Wave Music Home
ReleasesCommunityYour OrderWave Music
ArtistsEventsDJ MixesShop

Wave Music Home


Home
About Us
Labels
Distributed Labels
Links




Search


Adv. Search



Subscribe


Email






Go Back   Wave Music Community Board > Tech Talk for Gearheads

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-03-2007, 12:53 PM
pevie pevie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 165
George ....a question !

First of all great to see you posting here on Wave and sharing your expertise, knowledge and experience. The Red Bull music academy lecture was fascinating.

My question is this, do you think the Parardise Garage system was the best ever, and if so, why has it never been bettered ?
I read in interviews by all the guys i respect in dance music, say that nothing has ever topped that system.
You may think this is a naive question but i would love to hear your thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-04-2007, 11:06 AM
marcellus marcellus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 187
The simple answers to your question......1. No system today is designed and built by Richard Long. 2. Most systems are designed by sound engineers that don't think outside the box. 3. No Larry Levan. 4. Paradise Garage sound system was built with THE DJS' input. 5. Equipment that was requested by Larry Levan (DJ) was built by Richard Long (Sound Engineer).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-04-2007, 11:24 AM
DSA.audio's Avatar
DSA.audio DSA.audio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: hoodoo audio heaven
Posts: 1,346
were there 5 questions?



also, did Mr. Richard Long actually conceive, create and build the electronics, or did Al from Acoustilog do part of that part?
(no disrespect or slander meant, i am just wondering how it went down....)
__________________

.............................
Doolittle & Seymour Associates

Last edited by DSA.audio : 12-04-2007 at 11:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-04-2007, 01:03 PM
marcellus marcellus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 187
No disrespect taken. I gave 5 answers to his 1 question. As for who conceived, created and built the products, as I was told Larry would ask RL for certain electronics or speakers, RL would design and create them, Al Firestein(sp?) would build them...electronics with RL's input. I know Disco Chuck built speakers for RLA install at Zanzibar. but they were designed by Richard Long.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-04-2007, 01:07 PM
marcellus marcellus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 187
I still want to know what Mr. Stavropoulos' take on the Paradise Garage system is though. Curious to know.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-04-2007, 03:56 PM
der geile ami der geile ami is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: berlin
Posts: 820
Have any large rooms been as acoustically treated as it was implied at PG? This has a tremendous effect on the sound system. RLA used the same components for other system designs, no? It is too simplistic a view to say that any system is simply the best. A good example was the rig from twilo that shelter purchased for thier midtown club. The tweeter on top of the stacks had to be mounted in the middle of the mid high horns because of the ceiling height. This does not begin to describe hte effect of the ceiling on the midhigh horns.

For its time it was probably the best dance club rig, but I would hope that richard would have thought further outside of the box 20 years later as many engineers have indeed been doing with favorable results,
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-04-2007, 04:49 PM
in2house in2house is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 344
If you think about... How could any system be considered the best ever? The PG continues to be a reference point today because it has been imortalized in club culture. The PG was made famous not solely because of the sound system but a combination of things. For that time, it was the club that defined "club music" in NYC.

I think that for its time it was probably one best systems because it utilized concepts that are still being used today. However if we could go back in time and play a track released today, I don't think it would sound as good as today's systems. Why? Systems are designed to play a certain type of music. As George mentioned in his lectures, systems that he heard in the early days were designed with more midrange empahsis (i.e. - rock music) as opposed to today's club systems (where emphasis is on the bottom end).

The question that remains is that if Richard Long was still alive, would he be building systems the same way he did at the PG?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-04-2007, 05:38 PM
DSA.audio's Avatar
DSA.audio DSA.audio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: hoodoo audio heaven
Posts: 1,346
I think that, to an extent, a system is designed to play certain types of music....

but at the same time, if your full range portion of a "RLA-Type" system is nice, any type of music should sound nice played through it...

and then use the auxillary tweets and bass bins to hype things up a bit
__________________

.............................
Doolittle & Seymour Associates
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-04-2007, 06:35 PM
soundmanshorty soundmanshorty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,421
Not any person

Quote:
Originally Posted by in2house
The question that remains is that if Richard Long was still alive, would he be building systems the same way he did at the PG?

can answer this question.

who knows he might not even wanna deal with todays clubs and just work for a manufacturer, or jus be retired, but nobody can answer this question.

But after PG he had already changed his design and components from what made him famous. Palladium was not even close in technology or sound to the PG so he had already changed in the 80s. Would he have gone bac to what he did that made him famous and revert from what he did after th PG nobody knows or can even guess, imposible to figure that out

Last edited by soundmanshorty : 12-04-2007 at 06:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-04-2007, 07:10 PM
marcellus marcellus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 187
D.S.A., That's exactly how Hippie and Larry P. played the Zanzibar system. They played the Waldorf full range boxes and used the tweeters and subbass to hype the crowd up. It was a beautiful thing that you had to be there to hear.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-04-2007, 07:16 PM
pevie pevie is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: London
Posts: 165
What i am really curious about is that guys like F.K. state that nothing has bettered the Garage nothing . Here we are twenty plus years on and it is still the reference point.
Lots of systems i have heard in 22 years of clubbing and d.j.ing have power but they lack something across the board.
The Loft is high fidelity but we all like that chest thump don't we ?
Take Twilo that rig pumped but i thought Sound Factory ( 27th and 10th ) sounded better.
Ministry, Love, Fabric, Stereo, really good, but great ?
I would love to hear an objective viewpoint on the technical aspects of then versus now, rather than one biased on the whole nostalgia of the era.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-04-2007, 07:17 PM
clubman5 clubman5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundmanshorty

But after PG he had already changed his design and components from what made him famous. Palladium was not even close in technology or sound to the PG so he had already changed in the 80s. Would he have gone bac to what he did that made him famous and revert from what he did after th PG nobody knows or can even guess, imposible to figure that out
This is true. Richard did work with the latest technology available, at the particular time he built systems for clubs. PG was what was being done in the 70,s, and Palladium was what was being done in the 80,s!

My guess, as that is all anyone can do, is guess, is that IF Richard were here today and still doing sound, he would be working with todays electronics, and have new speaker cabinet/driver designs, as well as possible retuned versions of items like the Bertha/Levan horn. Richard originally used the Bozak mixer, and swithced to the Urei 1620 when it came out. So, IMHO, he would be using the mixers available today, NOT installing used gear in NEW systems. Its just logical, as many items from the past are NLA. And, you never know what he would have thought was good! In 1986, my uncle wanted the Levan Horn output in Eldorado, but, as always we just couldnt fit it in, so Richard recommended Meyer double 18in subs, they were new at the time, and had a servo control circuit, and he told us, that if we had 8 of these clustered together with the neccesary power, we would have what we wanted.

So, my guess is that IF Richard were here, and doing sound, he would be working with todays technology.

On a side note, I myself, just retired my Urei mixers, I put a Rane 2016A in the system, I must admit, digital sources sound sooo much better, and records sound good too! The HF is much cleaner, and smoother sounding, the bottom end tightened up, and has great kick, and the low mids are very present sounding. Upper mids sound great, too! The only real difference in operating this, compared to the Urei, is on the Rane mixer, I run the master at 7, as opposed to running my Urei at 5 or so! The Rane solved quite a dew issues for me, I was more than surprised, but there it is! My system will have alot of new items this coming summer, I have installed my BGW 750G amps on 15,s and Im putting my B & C midbass woofers in, and since I switched to the Rane mixer, IT SOUNDS REALLY AMAZING, great punch, great transient attack on highly dynamic parts of recordings, snares crack with startling snap, and you hear the decay, and it has phenomenal low mid presence. New crossover for my full range, looking at Bryston and Marchand, I like that Marchand XM-126 tube crossover. Phil will make it to suit my needs, gain, filter types and xover points. A modified Crown VFX-2A for subs and super tweeters, this unit has putput level attenuators and output buffer circuits added, and is VERY nice sounding, and completely user definable. Balanced inputs offer adjustable gain from 0db to +15.5db, crossover points are totally and continuosly variable, set it to what you NEED! And, its clean, the tweeters are wonderful with this xover! Subs are articulate and have deep extension with tremendous punch! Crown Macros on subs, and Crown Power :ine 2,s remain on tweeters, need to select new amp for horns, will probably use my Bryston 3B SST. JBL 2441 comp drivers with new Radian aluminum 16ohm diaphragms will be used on 2395 horns. VERY SMOOTH, and sweet sounding!

So, in closing, I think the Richard would have moved with the times and kept up with trends, technology, and and implementation of new ideas and ways of doing things. And, I do think he would have updated a few things from the past that are tried and true and WORK, even today. Like the Bertha.

__________________
Mr. Scott Fitlin
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-04-2007, 07:17 PM
marcellus marcellus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 187
Just a question? For those who DO NOT believe the PG was the best, Have you actually ever heard an original RLA sound system? If no, no need to ask the next ? If yes, what system today are you comparing the PG with?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-04-2007, 07:20 PM
clubman5 clubman5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by pevie
What i am really curious about is that guys like F.K. state that nothing has bettered the Garage nothing . Here we are twenty plus years on and it is still the reference point.
But, how would todays digital music sound on the original PG system, set up as it was in 1982, voiced for vinyl playback?

This has been my main issue, and hurdle to overcome! Getting past myself and HOW we used to do things.

What made vinyl tick, doesnt neccesarily work the same with digital music!

In my opinion!
__________________
Mr. Scott Fitlin
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-04-2007, 07:28 PM
clubman5 clubman5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcellus
Just a question? For those who DO NOT believe the PG was the best, Have you actually ever heard an original RLA sound system? If no, no need to ask the next ? If yes, what system today are you comparing the PG with?
I heard several RLA systems, and nothing to my ears sounds quite as the Garage did, but, Garage had its flaws too.

One must take into consideration that as much as the system is still highly regarded today, it was also the music of that time that sounded the way it did, and the PG system was set up to make the most of that eras music and recording technologies.

Sub Bass! The amps, and woofers of the PG era, wouldnt be able to play deep enough to reproduce todays music properly, and the amps arent enough power to handle todays volume levels cleanly, without overdriving.

I, myself, have experienced this. What was great 25 years ago, the woofers of yesteryear just dont reproduce low enough frequencies, and todays music has much lower bass content that needs to be reproduced properly. Then, the amps, the PSA-2 was the amp back then, but, you cant play loud enough today without overdriving, and find yourself out of gas, too quickly.
__________________
Mr. Scott Fitlin
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-04-2007, 07:29 PM
clubman5 clubman5 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,945
Goodnight everyone, see you all tomorrow!

__________________
Mr. Scott Fitlin
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-04-2007, 07:33 PM
marcellus marcellus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by pevie
What i am really curious about is that guys like F.K. state that nothing has bettered the Garage nothing . Here we are twenty plus years on and it is still the reference point.
Lots of systems i have heard in 22 years of clubbing and d.j.ing have power but they lack something across the board.
The Loft is high fidelity but we all like that chest thump don't we ?
Take Twilo that rig pumped but i thought Sound Factory ( 27th and 10th ) sounded better.
Ministry, Love, Fabric, Stereo, really good, but great ?
I would love to hear an objective viewpoint on the technical aspects of then versus now, rather than one biased on the whole nostalgia of the era.
Sorry for getting all nostalgic on you, but in your original post you did not ask for "an objective viewpoint on the technical aspects of then versus now". B clear
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-04-2007, 07:37 PM
marcellus marcellus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by clubman5
Goodnight everyone, see you all tomorrow!

Nite, nite. Sleep tight. Don't let the bed bugs bite.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-04-2007, 08:18 PM
soundmanshorty soundmanshorty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Posts: 1,421
Imho

Zanzibar was better then the PG!

www.systemsbyshorty.com
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-04-2007, 10:44 PM
marcellus marcellus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 187
I had a funny feelin' you were gonna say that.....lmao! I think so too, but Scotty would disagree and say Studio 54 bwahahaha!!!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-04-2007, 11:20 PM
Renato Renato is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 7
Here is another two cents for the heck of it. I think you guys are leaving out an important factor. The treatment of the room and the dimensions played a major role in how that system responded. The floor was isolated and the walls and ceiling were treated much like a recording studio. You take that same system and stick somewhere else and you won't get that magical effect that was created. The garage was the first club to bring that full concept to life. . . . . . 2 centc
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-05-2007, 09:53 AM
pbellsound pbellsound is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: NEW YORK CITY
Posts: 652
Renato, you're quite right about the space at Paradise. It was only partly the sound system that made it sound good.

This question was directed to George, let's give him the chance to reply. I know he's busy and doesn't watch this board like others do.

We're working together later this week, I'll ask him if he could pop in here.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-05-2007, 12:50 PM
Fred Bissnette Fred Bissnette is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: toronto ontario canada
Posts: 1,122
i think ultimately it was the rt ppl in the rt space at the rt time who had a common goal and were able to have complete creative control and as far as i could tell from reading about it and talking to those involved it was also a case of not being too financially constricting regarding choice of actions or gear

peas
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-10-2007, 12:13 AM
George Stavropo George Stavropo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 123
Garage sound system

Hi All

Not having heard the Garage system first hand, I cannot honestly comment on the sound of that system.

I've noticed that whenever anyone talks about the Garage sound system, they mention Larry's name.

Does anyone know how that system sounded when someone else played on it?
How did it sound when the mixer was run flat out?
Did that ever happen?

Did the DJs who played there (outside of Larry) have the liberty to put any cartridge they wished on that system so they can get a higher output?

These are also factors to be considered when talking about what that place sounded like.

I have heard system sound great one day and shocking the next. I also hear people speak about sound on a particular day and some say it was great and others that it was crap.

Everyone talks about how he or she was at the Garage and how fantastic it was. What were they comparing it to?

Not being in NY at that time, I cannot really speak about what the standard of sound systems was like.

What I can comfortably say, is that both the sonically and technically, the performance of the components used on the Garage system leave little to be desired going on what is available today.

There is way too much emotion wrapped up with this whole vintage/analog/digital audio.

I have heard and own some great vintage products and I choose to own and use these things because of the particular sound they produce as well as the cost of replacing it with something that does sounds better and there is plenty that does.
Most studios choose to use vintage gear more so for their sound as opposed to it sounding better than what is currently available.

I use the Urei 809 here in NY. They sound pretty good for a 2-way 12" speaker. I have heard a heap of great sounding speakers of that and older vintage but I would trade them all in for a pair of PMC or ATC speakers of a similar size.

The issue is, I can't justify the $10,000 expense. Do the newer speakers sound better? Hands down they do.

It goes with every component used at the Garage.

Of what I know about what was used there, I can't even think of a single piece of equipment that was used at the Garage that I would be using today (outside the tweeters maybe. Did they use the slots or the ear piercing bullets?)
Also the Bertha as we know it today is light years ahead of what was used at the Garage. The driver we use in it today was not even available back then. The flare rate of the horn is different; the rear chamber is different to accommodate the new drivers. You can't put a great sounding speaker driver in a well-designed box (that was designed for a different driver) and expect it to sound right.

I think sentiment, the experience at the time, what else was around to compare it too leads more to the mystique of that system than it's sound.

That as well as Richard being a good engineer. Most of his systems sounded great. He used the best products available at the time to do the job and took care matching components to create great sounding systems.

And the overlaying factor was that it was played on by someone who knew the system and how to play on it.

Have any of you out there heard some of his systems overseas being played on by morons?
He built a system in Germany called Dorian Grey (I think thatís the name of the place) that I heard years ago that did not sound good at all. It was getting the crap beaten out of it and was probably poorly maintained as well.

I think more so it was that the system was taken care of, maintained as well as tuned regularly that kept it sounding good. You look at every venue that has been known for it's sound and it was or is taken care of on a regular basis.

Did it sound great, I'm sure for it's time it did.
Would it stand the test of time and work well in todayís market?
I doubt it. Not with the variety of music being played, the poor quality and difference of recordings played today and the amount of technically unskilled operators using them.

I suppose everyone thinks that the booth at the Garage sounded amazing too. I think I have seen some pictures with Bose 802 in that booth.

Hmmm makes me wonder a little.

Another thing for you all to think about, a friend of mine owns a 60's Ferrari that was one of the fastest and most expensive and best cars available at that time. This thing is amazing and absolutely beautiful. It was built by people with passion and made with love. It has many quirky things about it and it's a great car.
Even to today standards, it's a good car but it can't keep up with the punk arse neighbours Subaru WRX. Nor does it start easily in winter or handle the traffic well and with all its carbbies, it needs a tune every other month. And god help you if you decide to drop the clutch at 8000RPM and brake something.

Speak soon
George
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-10-2007, 01:13 AM
marcellus marcellus is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 187
Points are valid and well taken....

Thank You for your response. Now as what systems were around to compare the Garage to....Zanzibar, Melons, Saint, Studio 54, in Chicago The Warehouse. These all were considered to be awesome sound systems, but came up short when compared to the Garage. I do understand that Integral Sound wants to use the best components out there today and not the vintage stuff of yesterday, which is cool. My thing is if using todays equipment is better than the vintage stuff....Why did Arc sound terrible? How about Shine down in Miami? Pawn Shop? How about Shelter? Shelter's best system is still the one from 6 Hubert Street.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.0.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
©2006 Wave Music


© Wave Entertainment Group, Inc.