DISTEK | DEEP N CHUGGY | F.A.T COLLECTIVE

**fatcollective** · 14-03-2005, 10:24 AM

Hi guys, here somthing a bit different for me, im still working on it, you comments / suggestions welcome ;)
Turn it up n Feel the bass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.fatcollective.com/the_chugger.mp3

Cheerz

**detfella** · 14-03-2005, 10:44 AM

fine job, maybe a lil straight laced (arrangement wise) for me. really good prod to my ears and i would def be dancing like a twat if i heard this in a club :lol:

**j_s** · 14-03-2005, 03:05 PM

like it.

**fresh_an_funky_design** · 14-03-2005, 03:53 PM

like this,bit different from the stuff you've been making recently. got a nice solid groove all the way through. :clap:

**fatcollective** · 14-03-2005, 03:56 PM

Cheerz for the comments folks, like i said im still working on this, im thinkin of adding a nice melodic deep synth in there sumwhere, maybe some moody pads??

**audioinjection** · 14-03-2005, 04:51 PM

nice dude, chunky style, i like it, good job

**dirty_bass** · 14-03-2005, 06:13 PM

Nice groove on this

The use of a break beat along with the main perc is a little 1995 acid tech. I`d maybe build a pattern out of less conventional sounds

Theres a lot of muddyness surrounding the kick, sounds like the bass and kick are fighting each other. A nice scalpel of eq should fix this.

Nice. I agree with the above comment, it is a little straight. With these kind of wiggley beats it`s dying for some real clever edits, rather than filter sweeps.

**BRADLEE** · 14-03-2005, 06:47 PM

Distek “the Chugger”

Opening in the fashion of some 1995 techno with sirens blarring, the tune gets off the nice little start. Having a breakbeat type of feel to it, but with the obvious techno influences. Some nice little pad fx as well sweeping along to keep things going. Then the break comes in with some subtle filter sweeps on the main sequence. However when it comes back it is still kind of the same thing. Doesn’t seem to have much progression from there. I kept listening for a new sound, or just something different to happen, but to no avail.

All in all this track is quite groovy though in feel and has quite a nice drive to it for the funky side of techno. Definitely quality work in the production end as always, but the kick does seem to lack some force. I believe Steve said the same. So maybe change out the kick and add some more progression or direction after the 3:00 minute mark and you’re good to go.

Just my 2 cents

**fatcollective** · 14-03-2005, 11:05 PM

cheerz folk, ur comments have been taken into account, gunna work on some clever edits, sort that kick out n maybe add sum synths or pads?? thanks!!! :lol:

**duffdeal** · 14-03-2005, 11:25 PM

Nice, really like it around 2.00 when it picks up. Think some vocal snippets would go well int his, it's already got that clubby groove.

**xfive** · 15-03-2005, 01:18 AM

Yeah good groove to this... I think everyone's said everything else...

But damn man... 96kbps mp3s are killin me... I'm almost to the point where I'm just not gonna listen to stuff anymore if I can't hear it properly...

:lol:

:cry:

**fatcollective** · 15-03-2005, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by xfive

Yeah good groove to this... I think everyone's said everything else...

But damn man... 96kbps mp3s are killin me... I'm almost to the point where I'm just not gonna listen to stuff anymore if I can't hear it properly...

:lol:

:cry:

would you prefer 128kbs? is it ok to post 128kbs on here

**xfive** · 15-03-2005, 01:41 AM

Yeah I mean that's better for sure.... I always post 192 personally :)
As I know most everyone else does..

It's just closer to cd quality, but obviously still an mp3.

128 has very audible differences between it and 192.... in the same way that 96 does vs 128.

**xfive** · 15-03-2005, 01:43 AM

I mean don't you want to give everyone the best representation of your work that you can? While remaining practical of course..... in a perfect world we'd all be posting uncompressed aif or wav teeheee

:lol: :lol:

**dirty_bass** · 15-03-2005, 07:53 AM

192 all the way.
Anything less just doesn`t represent.

**AcidTrash** · 15-03-2005, 05:46 PM

different

**MARKEG** · 15-03-2005, 10:54 PM

guys! thanks for the recent track you sent me - it's been reviewed ;)

**fatcollective** · 17-03-2005, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by MARK EG

guys! thanks for the recent track you sent me - it's been reviewed ;)

Thanks m8!! Much Appreciated!! ;)

**fatcollective** · 17-03-2005, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by xfive

Yeah I mean that's better for sure.... I always post 192 personally :)
As I know most everyone else does..

It's just closer to cd quality, but obviously still an mp3.

128 has very audible differences between it and 192.... in the same way that 96 does vs 128.

This is all news to me!! im obviously thinkin about the ppl that are still on dial up!! but from this day on i will post all mp3's @ 192!!! thanx for letting me know this lads, i really thought 96 was the max you could post on here for sum rerason?? ;)

Thread: DISTEK | DEEP N CHUGGY | F.A.T COLLECTIVE

Thread Tools

Display

DISTEK | DEEP N CHUGGY | F.A.T COLLECTIVE

Posting Permissions