1982 as a production constraint, not a costume

[kaamos]

I've been working on a production approach built around a 1982 vinyl reference. Not as nostalgia but as a discipline. The format sets the constraints: mono below 150Hz, saturation on the buss not the tracks, dynamic range left in, one room committed across the whole mix. Designing against a format that predates streaming loudness wars turns out to be a useful way to make decisions.
The instrument at the center of it is an FM synthesizer approximating a hurdy gurdy wheel and a vocal formant. Three parallel FM stacks, one running eight cents sharp against the fundamental. That beating is the wheel. The imperfection is intentional. It is why it sounds alive.

Both are part of a larger project. If any of this is your kind of thing:
github.com/jmcgill-public/kaiku

Basso on monopäätös. Se ei piilotu leveydessä.

[planetearth]

I've been working on a production approach built around a 1982 vinyl reference. Not as nostalgia but as a discipline. The format sets the constraints: mono below 150Hz, saturation on the buss not the tracks, dynamic range left in, one room committed across the whole mix. Designing against a format that predates streaming loudness wars turns out to be a useful way to make decisions.
The instrument at the center of it is an FM synthesizer approximating a hurdy gurdy wheel and a vocal formant. Three parallel FM stacks, one running eight cents sharp against the fundamental. That beating is the wheel. The imperfection is intentional. It is why it sounds alive.

Both are part of a larger project. If any of this is your kind of thing:
github.com/jmcgill-public/kaiku

Basso on monopäätös. Se ei piilotu leveydessä.

I've done similar things as interesting challenges to see what those constraints would yield. In fact, I did one initially called "1982" which only used analog synths available from around 1977 to 1982. It was specifically designed to include nothing "digital", and no "FM" sounds. The only nod to FM was at the very end, as the analog synths faded away, a distinctly FM bell-like sound quietly fades in and then out.

But by "FM", you're not considering using Yamaha's implementation of "FM", are you? As you're probably aware, the DX7 didn't come out until the summer of 1983 and while "FM" was technically available before that, it was mainly limited to universities, and based upon New England Digital's Synclavier implementation or John Chowning's paper on FM, among other early attempts. There were other "FM" implementations before 1983, and many analog synths could do some frequency modulation synthesis, but the "FM" that most people became familiar hearing was from the Yamaha DX7, and that wasn't even available in Japan until May of 1983.

All that said, I'll be checking out your github posts to see what you're doing. As far as I'm concerned, 1982 was a great year for synths, no matter which kind you had.

Steve

[enroe]

Basso on monopäätös. Se ei piilotu leveydessä.

Liika basso tekisi kaikesta kuulostamaan sekavalta ja hajanaiselta!

[zerocrossing]

I've been working on a production approach built around a 1982 vinyl reference. Not as nostalgia but as a discipline. The format sets the constraints: mono below 150Hz, saturation on the buss not the tracks, dynamic range left in, one room committed across the whole mix. Designing against a format that predates streaming loudness wars turns out to be a useful way to make decisions.
The instrument at the center of it is an FM synthesizer approximating a hurdy gurdy wheel and a vocal formant. Three parallel FM stacks, one running eight cents sharp against the fundamental. That beating is the wheel. The imperfection is intentional. It is why it sounds alive.

Both are part of a larger project. If any of this is your kind of thing:
github.com/jmcgill-public/kaiku

Basso on monopäätös. Se ei piilotu leveydessä.

I've done similar things as interesting challenges to see what those constraints would yield. In fact, I did one initially called "1982" which only used analog synths available from around 1977 to 1982. It was specifically designed to include nothing "digital", and no "FM" sounds. The only nod to FM was at the very end, as the analog synths faded away, a distinctly FM bell-like sound quietly fades in and then out.

But by "FM", you're not considering using Yamaha's implementation of "FM", are you? As you're probably aware, the DX7 didn't come out until the summer of 1983 and while "FM" was technically available before that, it was mainly limited to universities, and based upon New England Digital's Synclavier implementation or John Chowning's paper on FM, among other early attempts. There were other "FM" implementations before 1983, and many analog synths could do some frequency modulation synthesis, but the "FM" that most people became familiar hearing was from the Yamaha DX7, and that wasn't even available in Japan until May of 1983.

All that said, I'll be checking out your github posts to see what you're doing. As far as I'm concerned, 1982 was a great year for synths, no matter which kind you had.

Steve

FM existed, but only wealthy artists and studios had access to them. I was working for Laurie Anderson before 83 and the hub of her setup was a NED Synclavier II, which came out in 1980. We recorded on an early reel-to-reel Sony digital machine... I forget the model. Arturia has a pretty damn good emulation of the Synclavier II. It's a touch cleaner, but still great.

[zerocrossing]

I don't feel it's any special "discipline" to constrain yourself to 1982 technology, especially if you're already in a DAW. That said, I still think like that, to some degree. Grouping things as "buses" is still very useful, as is using send tracks to run a single reverb. Other things... nah. I'm happy to have modern tools like side chaining dynamic EQ.

[kaamos]

Basso on monopäätös. Se ei piilotu leveydessä.

Liika basso tekisi kaikesta kuulostamaan sekavalta ja hajanaiselta!

Kiitos. Kuulin sen.

[planetearth]

I don't feel it's any special "discipline" to constrain yourself to 1982 technology, especially if you're already in a DAW. That said, I still think like that, to some degree. Grouping things as "buses" is still very useful, as is using send tracks to run a single reverb. Other things... nah. I'm happy to have modern tools like side chaining dynamic EQ.

Laurie Anderson did some great stuff with the Synclavier II. I think her work with it is underrated. Working with her and those cutting-edge digital machines must have kept you on your toes!

I can’t speak for the OP, but I’m not looking at “working like it’s 1982” as an overall “discipline”. It’s just something I like to do on occasion, to see what I can come up with, regardless of the limitations I’ve put on my instrument choices, chord progressions, or anything else. I actually tend to find it more “liberating” than knowing I have a virtually unlimited sonic palette, a virtually unlimited number of tracks and effects, and no particular deadline.

At least this way, if I still have writer’s block, or the piece doesn’t come out quite the way I’d hoped or expected, I can always say to myself, “Well, what did you expect? You limited yourself to 3 tracks, Arturia’s Augmented Kazoo, and an emulation of the Radio Shack/Realistic bucket-brigade device analog delay!”

But I also find these “constraints” to be so incredibly educational, and I look forward to trying some of what I learn from these projects in others where the sky’s the limit.

Steve 

 

[Gamma-UT]

I've been working on a production approach built around a 1982 vinyl reference. Not as nostalgia but as a discipline. The format sets the constraints: mono below 150Hz, saturation on the buss not the tracks, dynamic range left in, one room committed across the whole mix. Designing against a format that predates streaming loudness wars turns out to be a useful way to make decisions.
The instrument at the center of it is an FM synthesizer approximating a hurdy gurdy wheel and a vocal formant. Three parallel FM stacks, one running eight cents sharp against the fundamental. That beating is the wheel. The imperfection is intentional. It is why it sounds alive.

Both are part of a larger project. If any of this is your kind of thing:
github.com/jmcgill-public/kaiku

Basso on monopäätös. Se ei piilotu leveydessä.

So, you’ve booked studio time, right? Right?

[legendCNCD]

Basso on monopäätös. Se ei piilotu leveydessä.

Liika basso tekisi kaikesta kuulostamaan sekavalta ja hajanaiselta!

Maksimaaliset bassot kaikilta taajuusalueilta!

[kernaudioio]

the mono below 150Hz constraint is one of the more clarifying decisions you can make, not because vinyl demands it but because bass energy is the thing that most often collapses or muddles when a mix gets folded to mono. committing to it early means every bass arrangement decision is already mono-compatible by construction.

i work with similar constraints building plugins. the "what does this sound like summed to mono" question actually drove a lot of decisions in my tools, to the point where i built a spectral mono compatibility checker as a separate free plugin (CHECK, kernaudio.io -- disclosure: i'm the developer) because i wanted a way to look at the specific frequencies where cancellation was happening, not just a correlation number.

the saturation on the bus, not the tracks idea is interesting too. committing to the color at the end, not the beginning, is a different kind of discipline than what most people do now.

[osiris]

Just make sure the snare is the loudest thing on your track.