A few questions about how house/trance/techno were typically made in the '80s and '90s

How to do this, that and the other. Share, learn, teach. How did X do that? How can I sound like Y?
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

***Would this be more appropriate for the Everything Else forum or get a better response there? If so, please let me know, or a mod can feel free to move it...***

So, as my username suggests, I'm a big fan of house music, as well as most of the other dance styles that flourished in the late '80s and throughout the '90s. I didn't have much opportunity to do production work in those genres at the time, so I've always been very interested in learning the various details of how the music was typically made. I've gathered a lot of info over the years, but there are a few questions I still haven't been able to answer, and since you folks are such a helpful bunch I'm betting some of you will be able to clear these up in no time... ;)

This will be kind of long, so I hope that no one feels like they need to read the whole thing or respond to all of it. My hope is that people who are interested in sharing historical knowledge about this sort of thing will pick and choose whatever they'd like from my questions. If a bunch of people do reply, this thread could be a really interesting resource for music production historians. For all of these questions, let's say that the date range I'm interested is anywhere from 1984-1999 or so, and the genres I'm interested in are primarily house, techno, trance, and electro, including all sub-styles.

I'll start with a pesky minor question that should be easy to clear up, but that I've somehow never quite been able to answer: when and how did the practice of using actual 808s and 909s start giving way to the more modern tendency to use sampled 808 and 909 hits? As far as I can tell, at the beginning of the '90s, the 808s and 909s you hear on the records are all real, but by the end of the decade most are canned 808 and 909 samples. Was that a slow, gradual transition that unfolded over many years, or did it happen pretty quickly when some key sample library or piece of gear came out? Is there a particular year or period of years that anyone could pinpoint for when the shift really started to kick in, or did it perhaps vary according to sub-genre? My research suggests that Roland's "Dance" expansion card for the R-8 drum machine (1990/91ish?) was the first widely available source of 808 and 909 samples, and I believe those samples then came standard on the R-8 MkII when that was released in 1992. So, I've long speculated that that's what kicked off the beginnings of the transition, but would love to hear from people with first-hand knowledge. I know it's a pretty weird detail to be so hung up on, but it's just one of those things I can't help wondering about.

A couple of workflow questions. My understanding is that, for the most part, there was little to no multitracking--everything was generally sequenced and mixed live to DAT master without a multitrack recorder in sight. Small, manageable amounts of vocals were sampler-based. I presume tracks with longer, more detailed vocals did use tape and/or DAT multitracking (and eventually hard-disk-based multitracking toward the late '90s), but I'm unsure of the extent to which that was done and how it was approached. I've also generally gotten the sense that producers in the earlier part of the era (say, '80s and very early '90s) were a lot more likely to use multitracking even for non-vocal stuff than producers in the later part of the era (mid to late '90s). There's a lot I don't know about this aspect of the workflow so I would really appreciate any light anyone could shed on it.

A second workflow issue I've often wondered about is the approach that was taken toward mono vs. stereo issues. With synth-centric music, I'd imagine there would have been constant questions about whether or not to bother routing a synth in stereo (thereby requiring two mix channels), or to just treat it as a mono instrument. The best guess I've been able to arrive at is that this probably varied wildly on a case by case basis, and depended on factors such as how many channels were free on the mixer, and of course, depended most of all on how interesting and worthwhile the stereo effects were on each synth in the project. So, my assumption is that the producer would have constantly been making the trade-off calculations on this issue, saying things like "hmm, love the width on this pad patch, definitely worth sacrificing an extra mix channel for that", etc. It would be great if someone could confirm or deny this, and I'd be very interested to know any further details about how such decisions were made. (An additional related aspect I've wondered a lot about is what the standard practice was for insert effects with stereo returns--same deal, make the trade-off based on how much the stereo effect was contributing to the sound, I suppose?)

One last workflow question: when did producers in these genres start getting more proactive about doing mix buss processing (i.e. "loudness war" type stuff and/or fattening up the master with a TC Finalizer or similar)? Or was that never really in the purview of the producer in the pre-DAW days, but more likely to be something that the mastering house would do?

And finally, the easy and fun part: anyone who wants to, and who has the first-hand experience from that era, is of course more than welcome to share gear lists and production or workflow details of any kind! Sound sources, sequencing, FX, mixing, mastering... I'm interested in all of it. It would also be helpful to know which pieces of kit people found themselves relying on the most, and what for (e.g. "I constantly used my SH-101 for basslines but not so much for leads", "I had a X but found it a bit too fiddly so tended to use my Y instead", that kind of thing). If anyone feels like sharing gear lists, if possible it would be great if you could specify the time period and genre(s) produced using that gear--as a music historian I find that far more valuable than a list without much context.

Thanks so much, everyone. I really hope that nothing in this post has come across as irritatingly obsessive or demanding. I very much intend for it to be taken in the spirit of, "if you're into this stuff then let's talk about it, if you're not then please feel free to give it a pass". I'm sure I can't be the only person here who wants to preserve this kind of knowledge for future generations, trivial as it may seem to some. Looking forward to seeing what tidbits people can dredge out of their memories! :)

Post

I don't have many answers, but I'm getting into House and these are great questions!

A common workflow I remember from recording with sampling/electronic musicians in the early '90s was a Teac or Tascam reel-to-reel 8 track tape recorder synced to an Atari or Mac computer sequencing MIDI synths/samplers, mixed down to DAT with some live performances in realtime. Even when ADATs came, getting beyond 8 tracks was pretty costly until computer recording took over so as you note, stereo tracking/FX returns were reserved for more "special" FX.

Post

No worries, every little bit of info helps! Thanks for sharing that, interesting to hear that tape multitracking was used to that extent. As I mentioned, I've generally heard that many producers dispensed with multitracking altogether and performed/sequenced direct to mixdown, substituting samplers in place of multitracking when necessary. However, that may not have become common practice until more like the mid or late '90s, and I suppose it could also have been heavily genre-dependent or idiosyncratic from one producer to another. That's part of why I made this thread in the first place of course, to shed further light on exactly those kinds of questions, so your recollections definitely help. :)

Do you happen to recall what widths and speeds were typical on those 8 track tape machines in the particular setups you used to work with?

Post

I'll start with a pesky minor question that should be easy to clear up, but that I've somehow never quite been able to answer: when and how did the practice of using actual 808s and 909s start giving way to the more modern tendency to use sampled 808 and 909 hits? As far as I can tell, at the beginning of the '90s, the 808s and 909s you hear on the records are all real, but by the end of the decade most are canned 808 and 909 samples.
Pretty much when PCs got enough power to run a full DAW.
Before you had to run a 808s, a sequencer, some cables and and recoding device it least.
With software DAW running on PC you don't need that, but a 808s sample library is enough.
(think it was arround 2000, maybe bit earlier)
've also generally gotten the sense that producers in the earlier part of the era (say, '80s and very early '90s) were a lot more likely to use multitracking even for non-vocal stuff than producers in the later part of the era (mid to late '90s). There's a lot I don't know about this aspect of the workflow so I would really appreciate any light anyone could shed on it.
You mean multi-track while recoding?
Will depend on your the studio setup.
If you have 1 synth, 1 squencer, 1 stereo cable and a DAT for recodring - you will be forced to recod channel by channel and mix at a second step.
If you have 100 synths, 100 sequencer, 100 stereo cables and a 100 channel mixer, you cloud run it all together and record the final mix instead of recording stems for each channel.
One last workflow question: when did producers in these genres start getting more proactive about doing mix buss processing (i.e. "loudness war" type stuff and/or fattening up the master with a TC Finalizer or similar)? Or was that never really in the purview of the producer in the pre-DAW days, but more likely to be something that the mastering house would do?
This strongly depends on the genre. On i.e. chillout there is no "loudness war" - or it least I don't know any artists that especially focus on producing loud tracks.. for chillout^^
If you look at the "hard banging killah shit" genres, it's part of the game there.
You want to play more heavy hitting sound as the tech-house or nightpsy artist before + after your.. this is what "loudness war" is about. But as said, it is quite specific to special genres where you actually want that.
If you are reffering to over-compressed / smashed sounds as when Apple, Spotify & co doing custom processing, so that same track on his service sounds louder than on other, this is total bullshit and we should prepare a class action to stop that. They effectively destroying works of others.
And finally, the easy and fun part: anyone who wants to, and who has the first-hand experience from that era, is of course more than welcome to share gear lists and production or workflow details of any kind!
My studio is digital, only 1 hardware synth + PC:

