The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
What were Aphex Twin and Daft Punk mulitracking to in the '90s
Old 23rd July 2014
  #61
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by timc3 View Post
Well if you search u-ziq or even ?-ziq and not mu-ziq then you will find it's Mike Paradinas owner of planet-mu
Looks like the forum can't cope with the mu symbol. Mu (letter) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Old 23rd July 2014
  #62
Lives for gear
 

i wasnt asking for information on how to search for him...

I listened to mu-ziq and Aphex Twin in late 90's to 2001 or so... stlll think they're amazing (and they always will be)... but, I am constantly looking for new music, and new musicians so I haven't paid attention to either since... which explains why I didn't know about planet-mu... but thanks for the info.

are you angry about "mu" btw? or is it just another misunderstood web-forum post (on my part)?
Old 23rd July 2014
  #63
Gear Guru
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdilletteMan View Post
Looks like Aphex is busy acting as Marks Keyboard Repair, while a prerecorded set is coming from DAT (Atari seems to be off).
Seen this video tons of times... never noticed the Studio 440 until now.

What are the racks? That are actually turned on...
Old 23rd July 2014
  #64
Gear Maniac
 
Ljudterapi's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by qb748t394 View Post
how come everyone always mentions aphex twin but no one ever talks about mu-ziq?... that is, with the greek letter "mu"

because of the number of albums?.. or what?

also, I think mu-ziq is the other guy in that "Milton-Bradley" lookin picture, but not positive.
It sure is Mike Paradinas that is "Mike" on the Mike and Rich album. Fantastic album IMHO. Fun and interesting.

I agree that Mike is very underrated as few has heard of him. He derserves to be up there next to Richard D James IMHO. Great producer and "knob twiddler" ().

Great thread btw. I wasn't into electronic music in the 90's but agree that limitations bring out creativity and (IMHO) better results. DAWs are great but yeah.. Something was lost.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #65
Gear Nut
 
Pakito's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by isdn View Post
4 tracks tape or a basic cassette tape , hardware samplers ( early roland and casio ) , ms20's , dx7 , a roland d50 maybe , sh101 , 303 and so on , all colliding at once through a compact mixer ( probably an old tascam or teac or something ) Its a certain sound that was never really beaten for this form of music.

There is something about a mix caught on the fly that's lost when you start to multi track to daw no matter how good your ad/da or summing , something is lost , live mixes using a nice compact set up and where your made to work on the sound at source and where its then captured to tape or even dat somehow have a feel i lost when i went to daw and i tried every way to get that sound back and you cannot without that older setup / workflow and mentality

Todays daw mixes largely sound like ' Ocd victims music ) to me now , its actually really rare to find good sounding electronica now due to vst / vsti and edit / compress / eq / limit / master fixation .It all sounds to well made , to pure , over eq'd , compressed , its been worked to much a lot of it.

The older sound is due to none of that.

Everyone's so fking obsessed with sound quality , eq , Mastering , back then it was all about the energy and way more spontaneous .There was also less need to impress , not sure why but now everyones out to impress using edit skills and production and it lacks soul due to that superficial mentality or reason for creating.

Most music scenes now look like '# wnking competitions ' , who can eq the best , get the most clean harmonic mix.Its penis stuff.

Sequencers come into this also , most daw midi ones are ****e and laggy on the timing , they drag and sound kind of weird or do not have the snap for drums in particular , sequencing with an atari whilst a bit like stepping into the stone age does have a unique feel , it seems to encourage a unique set of results.

Daws are ****e ( i use them daily for work and fking hate what they did to music , the sound of it now , the Obsessive compulsiveness they bring out in people and the only bigger skidmark than them is the fixation on masturbatory / mastering '#

most releases back then were not mastered

they sounded better for it i think or felt better , more raw .Everything sounds flat now or just hyper edited and separated and even with the greatest mastering it still sounds like a ' great mastered record ' and the electronica back then did not as it was not mastered or most of it ( i was releasing then and also knew many labels and really we lost it with the daw and this mastering mentality

every man and his dog now thinks he is an Audiophile and acts like one , some then become mastering engineers , tell you = you must never mix and master your own music ( as its all money driven in that scene and they want your money and job and cling onto some ego trip that they are or ' Masters ' of hearing ) and its all bollocks.

