where has the quailty gone?

[Dustin Zahn]

I'm out the loop here...herman=who? on ingoma...

[crime]

I think I can see where all the confusion has arisen......

and i don't mean the production, i mean the quality.

What do you mean by the "Quality", this could mean any number of things, if it's not the productions, then its either the sequences, Drum Programming, sounds, effects, or ideas in general
So how come everyone is going on about the mastering? I have a DJ rush record on Highball and the mastering is fine, I very much doubt they get any other releases they put out cut elsewhere.. BTW ALL trax are mastered when the Laquer is cut, you don't have to get it done yourself before you send your trax to the label

a perfect examples is the new arkus p on highball or the mark williams on ignoma or the klotzberg on collapse... jesus some of these are trainwrecks.

By this it seems like you are implying that the idea are at fault (Forgive me if i'm wrong).. would you call something that was mastered badly a "Trainwreck".. I thought the term was more aptly used in reference to bad DJ mixes

this is definitely where i agree with death on a stick from the wittekind post(concerning his/their music).. the quality has washed away...

especially in hard techno.. the quality ante needs to be raised.

The reference to the above thread is a dead giveaway, Adverse I think you posted this and got scared at everyone's reaction and got a bit confused... I personally think fair play to anyone who wants to voice their opinion, just people are always gonna like what they're gonna like.. Personally, I'm not interested in this swedish sound, or the hard techno thing, not to say I don't like hard stuff, I just like stuff that's got some changing elements, and I can completely get with what you and angryman are trying to say, I've heard a lot of records that sound very simelar, and I mean to the point before where some friends picked up some records (No names mentioned) and it actually sounded like 5 copies of the exact same record, just with different labels on, which can't be healthy for the scene.... having said that, if you're really into that kind of thing, no disrespect, I just can't get with what I'm not into.... [/quote]

[Adverse]

i mean the track sounds like arse meaning that the samples that are used are not well produced or "sampled" or even clean maybe over distorted, mixing is ****ed or not eq'd right they just trash through the mix like train. have you ever tried to mix a track with all it force in the high freqs. good god.

the reason i used that other thread as reference is cause that where my train of thought started.. some tracks really show that some guys who are getting released just don't care or bother to learn proper mixing. this topic has nothing to do with sound or style. strictly studio business.

[YouKnowILoveYou]

I think I can see where all the confusion has arisen......

and i don't mean the production, i mean the quality.

What do you mean by the "Quality", this could mean any number of things, if it's not the productions, then its either the sequences, Drum Programming, sounds, effects, or ideas in general
So how come everyone is going on about the mastering?

I totally agree with you Mr Crime, that's what my-

"My shit is 'well produced' out of my arse,
does that make it good?"

post was getting at.

[Dustin Zahn]

Whoever says you don't need to mastering tracks before you send them out because they are mastered later is full of shit. In some cases, The Exchange or whoever will make them sound thick on vinyl, but if your track sounds like ass before they master it, 99% of the time its still going to sound like ass after they master it for the vinyl.

I don't think you understand what mastering plants such as The Exchange or Curvepusher really do.

[MARKEG]

yeah for me it's very important that you do drastic mastering changes from your end and then let ppl such as curvepusher add that final sheen ontop. at the end on the day, you don't pay the cutting place to drastically change your sound into something it wasn't meant to be!!!

it may be of interest but once i sent a blackout release to a specialist mastering place first before the cut. when i phoned up lawrie he said it was awful. he really had to work to get it right. apparently most mastering places don't understand the difference between cutting to vinyl and cutting to cd. the stupid ass had widened the whole stereo field.

[Jimfish]

doh!
i am confused

[davethedrummer]

shit in
shit out
that's the old saying
and very true it is to.
there are many things that contribute to a "good" sounding record.
fristly you have to look at it from the dj's point of view:
it needs to be:

loud / bright / punchy / warm bass / clear tops / easy to mix (sonically)/ good definition.

from the producers point of view it needs to be:
tight (very inportant as you can't mix a sloppy track) punchy / well balanced / interesting (sonically and in the arrangement) / groundbreaking ???!!!!???

basically , look at these things .
it's really difficult writing music,. o.k. you don't have to be a genius to use a computer but you still have to have the ideas to make the track and then you have to mix the thing. a lot of us are amateurs (really) and we learnt what we know by trial and error. sometimes things sound great other times they don't. it's just the way it goes when you are a composer/dj/engineer.

my point is
nirvana didn't mix "smells like teen spirit" did they ? the beatles didn"t mix "all you need is love" ?
they were mixed by other guys who specialised in just mixing and engineering tracks ,and here we are thinking that because it's all computer based that we can do it all.
well sorry but it just don't work like that.
and that's the fun of it. some guy making some track in his basement going straight from his mind to yours
o.k. the quality may not be michael jackson but it's directly from him to you and that's what techno is about ( for me)
if you ask me i would say it's the advent of fully computerised studios and a non understanding of analogue mixing that's contributed to dodgy sounding records.

i really hope you get my meaning in this post

[wenna]

fully computerised studio??

i think a combination of hardware and software creates the best quality tracks. and the hardware polishes it off!

[davethedrummer]

erm
wenna did you really lock this post?
anyway what i meant by
fully computerised studios
was guys who maybe haven't had the experience of using analogue equiptment and just do everything on computers /ie : acid ; logic : cubase etc.........
and would maybe benefit from getting to grips with real compressors and f.x. and a real mixer.

anyway i don't get the locked post joke, sorry mate.

[wenna]

hey man,
the post locked thingy is the signature in my profile (it wasn't working last nite, cheers G-if it was u?)..

i should have read the topic really first, talking about hardware in a 'wheres the quality gone post'. what am i like? :roll:



i rekon that it's damn near impossible to make personal,innovative music with just software these days, everything has been done 1000 times before!

