What did they use?

Tim Robbins

Hi,
I was just wondering before the growth of Software such as ableton, Tracktor what did the likes of Sasha / Digweed whoever use to record their mix CD's in the mid 90's?

Surely it can't just have been two decks and a recording equipment?

seannash

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hi,
I was just wondering before the growth of Software such as ableton, Tracktor what did the likes of Sasha / Digweed whoever use to record their mix CD's in the mid 90's?

Surely it can't just have been two decks and a recording equipment?

yes and no.it would have been the medium probably to get the tracks all synced together but they inevitably ran it into a computer with some editing software in it and from there they could mess about with it.
sometimes it was a straight a-b mix it would only be decks and a mixer,any sort of fancy stuff like edits and **** would be done inside a computer back then

SuprSi

I think a lot would have depended on the DJ in question and how far back you're talking. I remember buying some older Global Underground stuff, particularly Nick Warren Cd's, and the mixing was never particularly good in it, at least not as good as I would have expected.

I think that some DJ's mixed straight to Cd, while others used Pro Tools or some equivalent to get the desired sound.

jtsuited

the sven vath 'sound of the ninth season' is definitely a vinyl mix. now whether they ripped the stuff from vinyls and stuck it together in something else i don't know.

but from what i've read with a good few people, recording from turntables/cdj's into protools is not uncommon for mix cd's.

iamhunted

hardware samplers have been around since the mid-late 80s so i assume they were used before standalone computers got common

L1011

There are still mix CDs to this day which (claim) to be recorded with "...two decks and a mixer. No computers, no editing, no bull****." - some early ones would definitely have been done like this seeing as a semi-pro grade sampler in the mid 1990s had about 30 seconds of memory in them.

BaZmO*

iamhunted wrote: »

hardware samplers have been around since the mid-late 80s so i assume they were used before standalone computers got common

They were, but the sampling power / computer power was sh1t.

I remember looking into doing a sound engineering course around 92/93 and the guy running the course was so proud that they had a sampler that could sample 2 or 3 mins of a track.

Most of the early mixes were definitely mainly just decks and a mixer.

Tim Robbins

iamhunted wrote: »

hardware samplers have been around since the mid-late 80s so i assume they were used before standalone computers got common

Yes, I remember things like the megabass and technotronic megamix, but I wonder what software and type of PCs they used.

Tim Robbins

BaZmO* wrote: »

Most of the early mixes were definitely mainly just decks and a mixer.

But you never hear any noise on the tracks. Northern Exposure 1,2 for example. Can't hear any noise on any of the tracks.

vinylbomb

I remember reading an interview a good few years ago now (just been trying to dig it up and link it, no success:() with Sasha where he spoke about the 3 Northern Exposure albums. As far as I can recall, and I'm not totally 100% that I am on the money (but I ain't far off the mark, its only exact software package I am unsure of) he was saying that they would record the mix in dozens of takes, ie track 1 into track 2, then record track 2 into track 3. Then they would take (him and a studio bod) the most fluent/seamless of the mixes and and splice them together in ProTools, and obviously at that stage they could normalize all the levels so you get the really tight crisp sound on the record.
Expeditions (Northern Exposure III) is still probably my favorite mix album of all time.

Sasha is a cute oul whooer, because he has always surrounded himself with some of the best studio bods and engineers in the industry, as far as I know he has never done anything completely on his own.

As regards Technotronic etc, a lot of those early/mid 90's track were produced on hardware sequencers, all the early Prodigy stuff was done on a Roland W-30 for example

BaZmO*

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But you never hear any noise on the tracks. Northern Exposure 1,2 for example. Can't hear any noise on any of the tracks.

They'd obviously clean up the mix.

seannash

BaZmO* wrote: »

They'd obviously clean up the mix.

yep and a good setup with very good needles

Zascar

There is no one way, totally depends really. Ministry albums for example would be done on computers I'd say, whereas ineividual artist compilations would often be cd's with soem post production.

I remember a mate of mine had some software many years ago, and he was able to import all the tracks, beatmatch and and overlay them onto eachother, and play with the eq's etc. It might take him many many hours but when he was finished he would have a cd that he would give to people saying he mixed it and it would be very good. Completely cheating though imo.

seannash

Zascar wrote: »

There is no one way, totally depends really. Ministry albums for example would be done on computers I'd say, whereas ineividual artist compilations would often be cd's with soem post production.

I remember a mate of mine had some software many years ago, and he was able to import all the tracks, beatmatch and and overlay them onto eachother, and play with the eq's etc. It might take him many many hours but when he was finished he would have a cd that he would give to people saying he mixed it and it would be very good. Completely cheating though imo.

ableton let's you do this.alot of people do it.it'll also let you go back in and change things after a mix.pure cheating IMO also

Tim Robbins

seannash wrote: »

ableton let's you do this.alot of people do it.it'll also let you go back in and change things after a mix.pure cheating IMO also

I'd say they use ProTools, which even though PC's were cr*p was probably ok when used with a host specialised DSP cards. I would say they beat mixed the tracks themselves. They could have done this digitially but the hardware would have needed to have been sophisticated for the time.

It would be very interesting to know exactly what the arrangement was.

Zascar

seannash wrote: »

ableton let's you do this.alot of people do it.it'll also let you go back in and change things after a mix.pure cheating IMO also

No way, I did not know this - interesting. I don't think it was Ableton that he was using, it was much more low end, something like MixMeister or similar.

Anyway for a CD going in the shops its just about acceptable to fine tune using software etc - but any decent DJ worth his salt should be able to mix the whole thing. There is a mix I got recently, I think it might be Rob Hood's fabric mix - and the thing I really like about it is how raw it is, you can really actually hear him mixing - its not like the super perfect blends you get on most - its much more real - and I really like it.

Any time I record a mix I get a selection of about 20 tracks to choose from, I have a rough idea of what is going to go where, but the rest I just see what happens as I go. I click record and do the best I can for the next 80 minutes. I think once I totally fcuked up so i rewinded the track and used Audacity to cut out the mistake - but that's the only time I've done it.

Many people master their mixes - apparently it makes quite a difference but I've no idea what it is really...

vinylbomb

In my opinion theres as much skill in being a savage engineer as there is being a DJ. And if you can do both all the better!

Theres obviously bunches of different thought on this, from the way Richie Hawtin does his thing (which sails very close to the engineer bit) to Laurent Garnier who stays nearly completely away from it.

My feeling is that while turntable purists can be free to turn up their nose at the plethora of computer-based "stuff" (for want of a better word), why would you?

If it makes you better then use every tool available, grab them, learn 'em and then blow peoples socks off with 'em!

seannash

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'd say they use ProTools, which even though PC's were cr*p was probably ok when used with a host specialised DSP cards. I would say they beat mixed the tracks themselves. They could have done this digitially but the hardware would have needed to have been sophisticated for the time.

It would be very interesting to know exactly what the arrangement was.

i was replying to zascars post.don't even think abes was about back then

jtsuited

Zascar wrote: »

Many people master their mixes - apparently it makes quite a difference but I've no idea what it is really...

it's whacking a good bit of limiting, compression and eq to bring up the perceived level.

pallepille

vinylbomb wrote: »

In my opinion theres as much skill in being a savage engineer as there is being a DJ. And if you can do both all the better!

Theres obviously bunches of different thought on this, from the way Richie Hawtin does his thing (which sails very close to the engineer bit) to Laurent Garnier who stays nearly completely away from it.

My feeling is that while turntable purists can be free to turn up their nose at the plethora of computer-based "stuff" (for want of a better word), why would you?

If it makes you better then use every tool available, grab them, learn 'em and then blow peoples socks off with 'em!

from a djing point of view totally agree, like i thing the main gripe people have with the whole digital based thing is coz generally digital will have the option of syncing track tempo automatically, what is it that some book says "you can teach your granny to beatmatch but it doesent mean that she will be a good dj".............

seannash

vinylbomb wrote: »

In my opinion theres as much skill in being a savage engineer as there is being a DJ. And if you can do both all the better!

Theres obviously bunches of different thought on this, from the way Richie Hawtin does his thing (which sails very close to the engineer bit) to Laurent Garnier who stays nearly completely away from it.

My feeling is that while turntable purists can be free to turn up their nose at the plethora of computer-based "stuff" (for want of a better word), why would you?

If it makes you better then use every tool available, grab them, learn 'em and then blow peoples socks off with 'em!

so what if someone does a mix,****s up most of the mixes bit goes back in and edits his mistakes so he can blow peoples socks off.is this a true representation of how good he is.he won't sound like his super polished mix with no mistakes in a club because he can't edit them out when he's doing it live.this is what alot of people do though.they pass off super clean mixes as something they've done in one pass when in reality they've just edited out there mistakes

Helix

from the mid 90s mix albums were done with help from protools

1 deck, 1 mixer, 1 protools rig

vinylbomb

seannash wrote: »

.he won't sound like his super polished mix with no mistakes in a club because he can't edit them out when he's doing it live.

I would hope its apparent that this is not what I am talking about.

Sure, some dude could spend hundreds of hours putting together a perfect mix, but who cares, quality and talent will come out in the wash.
Let them waste their time trying to fool people, but at the end of the day what I am talking about is not using the tools to eradicate you mistakes, but take your performance and skills to a level beyond where they are now.

You could teach a monkey to mix two records together flawlessly, and you don't even need the monkey to digitally mix two records together.

Its what you do with whats at your disposal that gives the mark of class..

BaZmO*

vinylbomb wrote: »

You could teach a monkey to mix two records together flawlessly

I bet you couldn't. In fact, I challenge you to do just that!

vinylbomb

**********************************************
***Rolls on Biffo the performing chimp and two turntables***


*******************Drum Roll********************


Ladies and Gentlemen, for my next trick, heres one I made earlier.


***Biffo plays one seamless track into the other. Then stops both records and tries to eat one and sh*t on the other.***



Told ya! Easy!:D

Tim Robbins

Lads rather than having a DJ debate can we just stick to the OP which was asking for info about the software DJs from the mid 90s were using to make mix CDs.