It all went downhill when compulsive daw editing / software and the rise in ' mastering ' music kicked in.

I was releasing in the early 90's and no one even mentioned mastering and by no one i mean people who sold 1000's of copies of music and some of you still regard as making classic old music .

So why the fixation now ? its got in the way.

go back and look at what people were doing in the early 90's and do it like that if you like that sound , you can polish a turd but it will always be one and 99% of music now is a polished turd ( its souless computer editor wank that sounds like a lesson in how to eq perfectly and compress ) being over polished by obsessives and people who should be data analysts and kept away from creative processes where Flaw / Error / Harmonic / Grain / Spontaneity are the key.

Music did not evolve , we all just became more mentally unwell and fixated on method and higher and higher degrees of Control over editing / perfection.

The music as a result now sounds like the work of politicians or likes its actually written by mastering engineers
Superb post!!
Old 23rd July 2014
  #66
Gear Nut
 
Pakito's Avatar
 

A list of the equipment used by Richard when he released his first album:

Read the Benjamin Middleton message here:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ve/vZTjByCInMQ



Only a genius could create a masterpiece like Selected Ambient Works 85–92 using only a setup as simple as his circa 1992.

He is a very very clever guy, though...

Enjoy it here:

Old 23rd July 2014
  #67
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by qb748t394 View Post
also, I think mu-ziq is the other guy in that "Milton-Bradley" lookin picture, but not positive.
It is, i love Mu-Ziq.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #68
Lives for gear
 
bil_g's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by djugel View Post
What are the racks? That are actually turned on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pakito View Post
Here is a list of the equipment used by Richard when he released his first album:
Ah, Quadraverb. I couldn't think of the one right in front of him but I thought it was Alesis.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #69
Gear Addict
wow, alt.raves oct 92. blast from the past newsgroup.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #70
special guest
 
paul h's Avatar
 

Generally the process back then was run everything through a cheepish desk as a live mix to dat. Most people I know did it like that.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #71
Lives for gear
 
enossified's Avatar
Of course, the guys who put out recordings made on shoestring setups had no problems moving to more elaborate rigs (whether ITB or not) as soon as they could afford it.

Fans might think it was a step backwards but the creators didn't seem to
Old 23rd July 2014
  #72
ValhallaDSP
 
seancostello's Avatar
 

I like this thread.

A few observations:

The "live to DAT" aspect is significant, but not because of the DAT. Today, you could easily record live to 2 tracks of a DAW, and get identical results. Or better results, as DATs weren't the most robust things on earth. Just treat the DAW as a 2-track recorder, and capture a live performance.

Back in the olden days of the 90s, effects were used in a VERY non-subtle way. Aphex Twin didn't have 18 different Quadraverb instances, with the send levels mixed down very low to "glue" the mix together. There was 1 Quadraverb, and it was right up front, with a cavernous reverb time. I doubt that the musicians could have afforded to use hardware for subtle, "you only hear it when it is gone" uses. Quadraverbs weren't $50 back then, like they are now. If you bought one, you wanted to HEAR it.

The overdrive from cranking up the preamp gain of a Mackie mixer is fairly distinctive, and was used a lot in these older recordings.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #73
Lives for gear
 
blinky909's Avatar
most people i knew and followed weren't multi-tracking, that was always the next investment. and when they did make the investment, it was either 8 track ADAT or DAT. many of the classics were recorded on a 16 channel Mackie 1604 straight to DAT.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #74
Lives for gear
 
pinkerton's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by enossified View Post
Of course, the guys who put out recordings made on shoestring setups had no problems moving to more elaborate rigs (whether ITB or not) as soon as they could afford it.

Fans might think it was a step backwards but the creators didn't seem to
It would appear this final statement is false with regards to Richard d James in particular, as he did indeed move back to older style production methods.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #75
Lives for gear
 

Homework had more than 4 samples. I'll try and dig up this YouTube clip where they go track for track and some of the stuff they sampled they essentially either pitch shifted or did nothing at all to the sample and played over it. I was shocked to say the least
Old 23rd July 2014
  #76
Lives for gear
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
I've seen that video, it's scary. I think Discovery had 4 samples "only." Haha. That's what they claimed in that article, anyway. Man, I try not to think about it too much with Daft Punk or Led Zeppelin because then I start to get kind of depressed about their best songs. Lucky for Zeppelin the tables got turned on them and THEY got sampled by the next generation, payback.
Old 23rd July 2014
  #77
Gear Guru
 
fiddlestickz's Avatar
I lived the dream all through the 90's in London, but I don't agree entirely that DAW's have ruined the music, they are just another tool, I actually love the hard edged sound of that squarepusher video, plug in's or not, couldn't care less, besides if y'all want to sound all 90's again, the gear is available on e-bay for next to nothing, I'm sure the sale of your Macbooks would pay for the cost of an old Atari and Marantz cassette deck...what are you all waiting for..?

Saying the sound of today's music is worse due to the tools it was written on is somewhat a cop out, they are just tools, pretty sure plenty of beautiful non rhythmic chilled ambient has been knocked up in DAW's..
Old 24th July 2014
  #78
Gear Guru
 
fiddlestickz's Avatar
perhaps a bigger question is what were the Orb, Orbital, Test Department, FSOL, Eat Static and all those other yummy psychedelic acts recording to and what gear were they using..?

I know Alex Paterson was a gear junkie...come to think of it so were Eat Static..!!
Old 24th July 2014
  #79
Gear Guru
 
fiddlestickz's Avatar


timeless..!!!
Old 24th July 2014
  #80
Gear Guru
 
fiddlestickz's Avatar


to this day, this track is my all time fav FSOL track, papua comes in second, but Kai..man that break is sooooooo DOPE..!!!
Old 24th July 2014
  #81
Gear Guru
I remember hearing that "Chime" was cassette... hence why it's kinda at the wrong speed.
Old 24th July 2014
  #82
I don't care if DAT sounds like secreted gold butter, i'll never own one.

What a pain!
Old 24th July 2014
  #83
Gear Maniac
 
hubba bubba's Avatar
 

I find the whole world of today to be quite comical. Kind of like standing across the street watching a crowd of people stare up with their smart phones pointed at the piano falling from the 10000 story tall building about to land on their heads. Oops, too late.
Old 24th July 2014
  #84
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddlestickz View Post
perhaps a bigger question is what were the Orb, Orbital, Test Department, FSOL, Eat Static and all those other yummy psychedelic acts recording to and what gear were they using..?

I know Alex Paterson was a gear junkie...come to think of it so were Eat Static..!!
From what I remember certainly the Orb and FSOL had a prog approach, and used bigger desks and tape multi-track in london studios. They worked in a similar way though, mixing down to 2 track and choosing the best 'jams'.
Old 24th July 2014
  #85
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by seancostello View Post
I like this thread.

A few observations:

The "live to DAT" aspect is significant, but not because of the DAT. Today, you could easily record live to 2 tracks of a DAW, and get identical results. Or better results, as DATs weren't the most robust things on earth. Just treat the DAW as a 2-track recorder, and capture a live performance.

Back in the olden days of the 90s, effects were used in a VERY non-subtle way. Aphex Twin didn't have 18 different Quadraverb instances, with the send levels mixed down very low to "glue" the mix together. There was 1 Quadraverb, and it was right up front, with a cavernous reverb time. I doubt that the musicians could have afforded to use hardware for subtle, "you only hear it when it is gone" uses. Quadraverbs weren't $50 back then, like they are now. If you bought one, you wanted to HEAR it.

The overdrive from cranking up the preamp gain of a Mackie mixer is fairly distinctive, and was used a lot in these older recordings.
"Live" to DAT is kinda overstating it a bit, a lot of it was well sequenced already. DAT was often more for archive and transport.

by the mid90s people could use tons of effects. Sneak into schools to use their computers, **** around in TurboSynth or SoundMaker or SoundEffects or Hyperprism or SoundEdit 16 or Composers Desktop Project or SuperCollider or Csound all day, record it to tape or DAT load it in a sampler and sequence from an asq or mmt8 or something. I remember processing stuff on computer at home over and over and sequencing other stuff while I waited and waited and waited. Or bounce 2 tapes back and forth between a hardware reverb. In order to cover the noise floor of the overall mix i remember making lots of sounds like that to put into the background. Or you sampled stuff that already had reverb and effects.

tbh, I don't think 90s mixes sound "rawer" or less polished, on the good stuff, the spacial positioning and mix sounds more thought through to me. If anything, a lot of people were more anal about working with samples and sequencing, I think. There's not much I hear today that couldn't be done then with some more work and elbow grease and often times it's sounds like less work in the composition and mixing.

Everyone today seems big into saving time and working faster and being "productive". It's ridiculous to me that kids getting into making tunes are talking about "workflow", you're supposed to **** around, figure stuff out and play it too loud. What's 24, 48 or 72 more hours in the grand scheme of things.

I think part of the problem that people run into with "itb" is there isn't any separation between sound creating/shaping, composing sequencing and it gets tiring at least for me, I have to switch it up.

Also, I think sample clearances have messed stuff up. I think listening to stuff to sample and listening to where people you like found samples helps develop taste. With commercial sample packs I don't think people take the same pride in doing justice to the sample.



and here's the other parts of that interview series:

Old 24th July 2014
  #86
Lives for gear
 
bil_g's Avatar
 

Old 24th July 2014
  #87
Gear Addict
 
EofN's Avatar
You're right, that's the one I meant to be say, the 85-92 but I got the mixed up

Volume 2 has a much cleaner sound. I think most artists use the nicest recording gear they have access to at the time, which is usually for the best. Well spotted on the Dat glitches, I didn't notice myself but then I've not owned one. The closest I got was a Philips DCC (digital compact cassette) remember those? They used digital compression before MP3 was invented. Minidisk was similar as it was also compressed. I remember the audiophiles fussing about the loss of detail in the high frequency band like it was the worst thing ever.

I agree with some others that the best Aphex was generally from early on, before it became a micro programming exercise. However, he's had lot's of great tracks throughout his discography so the mojo must still be there, even if you have to dig for it. PS, I loved Analord, pity it's only available on MP3. (yes I know it's on vinyl... but it's not available though is it.)




Quote:
Originally Posted by 13chroma20 View Post
This was actually SAW Vol. 1 that was recorded to cassette. SAW2 must have been recorded to DAT as there are a couple of DAT glitches on the songs!
Old 24th July 2014
  #88
Lives for gear
 
lain2097's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddlestickz View Post
perhaps a bigger question is what were the Orb, Orbital, Test Department, FSOL..
FSOL had a pretty traditional set up, loads of hardware synths, Quadraverb and Akai especially heavy use. Mixed down on Soundtracs IL3632 to you guessed it DAT. At least in the Life Forms - ISDN era (my favourite). Life Forms to me is a masterpiece in sampling.

SOS had a article from '94 about them, **** 20 years ago!

