Production techniques/workflow(?) for late-90s progressive trance

[TW1306]

Are you using Reason btw?

Yep, Reason 10.

I'd say what you're talking about these with the kick/bass is getting getting precisely the right source sound, and then carefully using EQ.

I think that's probably right, of course I'd want to be able to come up with my own bass sounds eventually but for now even trying to replicate specific examples (ones that I'd suggest are fairly 'simple' sounds) is difficult - getting the right high- and low-ends is a challenge, as is obvious from the one I posted above

[Aiynzahev]

Are you using Reason btw?

Yep, Reason 10.

I'd say what you're talking about these with the kick/bass is getting getting precisely the right source sound, and then carefully using EQ.

I think that's probably right, of course I'd want to be able to come up with my own bass sounds eventually but for now even trying to replicate specific examples (ones that I'd suggest are fairly 'simple' sounds) is difficult - getting the right high- and low-ends is a challenge, as is obvious from the one I posted above

Yeah the reason I suggested the XV is it's all sample based waveforms and it's the kind of old school Rompler that people were using. Ferry Corsten did his baselines for Gouryella etc on the XV3080 I believe.

[TW1306]

Yeah the reason I suggested the XV is it's all sample based waveforms and it's the kind of old school Rompler that people were using. Ferry Corsten did his baselines for Gouryella etc on the XV3080 I believe.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll give it a look; I unfortunately cancelled my RC subscription a couple of years ago because of the cost
(I should also probably say that I'm not too familiar with the sampling side of things, but I'm happy to give it a whirl of course )

[TW1306]

Listening to your Soundcloud compared to the above track the main difference is the top end. Your tracks are very bright by comparison. Don't forget that in the late 90's most people were still mainly analog ... your stuff is clean and digital.

Apologies for digging this thread up again but I wanted to ask how I could potentially implement that? I looked at some tracks in Reason and like you said there's a very obvious cutoff for the higher frequencies, almost nothing above ~16 kHz, but applying a simple EQ over the master section doesn't give as clean a cut as the spectrum EQ shows.

[DNnX]

YouTube tends to cut freq over 16kHz. It's not good to use as reference.
(((If you really need to do brickwall cutting over 16kHz, resample the final mix to 32kHz and go back to the final rate)))

The "lessen high" "lessen clarity" of old songs cannot be easily achieved by simple EQing. There are many possible reasons.
Some song use lower sampling rates to save RAM of sampler, some digital synth are working at 32kHz (which nyquist freq is 16kHz), some 2mix are recorded to R2R tape (or Cassette Tape with dbx noise reduction), some songs are BBE-ed (blue one or black one, not red one) from the muffled mix, some songs are overdrived in the bus or master out of the mixer.
Some well used AD/DA gears like Alesis ADAT or Roland VS series decrease the clarity of the sound too.

[Synthman2000]

There was very little precision going on in those times (I am am old enough to know as I owned a project studio through the 90's). No extreme refinement of sounds, even HPF was quite rare on line level sound sources through a project studio mixing console. No EQ'ing of effects returns etc. Nothing that MIDI alone cannot play back.

Basic console emulation may help a little, choose the worst sounding one.. none of these desks were SSL's. Mackie had the best signal path in general, but it was not audiophile... then you had your Soundcraft Spirit's, Soundtracs Topaz, Studiomaster desks. Most only had semi parametric EQ (Fixed Q - just freq and gain) The Mackie was £3,200.00 the Topaz which had really nice top end EQ, mids were not so good though. £2,500.00 and I went with Studiomaster P7 in the end £2,100.00 - solid desk, decent EQ and most importantly one of the quietest desks Studiomaster made.. some of the older ones they made hissed like frying eggs.

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/soundtracs-topaz

This was all VERY simple stuff compared with the immense flexibility and tone sculpting power of a DAW in 2022.

It seems a lot of people are realizing just how sterile modern dance music can sound these days.

[Aiynzahev]

Wouldn’t some higher profile artists send their music for mix down at properly equipped pro studios?

[kritikon]

There was very little precision going on in those times (I am am old enough to know as I owned a project studio through the 90's). No extreme refinement of sounds, even HPF was quite rare on line level sound sources through a project studio mixing console. No EQ'ing of effects returns etc. Nothing that MIDI alone cannot play back.

Basic console emulation may help a little, choose the worst sounding one.. none of these desks were SSL's. Mackie had the best signal path in general, but it was not audiophile... then you had your Soundcraft Spirit's, Soundtracs Topaz, Studiomaster desks. Most only had semi parametric EQ (Fixed Q - just freq and gain) The Mackie was £3,200.00 the Topaz which had really nice top end EQ, mids were not so good though. £2,500.00 and I went with Studiomaster P7 in the end £2,100.00 - solid desk, decent EQ and most importantly one of the quietest desks Studiomaster made.. some of the older ones they made hissed like frying eggs.

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/soundtracs-topaz

This was all VERY simple stuff compared with the immense flexibility and tone sculpting power of a DAW in 2022.

It seems a lot of people are realizing just how sterile modern dance music can sound these days.

Good points. We get used to so many FX nowadays, which just wasn't an option not that long ago. I see YT vids of people who seem to have Eqs, comps and even limiters on every channel. Saw one by Marsh (whoever he is) where he had a simple arpeggio type single riff with a delay that was limited to buggery on the channel just to get distortion. Weird. 90s & even 2000s that would not be done. Outside of studios, comps/limiters were pretty well only for final mix, sometimes not even that...we sent bare dynamic mixes out for proper mastering without even any compression on them.

