Any way I can mimic a 90's effects rack?

[HAL76]

Looking back I think that a crucial difference between back then and today is that people were often too lazy to switch cables and make big changes of the settings but instead just switched their rack on.

A friend an me lately agreed about this.

Lol. Yes, you and your friend must have solved this dilemma.

People in the nineties, lazy. Definitely that. /s

I can´t speak for all of us, but ... I mean we had a different approach and focussed on the vibes. And whiping dust is not for boys, so better not change a running system

[Alyctro]

I've found the plugin, functions similarly to Patcher in FL Studio which is what i use.
I think the grit of the 90's sound comes from audio compression due to the limited storage of the time. But also, heavy use of circuitry and tubes. Which one by one added subtle noise levels one way or another. Now i wonder, was a gate used at all in any way in these setups? Even back then, it would be pretty anoying if i was listening to buzz and white noise through an amp. It's stil a thing with my todays monitors.

"Grit" is just a term, isn´t it? I was really surprised when I switched a Korg MonoPoly on for the first time. There is was again. Instantly...

If I had to rank the factors mono would be first. And file compression as well as file types would be on the list, too - but behind many other aspects to be honest.

I have lately come to the assessment that the recording is probably more important than what we usually think about. The recordings are often really "outdated" in the narrow sense of the term

What I was thinking of when writing was mainly that FX and patches sound different when run through a signal chain. The phaser may not be the best, but it may sound great when you place it before e. g. a delay and a reverb. Not to forget that not everybody had more than one compressor back then.

I think gates were pretty popular back then and also shaped the sound of numerous techno stylistics.

I would define grit as natural harmonic distortion. Or any kind of saturation that doesn't clip the sample. Moreless like a casette. Making the sound less detailed yet warmer.

[HAL76]

I would define grit as natural harmonic distortion. Or any kind of saturation that doesn't clip the sample. Moreless like a casette. Making the sound less detailed yet warmer.

Less detailed is one of the crucial aspects for me, too. I use to call it "blurred".

Saturation is definitely an important aspect of it, but there are also other factors that you get to know when screwing around. Frequency response for example. And variations or also doubling FX. Or the file formats and compression that you have mentioned already. The amplifier and/or DAC, too.

The microfreak has lots of "grit" in my opinion and in this case I suppose that it´s the cheap build quality of all the components that is responsible for it.

[Uncle E]

Listen to the mix bmanic just posted. This sounds like the better aspects of the 90's to me:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C3IdSS ... sp=sharing

[HAL76]

Listen to the mix bmanic just posted. This sounds like the better aspects of the 90's to me:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1C3IdSS ... sp=sharing

This mix reminds me strongly of

"the better aspects of the 90's" is a good expression. Not everything was good. Back then I rather gave a sh*ine on what plp call "90s music" tday

As Cunk may show things look different today.

[Alyctro]

I would define grit as natural harmonic distortion. Or any kind of saturation that doesn't clip the sample. Moreless like a casette. Making the sound less detailed yet warmer.

Less detailed is one of the crucial aspects for me, too. I use to call it "blurred".

Saturation is definitely an important aspect of it, but there are also other factors that you get to know when screwing around. Frequency response for example. And variations or also doubling FX. Or the file formats and compression that you have mentioned already. The amplifier and/or DAC, too.

The microfreak has lots of "grit" in my opinion and in this case I suppose that it´s the cheap build quality of all the components that is responsible for it.

It's not entirely out of my budget but it's expensive nonetheless. I'll keep that in my mind.

[seangm]

del

[HAL76]

I would define grit as natural harmonic distortion. Or any kind of saturation that doesn't clip the sample. Moreless like a casette. Making the sound less detailed yet warmer.

Less detailed is one of the crucial aspects for me, too. I use to call it "blurred".

Saturation is definitely an important aspect of it, but there are also other factors that you get to know when screwing around. Frequency response for example. And variations or also doubling FX. Or the file formats and compression that you have mentioned already. The amplifier and/or DAC, too.

The microfreak has lots of "grit" in my opinion and in this case I suppose that it´s the cheap build quality of all the components that is responsible for it.

It's not entirely out of my budget but it's expensive nonetheless. I'll keep that in my mind.

I have spent years with sound design and intensive "research" on "sound". I count the expenses in thousands today.

And I know that many many people will critisize my conclusion and claim that there wouldn´t be much difference anymore (you know the discussion).

But I have - for me - after all these years and expenses on software and hardware in the end (Roland MKS80, OB-6, M, ...) come to the conclusion that a) software doesn´t even come close b) and makes you waste lots of time (=money) trying to adjust hundreds of parameters.

Compared to the MKS-80, the MonoPoly or a Juno6 Software simply sounds like a plastic toy looks.

Considering that I want to encourage you to better work with what you have and wait until you can afford a good tool instead of buying software that you won´t use an<ymore anyway in the end.

Addition: the price makes a difference (e. g. ~20 bB SNR with the MKS compared to the Juno), but e. g. the "cheap" Pulse 2 often! delivers more usable and unique sounding results (although the SNR is really a downside for me).

Back to FX racks: yes it is, there were many shitty toys back then too. But you won´t compete with a rack made of TC, Eventide and Lexicon components with a DAW and some plugins that cost less than the quality cables that were used for the connections of the rack).

imho. PE once said "Don´t believe the hype"

All the best!

[vurt]

they also said, "yo, bum rush the show".
make of that, what you will...

[Uncle E]

Pulse 1 even better!

Some great sounding and relatively inexpensive rack gear include Lexicon PCM60, Yamaha SPX990, Dynacord DRP15, DBX118, and Alesis MIDIverb 3 (everyone wants the 2 for the Bloom effect but the 3 sounds better for everything else and sells for cheaper).

[UltraByte]

may have missed if it was already named in this thread, but i guess the Shy 90's channel is worth a warm mention as a Mackie strip.

viewtopic.php?t=616823

[I_Am_Become_KVR]

Korg SDD in UAD sounds just like the real thing. That's as 90's rack sounding as it gets. But it doesn't have a native version, unfortunately.