Future Sound Of London: Broadcast, TV & Radio Musicians

Already documented, even some youboob vids with them in studio. Their interviews were kinda strange in that I was never sure if they're having at it or not. drugs



Funny how that looks not far off some GS'ers gear pics..
Old 24th July 2014
  #89
Lives for gear
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by bil_g View Post
There's always the SOS Classic Tracks:

Chime

Little Fluffy Clouds

Papua New Guinea
man I love "Chime." That article was great, very inspiring. Yep, live to cassette. This is a cool new way of working I had never quite considered until this thread.
Old 24th July 2014
  #90
Gear Nut
Quote:
Originally Posted by isdn View Post
4 tracks tape or a basic cassette tape , hardware samplers ( early roland and casio ) , ms20's , dx7 , a roland d50 maybe , sh101 , 303 and so on , all colliding at once through a compact mixer ( probably an old tascam or teac or something ) Its a certain sound that was never really beaten for this form of music.

There is something about a mix caught on the fly that's lost when you start to multi track to daw no matter how good your ad/da or summing , something is lost , live mixes using a nice compact set up and where your made to work on the sound at source and where its then captured to tape or even dat somehow have a feel i lost when i went to daw and i tried every way to get that sound back and you cannot without that older setup / workflow and mentality

Todays daw mixes largely sound like ' Ocd victims music ) to me now , its actually really rare to find good sounding electronica now due to vst / vsti and edit / compress / eq / limit / master fixation .It all sounds to well made , to pure , over eq'd , compressed , its been worked to much a lot of it.

The older sound is due to none of that.

Everyone's so fking obsessed with sound quality , eq , Mastering , back then it was all about the energy and way more spontaneous .There was also less need to impress , not sure why but now everyones out to impress using edit skills and production and it lacks soul due to that superficial mentality or reason for creating.

Most music scenes now look like '# wnking competitions ' , who can eq the best , get the most clean harmonic mix.Its penis stuff.

Sequencers come into this also , most daw midi ones are ****e and laggy on the timing , they drag and sound kind of weird or do not have the snap for drums in particular , sequencing with an atari whilst a bit like stepping into the stone age does have a unique feel , it seems to encourage a unique set of results.

Daws are ****e ( i use them daily for work and fking hate what they did to music , the sound of it now , the Obsessive compulsiveness they bring out in people and the only bigger skidmark than them is the fixation on masturbatory / mastering '#

most releases back then were not mastered

they sounded better for it i think or felt better , more raw .Everything sounds flat now or just hyper edited and separated and even with the greatest mastering it still sounds like a ' great mastered record ' and the electronica back then did not as it was not mastered or most of it ( i was releasing then and also knew many labels and really we lost it with the daw and this mastering mentality

every man and his dog now thinks he is an Audiophile and acts like one , some then become mastering engineers , tell you = you must never mix and master your own music ( as its all money driven in that scene and they want your money and job and cling onto some ego trip that they are or ' Masters ' of hearing ) and its all bollocks.

It all went downhill when compulsive daw editing / software and the rise in ' mastering ' music kicked in.

I was releasing in the early 90's and no one even mentioned mastering and by no one i mean people who sold 1000's of copies of music and some of you still regard as making classic old music .

So why the fixation now ? its got in the way.

go back and look at what people were doing in the early 90's and do it like that if you like that sound , you can polish a turd but it will always be one and 99% of music now is a polished turd ( its souless computer editor wank that sounds like a lesson in how to eq perfectly and compress ) being over polished by obsessives and people who should be data analysts and kept away from creative processes where Flaw / Error / Harmonic / Grain / Spontaneity are the key.

Music did not evolve , we all just became more mentally unwell and fixated on method and higher and higher degrees of Control over editing / perfection.

The music as a result now sounds like the work of politicians or likes its actually written by mastering engineers
Possibly the best post I've ever read on GS. Although I'll have to disagree with you on the amount of releases that were mastered in the late 80s/90s. Cutting completely un-mastered tracks to vinyl would render half of them unplayable.
New Reply Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+  Submit Thread to Reddit Reddit 
 
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump