My Challis, on the other hand, hasn't been tuned in 4 years and still sounds fully in tune; as a result, it gets played every day. To me, that's worth a lot.
Just discovered this thread on Challis. Also enjoyed listening to John Schauer's YouTube presentation on his Challis. I have two Challis doubles, one Valenti's instrument with the 'Tutti' foot pedal and Corfam plectra; the other is a bit longer, same disposition except for the Tutti, a gentler sound with leather plectra. I knew Challis only briefly but found him to be a very generous man. I'd be interested in connecting with his admirers.
David Worth
The lack of sustain surprises me, given my experience with the hand bells I heard, but your comment about poor transmission of string vibration to the sound board would certainly account for that. Your "thumpblobby" is, I think, a perfect term for describing one aspect of the aluminium hand bell sound I heard: a dullness to the initial strike sound and a cloying, dull mellowness to the sustain. There was no "edge" to the sound of those bells. Pick the right music and you could make the performance work but you could never succeed with music that required clarity and incisiveness to the sound, and I think clarity and incisiveness are two of the characteristics of harpsichord sound that make it work better than piano for music actually written for the harpsichord.
Many thanks for the comments.
David Aiken
I didn't look that close at them. I'd guess the harpsichord would resonate even worse than the piano, being lighter.
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: