quote:

Originally posted by JakeC No. The production quality is better these days. back in the 80s most the samplers were in mono and at 11khz. These days they are in stereo and the sample rates are 44.1khz +. therefore the sound quality of the overall production would be more punchy and full.

And the mastering of newer tracks pisses all over old tracks, IMO.

___________________
ID THESE TRACKS PLEASE

IDing tracks is like having sex, the more you get the happier you'll be!!

Want to download a Digweed set? TA ID HUNT!

quote:

Originally posted by THE_Chris And the mastering of newer tracks pisses all over old tracks, IMO.

too right...

quote:

Originally posted by JakeC No. The production quality is better these days. back in the 80s most the samplers were in mono and at 11khz. These days they are in stereo and the sample rates are 44.1khz +. therefore the sound quality of the overall production would be more punchy and full.

are you kidding me? I don't know if the samplers were worse those days they problably were but if i don't misunderstand you, you are saying that production quality were worse than today. well productionwise it should be worse today because mostly of dancemusic being produced on software by beginners rather than hardware like in those days made by people who had some talent and knowledge, atleast they were more of the latter back then.

the solution to find some decent music today is to dig deeper through the piles of shit. punchy and full isn't that clever. filling a track with layers is only a trick producers grab when they are out of ideas. it doesn't have to be that way but i think so. simplicity is quality, a simple melody hook and a monotonous bass with would be enough to make a good track not a dull track with full of strings and wash effects and stupid meaningless dull melodies like aiwendill said, and that's what you find from producers like armin, ferry etc. just my opinion.

Last edited by klappa on Jul-11-2005 at 13:30

quote:

Originally posted by Aiwendil No. And what are you talking about with exactly the same with "updated" equipment? If you made it exactly the same with the exact same sounds it would sound EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 1990. It doesn't sound dated to you because the technology of sound has advanced light years since then, it sounds dated to you because it lacks overproduction in the form of sweeping strings...wash effects...note changes..., and to you anything that doesn't have this is "dated". Sounds don't become dated or old or obsolete. They only wax and wane in usage and fanbase. The problem isn't the music, it's you. The TB-303 was used extensively in 1987, and it will still be used 20 years later whether you have heard of the artist or not. There's nothing wrong with or old about the sound it makes. It's just a gimmick idea most producers used to fool idiots into thinking their music is better because it's newer.

you are misunderstanding me. read my earlier post to see what i mean with a "new ramake". I am not talking about adding sweeping strings, lush effects and crap. I am talking about cleaning the tune, mastering it in a modern studio etc. And there are examples that shows that this can be made very well. One example is Peyote - I Will Fight No More Forever from 1991 (also produced by DJ Dag from Dance 2 Trance). It was re-released in 2001 freshened up by DJ Dag himself. And the result was really good.
This is what I mean by releasing oldies in new versions.

___________________
My new oldskool TRANCE mix!

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J Altern8- Activ8

I'd disagree. That is how oldschool hardcore is meant to sound, no alterations necessary. Especially the Vix Vapo mix, which is my favourite. Leave that be...it's mint. Those acid lines are indispensable.

Last edited by AlphaStarred on Jul-11-2005 at 13:50

quote:

Originally posted by AlphaStarred I'd disagree. That is how oldschool hardcore is meant to sound, no alterations necessary. Especially the Vix Vapo mix, which is my favourite. Leave that be...it's mint. Those acid lines are indispensable.

So hardcore is meant to sound horrifically dated? Praga Khan or The Prodge don't sound that weak. All of it's "fucking 'ave it" attitude and energy is wasted because it sounds so muddy and without impact. There's no bass, no clarity and those stupid toy violins are ridiculous.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

Yes, a lot of oldschool hardcore is meant to sound almost antiquated. Perhaps it may sound awry to you, but oldschool hardcore purists wouldn't have it any other way. It may be nice to hear updated versions of the other mixes, but have you checked out the Vix Vapo mix I mentioned? Those acid lines make up for everything "muddy" in the track.

No, I've only heard the Hardcore Holocaust mix.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

Grace - Not Over Yet
Underworld - Dark & Long (Dark Train Mix)

lots of Astral Projection stuff.

___________________

blog
deep blue records
Leo G - my discogs

quote:

Originally posted by eulerfx Underworld - Dark & Long (Dark Train Mix)

You must be mad.

___________________
Mixes:
> Maximum Elevation [Progressive House]
> DI.FM 26th Anniversary Guest Mix [Progressive House]
> Live @ Dance:Love:Hub London, 11.10.2025
> Higher Peaks [Progressive House]
> Dance:Love:Hub Afterparty (The Return) 23.11.24

Like these sets? Come see me play live at Kibosh in Manchester: https://www.instagram.com/kibosh.mcr/

quote:

Originally posted by dj christian are you kidding me? I don't know if the samplers were worse those days they problably were but if i don't misunderstand you, you are saying that production quality were worse than today. well productionwise it should be worse today because mostly of dancemusic being produced on software by beginners rather than hardware like in those days made by people who had some talent and knowledge, atleast they were more of the latter back then.

You have misunderstood.

I was saying that if the samples used in some of the early tracks were resample and played with modern kit already the sound would be a lot better.

at 11khz the sound is measured 11,000 times a second but at 44.1khz its 44,100 times a second. Imagine painting a picture that involves 10million pixels and only being allowed to use 2 colours to remake the painting.

quote:

Originally posted by dj christian the solution to find some decent music today is to dig deeper through the piles of shit. punchy and full isn't that clever. filling a track with layers is only a trick producers grab when they are out of ideas. it doesn't have to be that way but i think so. simplicity is quality, a simple melody hook and a monotonous bass with would be enough to make a good track not a dull track with full of strings and wash effects and stupid meaningless dull melodies like aiwendill said, and that's what you find from producers like armin, ferry etc. just my opinion.

Layering isnt some trick its used in almost all types of music. Vocals are always double tracked which is a form of layering. Whats wrong with putting two kicks together to create a bigger kick?

Is this along the same lines as, say, making a stereo mix of Pet Sounds?

___________________
Everyone has an opinion. Mine just happens to be a little more informed than most.
Electronic Music Critic: Near-Daily Ruminations Of Music I Own, In Alphabetical Order!