[crime]

Whoever says you don't need to mastering tracks before you send them out because they are mastered later is full of shit.

I am full of shit then... Strange that I've put out at least 8 records that didn't have any compression on until it's cut.. if your production is good enough you shouldn't NEED to master it before you go to the cut.. then again, I'm full of shit so what do I know..

I don't think you understand what mastering plants such as The Exchange or Curvepusher really do.

I must have had my eyes shut and not been paying attention when I was at the 3 cuts I've been to :roll: I obviously don't understand...This is another point, it's generally a good idea to be at the cut, as anything wrong with the mastering they do there can be rectified easily while it's being done.... then again Dustin, what the **** do I know, I'm full of shit.....

[crime]

if you ask me i would say it's the advent of fully computerised studios and a non understanding of analogue mixing that's contributed to dodgy sounding records.

YES!

[Jimfish]

yes i agree with crime here - if the quality is good enough in the mix then the hefty mastering is not so necessary.
But on the other hand i do know a few people that the mastering process is essential to to attain thier sound.
I remain adament they could achieve such a sound in the mix though, and therefore have far more control over things.

[Jimfish]

and i know what you are saying about the computerised thingy, but i am sure that you could give paul white a crappy old pc, and any one of us a massive analogue studio, and pauls would sound the best.

I think what really is the problem is unexperienced ears are given too much too soon with all these computers and stuff - before they have really gotten thier sound tight they are punting out muddy sounding records - which is a crying shame :cry:

I personally do use analogue gear and software togethor.. for example there is no way i could afford a hardware verb that sounds as good as the waves, yet the computers filters just dont do it like my mfc42 or my eq killer - not forgetting those mackie gains and sweeps..

[crime]

I think what you use for monitoring counts for a lot too, I really notice a difference between stuff I've mixed down on headphones or Hi Fi speakers and proper studio monitors... I've mixed stuff down ins software before that has sounded really good on cheap headphones and then listened on a stereo and it's sounded shit.... simelarly, I've comapred stuff I've mixed down on Hi Fi speakers to stuff I've mixed down on my absolute zeros and really noticed the difference...remember it's the final link between the kit and your ears...

[Angrymann]

Can I just jump back to my point again . Sorry if I caused anyone offence at Ingoma that wasn't my intention , as I said I have bought some of your records so I am not going to do that if I thought they were all shite.

I don't know how you make your records at all , so I was just saying to me it sounded like you had swapped loops because they sounded so similar. So apologies for that, but to come back with the reason for it sounding very similar is because it is a "Tribal" label is a bit bollocks is it not. Just cause it's tribal doens't mean it has to be the same , you don't have to always put the same chugging beat to it , coupled with a faint african vocal or whatever , do you.

I like all the producers on that label especially Mark Williams and Paul Mac ( sheer class ) and have much respect for their work , which is why I think it's a crap excuse , you are obviously talented and know your sound so you MUST notice the similarites.

Are you just pumping out tunes until the Tribal thing has run it's course or do you plan on continuously progressing the tribal sound.

[MARKEG]

basically what i think is that as it's become easy to do techno sounding tracks on a computer, the 'quality' in general of all techno music has gone down because of an increase in the shit. now ppl can release music that sounds OK after only 6months to 1 yr of producing!!!! it takes many, many years to learn the finer arts of mixing/compression/eq/mastering as far as i'm concerned.

and also access to information about these techniques is much easier to find than back in the day when we only had sound on sound magazine - which has lead to more 'reading' and less 'experimentation'.

i remember someone coming round to our studio who was quite good but relatively new and going 'my god, you're not supposed to eq like that'. and there's the point. information overload has meant less experimentation, more conformation to the rule book of michael jackson music making and less understanding of techno as an entirely. which has meant more shit techno.

as with all good techno, throw away the rule book. the only rules we need to know as producers with techno is to fill out that frequency range and to learn how to make the cut of our record nice and loud. all the rest should be experimentation and creating our own rules.

[Jimfish]

jeez, what is it with all the micheal jackson comments round here...
micheal jackson ****in rules!!!!!!

[herman]

Can I just jump back to my point again . Sorry if I caused anyone offence at Ingoma that wasn't my intention , as I said I have bought some of your records so I am not going to do that if I thought they were all shite.

I don't know how you make your records at all , so I was just saying to me it sounded like you had swapped loops because they sounded so similar. So apologies for that, but to come back with the reason for it sounding very similar is because it is a "Tribal" label is a bit bollocks is it not. Just cause it's tribal doens't mean it has to be the same , you don't have to always put the same chugging beat to it , coupled with a faint african vocal or whatever , do you.

I like all the producers on that label especially Mark Williams and Paul Mac ( sheer class ) and have much respect for their work , which is why I think it's a crap excuse , you are obviously talented and know your sound so you MUST notice the similarites.

Are you just pumping out tunes until the Tribal thing has run it's course or do you plan on continuously progressing the tribal sound.

ok fair point it was only the comment about swapping loops i found a little erksome anyway, like i said thats why i dont like commenting on my own stuff everyone is entitled to an opinion. ok as for the similaritys thing to be honest i think the tribal label thing holds water as a theory i mean for it to be that it has to fit into certain parameter's for it to be a tribal record. im not saying that things cant be pushed further or anything for example of the points you mentioned only marks records have an african vocal and other than tempo i really cant see how they have the same or similair beat. There is going to be some similarity's from the same producer but surely thats part of having your own sound ,i really dont think mark's /paul's / ben's /vince's whatever records on ingoma sound that similair other than the fact that they are tribal style.

as for the churning out tunes comment come on mate your back in the loop swapping territory again.

just my opinion like