Gear: i7 Win10 PC with Ableton Live, Virus TI, BazzISM, FabFilter Bundle, RME AIO and Focal Trio6 BE
Workflow: tune knobs on Virus until I like the sound, then try to compose it into a track (=> very experimental approach :D :D )

Post

househoppin09 wrote:So, I've long speculated that that's what kicked off the beginnings of the transition, but would love to hear from people with first-hand knowledge. I know it's a pretty weird detail to be so hung up on, but it's just one of those things I can't help wondering about.


Fun thread! I had some Techno & House records out back then on German, American and Canadian labels so I can speak from the bedroom producer angle.

808's and 909's were still really expensive back then so lots of people (i.e. most bedroom producers) used samples. Sure the big guys might've all had the real machines but lots of the bedroom guys used samples. 'Zero-G' was probably the best/biggest sample provider back then… they seemed to own the market. I was lucky enough to have a real 909 but sometimes I still just sampled it to use in tracks. I also had a Yamaha TG55 with a 'Dance' card that had some pretty good drum sounds I'd use. The R-8 was also expensive and a pretty exclusive piece of kit, particularly as it was 'just for drums' - I didn't know any producers with one.
househoppin09 wrote:everything was generally sequenced and mixed live to DAT master without a multitrack recorder in sight. Small, manageable amounts of vocals were sampler-based. I presume tracks with longer, more detailed vocals did use tape and/or DAT multitracking…


You're 100% right. Everyone I knew just went straight to DAT. I was one of the few guys who had a DAT so I was always lending it to buddies so they could record. Once ADAT's came out (they were a BIG deal) that's what we used to record vocal tracks. When Cubase Audio came out (93'ish) I would go to a studio to record vocals onto ADAT then get them put as WAVs onto CD which I would import into Cubase.


househoppin09 wrote:mono vs. stereo issues. …. "hmm, love the width on this pad patch, definitely worth sacrificing an extra mix channel for that", etc. It would be great if someone could confirm or deny this, and I'd be very interested to know any further details about how such decisions were made. (An additional related aspect I've wondered a lot about is what the standard practice was for insert effects with stereo returns--same deal, make the trade-off based on how much the stereo effect was contributing to the sound, I suppose?)


Yeah, you're right, but stereo width wasn't a big concern back then. Sure, It was nice but we were a lot more basic. I think I had my Juno or 101/202/303 usually just plugged into my mixer as mono so I rarely heard the stereo sound so never got attached to it & had to make a choice :)
FX were so different back then because you were so limited - you almost had none. I had a couple units so was limited to 1 reverb & 1 delay or some combo. It was *nothing* like today where every track can have 10 reverbs, 5 delays and 12 compressors.


househoppin09 wrote:when did producers in these genres start getting more proactive about doing mix buss processing (i.e. "loudness war" type stuff and/or fattening up the master with a TC Finalizer or similar)? Or was that never really in the purview of the producer in the pre-DAW days, but more likely to be something that the mastering house would do?


Loudness was never really considered but we *loved* the BBE Sonic Maximizer to brighten things up.

househoppin09 wrote:gear lists and production or workflow details of any kind! Sound sources, sequencing, FX, mixing, mastering... I'm interested in all of it. .


I went thru lots of equipment back then as I bought/sold stuff. I produced thru most of the 90's - sometimes in spurts.
I didn’t learn how to use my cool analog stuff as good as I should've - especially the MS-20. It wasn't as easy as the 101 or 106 so I mostly just stuck with them. Still have the 106 + MS-20 tho :)
At my peak I guess I had:
Cubase Audio on PC (started with Cubase on Atari tho)
Kurzweil K2000 + sampler option - a killer & super slept on combination. This was the best digital synth back then, IMO.
Juno 106, 303, 909 (also had an 808, 606, 101 & 202 at times)
Korg MS-20
Yamaha TG55
Yamaha SPX900, some ART fx unit
Mackie 1604
DAT



Feel free to ask any questions.