P7...used to have one of them (24channel posh version) and loved it. I remember taking hours programming in midi channel mutes to minimize noise in a mix...so tedious. I had to leave it behind when I moved to NZ & so sad to leave it. Strangely, I do less actual mixing now in a DAW than I did on a big desk riding faders etc. Yet it's technically easier with automation in a DAW (but just no fun). I don't think I ever had enough FX to use all the possible sends...mostly only 3 FX boxes for a whole mix (though the Digitech TSR24 could work as a dual FX). If anyone really wants to do a 90s/noughties style mix then simply get rid of most of your FX...limit it to 3 or 4 FX sends for the whole mix, don't process any sounds outside of basic Eq, and forget any and all audio processing per channel (though we did a bit of that with samplers).

[TW1306]

There was very little precision going on in those times (I am am old enough to know as I owned a project studio through the 90's). No extreme refinement of sounds, even HPF was quite rare on line level sound sources through a project studio mixing console. No EQ'ing of effects returns etc. Nothing that MIDI alone cannot play back.

If anyone really wants to do a 90s/noughties style mix then simply get rid of most of your FX...limit it to 3 or 4 FX sends for the whole mix, don't process any sounds outside of basic Eq, and forget any and all audio processing per channel (though we did a bit of that with samplers).

I've heard that tip about using just a few sends before, it's just difficult to break the habit of applying FX to each channel to try and get them individually sounding okay but even with those limitations producers were able to create what I think are incredibly complex tracks, much more so than I can do (and not knowing how is part of the problem). Not to mention the fact that I'm struggling with the basic elements themselves honestly.

[kritikon]

The complexity is in the programming/movement of synths and/or the actual patterns/midi and musicality. It's so easy to get bogged down in so many choices for each and every channel that yeah, it gets in the way often. I've been guilty of it myself - fiddling around with each and every channel, Eqing, rendering, dicking around with the audio, chopping/rearranging, adding 3 FX, rearranging order of FX, obsessing about dynamics...usually I end up actually making it worse the more I do to it. Whereas when I concentrate on the actual programmed sound, the riff and how it sits together - usually better. It's almost impossible to try and squeeze in parts that just don't sit together.

It was common to have 16-channel mixers. If you had the cash you stretched out to 24-channel. You would aim to have an 8-bus, which gives extra channels, but not everyone did. Decent mixers then were in-line (designed for the recording but could be used as extra channels too). And I know of loads of tracks and bands that released with 16-channel desks. TBH I was the poshest git around with 24-channels. Again, I'm a culprit nowadays - I use quite a few channels in a DAW just because I can, but it amazes me how many more some seem to use. Yet we used to record and release with only 16, and that's including drums. An awful lot of those 90s trance tracks will have been done with 16 channels.

Not that I don't want all the DAW stuff - it can give you way more fancy detail than just using midi, things I couldn't do back in the day, but it's worth giving it a go. 16 channels max, no more than 4 sends. No channel compressors/limiters etc and see where it takes you. It makes you concentrate on the actual sound and how it fits together rather than just throwing more and more at it.

[TW1306]

It makes you concentrate on the actual sound and how it fits together rather than just throwing more and more at it.

Unfortunately getting the actual sound is what's eluding me...I have as many contemporary drum samples, emulation synths, loops as I could possibly need, but I can't put together anything that sounds authentic.

[Synthman2000]

Wouldn’t some higher profile artists send their music for mix down at properly equipped pro studios?

Some undoubtedly yes not all though.

To respond further, the automatable MIDI mutes were indeed superb on the P7 (also had the 24 channel) you could kill noise dead with them. Watching the yellow lights come on and off felt pretty awesome as your parts came up. Really useful for SH-101/Juno 106 (esp with the chorus on) and other hardware hiss-o-trons. My Novation bass station rack used to emit a bit of a computery sound along with its hiss at times as well. (awesome for controlling a SH-101 via MIDI to C.V. built in !)

Agreed, 3 stereo FX units were about the norm. I used a couple of the budget Lexicons.. Alex and Reflex and a Digitech Studio Quad.

Compression was not used very much you might have a few Alesis/Behringer/LA Audio/dBx were common units but certainly not on every channel by any means.

These days I use a compressor only when I need something very specific to be controlled with synths... such us keeping a peaky resonant sweep in place a little.

The tools that are available today are incredibly powerful. You can control every last detail of tone and dynamics in every sound in mix. Has it made music better ? It has made it more precise (which can be impressive) for those with the room and monitors to hear sonic reality, that's all.

I adore DAW headspace with soft synths and a full suite of superb software EQ/dynamics it feels like a real studio to me. Wonderful feeling of control. Every possible option is there. I mix as I go which I always did any way, I barely even think about mixing these days, it is quite a natural process. Listen/respond/resolve.

We are in amazing times for music technology.

You still need ideas, ability to execute them.. and superb monitoring.

[kritikon]

I still have an Alex, but really wish I'd bought a Reflex. One of my biggest regrets. Those little Lexicons had a sound way above their price point. My Alex is around 1/3 broken and TBH don't use it, though it's still in my rack just for nostalgia. Sounds like we used very similar gear. The obligatory 106, I had a 202 instead of 101. The 202 and MS20 are about the only things working now. I have a 106, AlphaJuno & Wavestation lying around broken. Not worth fixing IMO. I think I miss the Alpha a bit, but the Juno...meh, any number of synths do Juno and more today. I hoovered up a load of Behringer synths and between them and Korg they satisfy my analogue desires.

[aberration123]

Interesting watch, somewhat related to your question, listen to what they say.... one of the greatest tracks of all time.

[aberration123]

Remember hearing someone say they never knew what their hardware synths sounded like in stereo, everything was mono recorded to save using up recording resources, DAT etc.