Post

Hey, thanks for your excellent response! This is exactly the kind of info I've been searching for. You've already helped out a lot but I can't resist picking your brain a bit more to clear up a few things... I'll try to keep this from getting TOO ridiculously long, please bear with me ;)
iHartBeats wrote:Fun thread! I had some Techno & House records out back then on German, American and Canadian labels so I can speak from the bedroom producer angle.
Awesome! Would you mind listing a few of your releases? If you don't want that info public for some reason, feel free to PM it. There's probably a pretty good chance I'm familiar with some of your music.
iHartBeats wrote:808's and 909's were still really expensive back then so lots of people (i.e. most bedroom producers) used samples. Sure the big guys might've all had the real machines but lots of the bedroom guys used samples. 'Zero-G' was probably the best/biggest sample provider back then… they seemed to own the market. I was lucky enough to have a real 909 but sometimes I still just sampled it to use in tracks. I also had a Yamaha TG55 with a 'Dance' card that had some pretty good drum sounds I'd use. The R-8 was also expensive and a pretty exclusive piece of kit, particularly as it was 'just for drums' - I didn't know any producers with one.
This is great info. I guess I underestimated how early and how widespread drum machine sampling was, which seems a bit silly in retrospect. So, having thought about it a bit further, and in light of what you've said, here's what I'm thinking now: the turning point was probably around 1989ish or so, with most of the 808s/909s/etc. on records before that point being the real machines. From maybe 1989 to 1991, sample packs (Zero-G, etc.) with 808 and 909 samples began to proliferate, and by the time the bedroom producer revolution was in full swing by about '91, those samples were being used more widely than the real machines, and that state of affairs continued throughout the rest of the '90s. Sound about right?

By the way, about the Zero-G sample packs: my impression is that their Datafile series was pretty much the gold standard for that sort of thing in the early '90s, is that your recollection as well? They also put out a 31 volume "Creative Essentials" CD series beginning in 1995 or so, do you happen to recall whether those were as widely used?
iHartBeats wrote:You're 100% right. Everyone I knew just went straight to DAT. I was one of the few guys who had a DAT so I was always lending it to buddies so they could record. Once ADAT's came out (they were a BIG deal) that's what we used to record vocal tracks. When Cubase Audio came out (93'ish) I would go to a studio to record vocals onto ADAT then get them put as WAVs onto CD which I would import into Cubase.
This is consistent with what I've heard elsewhere. So, just to be clear, in the ADAT era most bedroom-type electronic/dance producers didn't even own analog tape machines, or else didn't bother to use them for much of anything, right? With ADATs around I can't imagine why anyone would want to bother with analog tape, except maybe for certain experimental effects. I am curious about the pre-ADAT years though (i.e. anything before 1993 or so), as I'd have thought analog tape would have been pretty much the only realistic option for vocal tracks and certain other things at that point. Do you have any direct experience there, or did you get into producing a bit too late for that?
iHartBeats wrote:Yeah, you're right, but stereo width wasn't a big concern back then. Sure, It was nice but we were a lot more basic. I think I had my Juno or 101/202/303 usually just plugged into my mixer as mono so I rarely heard the stereo sound so never got attached to it & had to make a choice :)
Thanks, this is really interesting. The thing that makes me wonder is that, when I listen to the music from that era, it does sound like there's a fair amount of stereo. For example, hihats and such almost always seem to have plenty of width, which would seem to suggest that it was at least common practice to use stereo routing for the drum machines or samplers that were running the beats. On the other hand, bass parts generally sound like they were done in mono, which of course makes sense.

So, I'm guessing that the common practice was something like: stereo for beats, for particularly rich or complex synth/soundmodule sounds (e.g. elaborate pads), and for swooshy sound effect type stuff; mono for bass, vox, and simple synth/soundmodule sounds (e.g. synth leads, arps, piano). Do you think that sounds about right?
iHartBeats wrote:FX were so different back then because you were so limited - you almost had none. I had a couple units so was limited to 1 reverb & 1 delay or some combo. It was *nothing* like today where every track can have 10 reverbs, 5 delays and 12 compressors.
Yes, I've heard this as well. I'm guessing this also means you would generally route all FX as sends and avoid using them as inserts unless absolutely necessary? If so, that would also directly impact the previous questions about mono vs. stereo, because send FX returns would always have been routed in stereo, right?

It's pretty incredible how much things have changed in this area since then. It must have been both very limiting and also kind of freeing to have so few FX decisions to make. Based on your gear list below I'm imagining you leaving the Yamaha SPX900 and the ART unit more-or-less permanently in place on the mixer as your two sends, and pretty much having to rely on them as your entire FX arsenal, plus whatever was available on-board in your instruments themselves. Is that pretty much how it went?
iHartBeats wrote:Loudness was never really considered but we *loved* the BBE Sonic Maximizer to brighten things up.
Ah yes, I was aware of this as well. Do you recall when the BBE Maximizer actually came out and/or when it started to get popular? I've also heard that the TC Finalizer was used in a similar way once that came out in 1996/97 or so, does that match your recollection? On the other hand, I think that was drastically more expensive, so maybe not...

When you would use stuff like the Maximizer, you ran it as an insert on the main mixer outs (i.e. between the mixer and final DAT machine), right? Would it typically have been the only device used in that position, and if not then what else might have been in the chain at that point? Any mix bus compression?
iHartBeats wrote:I went thru lots of equipment back then as I bought/sold stuff. I produced thru most of the 90's - sometimes in spurts.
I didn’t learn how to use my cool analog stuff as good as I should've - especially the MS-20. It wasn't as easy as the 101 or 106 so I mostly just stuck with them. Still have the 106 + MS-20 tho :)
At my peak I guess I had:
Cubase Audio on PC (started with Cubase on Atari tho)
Kurzweil K2000 + sampler option - a killer & super slept on combination. This was the best digital synth back then, IMO.
Juno 106, 303, 909 (also had an 808, 606, 101 & 202 at times)
Korg MS-20
Yamaha TG55
Yamaha SPX900, some ART fx unit
Mackie 1604
DAT
This is great, I always love going through these kinds of gear lists. Just a few quick questions about your setup:

- I take it you used the K2000 as your controller for Cubase? It'd be interesting to know how much and which type of stuff you played into the sequencer in real time vs. programming it in with the mouse and keyboard.
- I'm a bit surprised you didn't rely heavily on the ubiquitous Akai samplers, as it had been my impression that most producers did. Did you just use the K2000 sampler for that kind of stuff instead?
- For EQ, I'm assuming that dedicated EQ units were rarely or never used in this kind of music, and you relied entirely on the on-board EQ on the mixer?
- I of course realize that compressors were far less available than we've since grown accustomed to, but surely you must have had at least a couple and used them for some things, right? I'll take a stab at it and guess that you had a small assortment of Alesis 3630s, cheap dbx 166/266/etc., and/or Behringers? Would love to know specific brands, model numbers, and how you typically tended to use them. My impression is that compression was FAR less used overall than it is nowadays, even in the harder techno type genres where we would now think of it as a necessity. Would love to know more about that.

Thanks again for sharing your knowledge on this. Great stuff!

Post


Post

I'll go ahead and assume that's snark about the unreasonable length of my last post... of course the usual policy applies, "if it's too long, don't read it all" :lol:

Post

Fun stuff!

househoppin09 wrote: There's probably a pretty good chance I'm familiar with some of your music.
Ha.. I doubt it, I didn’t have any consistent strings of releases… just one here & there many different aliases.
Eg: Here’s a few – I liked exploring different styles (still do):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUR0nTd ... mSAWoWHdzg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrFKY3o ... mSAWoWHdzg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cABmefJ ... mSAWoWHdzg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyYP2edzTWo

househoppin09 wrote: by the time the bedroom producer revolution was in full swing by about '91, those samples were being used more widely than the real machines, and that state of affairs continued throughout the rest of the '90s. Sound about right?

Yeah sounds right but one big element I forgot to mention – I was based in Canada and the electronic music scene was nothing like in the UK or Germany. Only a couple of us making it at the time so things may have been quite different in the cities where electronic music was more established.
househoppin09 wrote: my impression is that their Datafile series was pretty much the gold standard for that sort of thing in the early '90s…
I read this & was thinking “I have no idea”… then I googled it & saw the pics of the Datafile covers. YEP… those were the bomb back then (oh the memories). We loooooved those but they were expensive as hell. Again nothing like cheap, ubiquitous samples today.


househoppin09 wrote:in the ADAT era most bedroom-type electronic/dance producers didn't even own analog tape machines, or else didn't bother to use them for much of anything, right?.....Do you have any direct experience there, or did you get into producing a bit too late for that?
ADAT’s were really expensive – not many people had one in the bedroom. Studios bought them but they were rare in bedroom setups. EVERYHTING back then was expensive; people today have no appreciation for it.
For vocals we would bring the DAT to the 'real' studio – transfer it to the 2 tracks on the ADAT and have 6 tracks left for vocals.
Nobody I knew had or used real tape machines in the bedroom other than cassette based 4 or 8 trackers with horrible sound & these weren't really used.
It’s funny how today people love their tape-emulation plugins but back then, at the cutting edge of Digital, the goal was to get things as clean and noise free as possible.
I wasn’t doing anything Pre-ADAT that required vocals so I can’t comment to much other than knowing that all the smaller local studios had 8 or 16 track tape machines.

househoppin09 wrote:So, I'm guessing that the common practice was something like: stereo for beats, for particularly rich or complex synth/soundmodule sounds (e.g. elaborate pads), and for swooshy sound effect type stuff; mono for bass, vox, and simple synth/soundmodule sounds (e.g. synth leads, arps, piano). Do you think that sounds about right?
I think most analog stuff would be run mono and anything from the sampler/digital synth would be stereo – which may or may not be taken advantage of.

househoppin09 wrote: route all FX as sends and avoid using them as inserts unless absolutely necessary?....
I'm imagining you leaving the Yamaha SPX900 and the ART unit more-or-less permanently in place on the mixer as your two sends,
Exactly!


househoppin09 wrote: Do you recall when the BBE Maximizer actually came out and/or when it started to get popular? I've also heard that the TC Finalizer was used in a similar way once that came out in 1996/97 or so, does that match your recollection?
Ha…. I totally forgot about the TC Finalizer. We really lusted after that kit but it was way out of our price range.
I don’t recall when the BBE came out.

househoppin09 wrote: Maximizer, you ran it as an insert on the main mixer outs (i.e. between the mixer and final DAT machine), right? Would it typically have been the only device used in that position, and if not then what else might have been in the chain at that point? Any mix bus compression?


Yep on the main outs.
Eventually I had a compressor but I didn’t really know how to use it – it was really hard to learn about a lot of stuff without Youtube .
househoppin09 wrote:- I take it you used the K2000 as your controller for Cubase? It'd be interesting to know how much and which type of stuff you played into the sequencer in real time vs. programming it in with the mouse and keyboard.

To be totally accurate I had the K2000R (rack version) and just used a cheap’ish Yamaha midi controller.
It was just like today – some was moused, some real-time but it would be quantized if played real-time.
househoppin09 wrote: I'm a bit surprised you didn't rely heavily on the ubiquitous Akai samplers, as it had been my impression that most producers did. Did you just use the K2000 sampler for that kind of stuff instead?

Well, first I had a Roland W30 for a sampler. Akai’s were the standard, for sure, but being in Canada there was ZERO second-hand market for them, they just couldn’t be found and were way too much $ to buy new. Eventually, with more experience & as I got a job, the K2000 came out. It was a phenomenal synth (best available) and, for pretty cheap (back in those days) you could upgrade it with 16-bit 44khz sampling. It was such a powerful combination that I financed it. I figured why have just a sampler when you could have a killer synth + a sampler?
househoppin09 wrote:- For EQ, I'm assuming that dedicated EQ units were rarely or never used in this kind of music, and you relied entirely on the on-board EQ on the mixer?

Exactly – except eventually I bought a cheap 10 band eq that I would have between my outs & the BBE. I probably did more bad than good with that EQ, to be honest.
househoppin09 wrote:you must have had at least a couple and used them for some things, right? ……
My impression is that compression was FAR less used overall than it is nowadays, even in the harder techno type genres where we would now think of it as a necessity. Would love to know more about that.


As answered above – I had one compressor and didn’t know how to use it. I think it was also an ART but the Behringers were really popular. It was REALLY hard to learn about techniques like Compression back then – there was just so little knowledge sharing because the only platform back then was magazines.

Post

Believe it or not, I think I may have heard one or two of your Unknown Control tracks! Excellent stuff, btw, love that early Frankfurt-inspired sound :tu:

Big thanks for being generous enough to go through and actually answer all of my questions point-by-point! It's really interesting to hear how things were from a Canadian perspective, how a lot of things were the same as everywhere else yet other things were affected by local trends, availability of second-hand gear being different from what it might have been in other countries/regions, etc. If anyone else has any recollections to share, it would be cool to see what the similarities and differences were in the US, UK, Europe, etc.

One other thing that occurred to me--when you submitted your tracks to the label, I take it you just submitted your final DAT mix with no mastering, right? Any idea whether the labels did any significant mastering work, or did they just send it to be pressed as-is or with minimal adjustments? When listening back to the pressed records, did you ever notice changes from what you had submitted (louder or different dynamics, clearer/cleaner, changes to the stereo image or bottom end and so on)?

Great to finally get some of these details nailed down!

Post

Yeah, just sent the dat without mastering. I didnt even know what mastering was back then. I really don't know if the labels mastered.
I didn't notice any big differences, but if there was I would've chalked it up to digital vs vinyl, probably.

Post

Yeah that's what I figured. Simpler times... :)

Post

Another workflow question for anyone who might feel like answering it: how much of that glorious knob-twiddling we hear on the classic records was performed in real-time during the recording of the mixdown, and how much was recorded or programmed as MIDI automation? I'm guessing it depended quite heavily on the particular capabilities and limitations of each piece of gear, with a majority of the knob-twiddling being done as MIDI automation on devices/parameters that actually supported it. I'd think that live knob-twiddling during the final mixdown "performance" was reserved for non-automatable parameters and perhaps the occasional burst of inspiration or boredom... am I close? :)

Post

Well, as far as I know,
The synths were
Alpha Juno: saw leads, hoovers, sub bass, strings
Akai/Roland samplers: orchestral hits and stabs, and drums
Waldorf Microwave: digital metallic sounds
101/202/303: acid sounds
TX-81z: lately bass sound like Whigfield Saturday Night
Korg M1: piano and organ, among plenty of others.
Casio CZ-101: the organ used in Pizzaman's song S*x On The Streets, and bass sounds and digital stuff
Oberheim Xpander: high passed leads
Yamaha SY series and Korg Wavestation: pads and all sorts of evolving presets. Also, bass and leads and strings and brass.
Early there was also D-50 which was used a lot in 1990-1991 for some leads and pads.
That's early 1990-1993 and the 80's
Of course Detroit Techno was heavy on Poly-800 and Ensoniq ESQ-1 and various analog synths. Same with Chicago house. I'm not sure about Paradise Garage house, but I think that has MKS-80 and Juno-60 all over it.
1993-1996 saw more 808 and 909 drums that were real, and Juno-106 replacing the Alpha Juno. Also, JV-80/1080 with optional expansions. By that time M1 piano was replaced by JV or SY99 piano.
1996-1999 saw tons of Roland JV with expansions. Especially Techno, Dance, and House. Also, Nord Lead, and JP-8000 (the supersaw), among other VAs. Also, saw the introduction of VSTs (Creamware) by the end of the 90's. Almost all the techno and trance songs from the end had JP-8000 or Nord Lead 1/2 in them doing the lead riff. If not the lead was a JV-2080 or 1080. The piano was popular, but it was the one from the JV expansions.
Last edited by Music Bird on Sun Dec 31, 2017 1:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Many paid and free VSTs as well as Kontakt libraries. As well as HW synths/drum machine and acoustic instruments.

Post

On mixing back then.. less is more. The concept of mixing was nothing like it is now. For most folks it would have been little more than volume and panning. There might have been eq on one or two things, a bit of compression from the desk/board (if it had built in compression) on one or two things and a compressor on the master but that was about it. It's part of the reason a lot of tracks sound so great from that time - less stuff to eff up basically - the raw sound of great gear.
Mastering from £30 per track \\\
Facebook \\\ #masteredbyloz

Post Reply

Return to “Production Techniques”