Funny how Sasha tells everyone he uses abelton to make Evolver2 but he seems a bit quieter about using technology previously.

seannash

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Lads rather than having a DJ debate can we just stick to the OP which was asking for info about the software DJs from the mid 90s were using to make mix CDs.

Funny how Sasha tells everyone he uses abelton to make Evolver2 but he seems a bit quieter about using technology previously.

eh we did answer the op question.not a whole Lot more to say.thread always deviate,its normal

vinylbomb

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Funny how Sasha tells everyone he uses abelton to make Evolver2 but he seems a bit quieter about using technology previously.

He's getting some sort of devlopement support out of them, or a fee.
I imagine he gets new betas with extra/test features in return for his "eloquence" in relation to this product.

By the by I remember him waffling at length about ProTools when he was releasing Airdrawndagger. And he will admit himself that that was the first record he had serious studio input into, previously he would show up in a studio and be played different bits by an engineer and pick out the parts he liked, and try to direct the engineer to put 'em together.

I'm not trashing the guy at all, I love all of his stuff (apart from Apollonia by BMeX, its beyond knacker) but thats the process he used.

Tim Robbins

vinylbomb wrote: »

apart from Apollonia by BMeX, its beyond knacker

What a shocker of a song.

Lukasz.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hi,
I was just wondering before the growth of Software such as ableton, Tracktor what did the likes of Sasha / Digweed whoever use to record their mix CD's in the mid 90's?

Surely it can't just have been two decks and a recording equipment?

im just going to say this out straight man,to answer your question:

They would most likely have done their mixes with vinyl.(most likely two technics 1210's and a mixer) Pioneer had a cdj 100 or sumthing out at the time,but not widely used,or known about,or respected in the 90's.

Their mixes would have been done live,in the traditional way,and any software that was used would have been used for mastering(to beef to the sound fidelity for release in music stores etc etc)

but,basically anything from the 90's,was probably vinyl and the odd cd here and there.thats it man.

I dont even think there was many dj's / producers who would have done dj mixes on software,as i dont think pc's could physically handle that kind of workload.

You'd be very surprised how precise mixing can be with the technics.have a listen tp essential selection mixes from the 90's by tong,oakenfold,tall paul,etc etc and they'd all be vinyl.you can just tell by the sound..i stand by that.

gsparx

Here's my guess at what they did but in truth I have no idea.
I would say they had 2 Technics and and mixer with 3 outputs (or more) into Pro-Tools. One from each turntable and and one from the mixer.
They probably mixed live(ish) and then did extensive edits in Pro-Tools.
Either that or they just had 2 stereo tracks in Pro-Tools, imported the tracks (from the vinyl or CD) and pieced the mix together in Pro-Tools.
The majority of mix CD's in the history of dance music, I would imagine, have used studio trickery.
The advent of some of the current software (Ableton etc.) has enabled the same type of studio trickery to be applied in real time on a stage/ DJ booth.

a147pro

I'm pretty sure there was something on the Northern Exposure 2 Inlay card saying that the album was recorded direct from vinyl and apologising for any sound quality. You could definitely hear the static at the start of one of the CDs too.

Having said that, I'm also pretty sure they used something on renaissance one as a lot of the tracks used samples to prolong the mix etc..

For instance, there's actually two versions of Sunscreem's Perfect Motion on the first CD - the Boys Own dub and the Boys Own mix, I had a mate who tried to recreate the mix using the two versions and figured it couldn't be done without samples (though it may just be that slightly different versions of the track were released on promo etc.).

Similarly, the Bump track , House Stompin', on the same CD, had at least two different mixes on the album, and sounded like one was just a sample. Also the State of Grace mix seemed sampled at the start, and throughout all three CDs there's sound effects added in at the start of the mix.

All of which makes for a savage CD it has to be said, and there is almost as much skill in doing it in the studio as doing it live. In any event, I've seen and heard both Sasha and Digweed do great sets live, before Ableton or any of this jazz

Lukasz.

a147pro wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there was something on the Northern Exposure 2 Inlay card saying that the album was recorded direct from vinyl and apologising for any sound quality. You could definitely hear the static at the start of one of the CDs too.

Having said that, I'm also pretty sure they used something on renaissance one as a lot of the tracks used samples to prolong the mix etc..

For instance, there's actually two versions of Sunscreem's Perfect Motion on the first CD - the Boys Own dub and the Boys Own mix, I had a mate who tried to recreate the mix using the two versions and figured it couldn't be done without samples (though it may just be that slightly different versions of the track were released on promo etc.).

Similarly, the Bump track , House Stompin', on the same CD, had at least two different mixes on the album, and sounded like one was just a sample. Also the State of Grace mix seemed sampled at the start, and throughout all three CDs there's sound effects added in at the start of the mix.

All of which makes for a savage CD it has to be said, and there is almost as much skill in doing it in the studio as doing it live. In any event, I've seen and heard both Sasha and Digweed do great sets live, before Ableton or any of this jazz

yeah,couldnt agree any more.those guys made use of the turntables back then,and could produce the goods on whatever equipment that was used at the time.i have noticed that on one or two mixes from various labels,the track may be time streched or pitched up for a split second to keep it in time and BANG in comes the next track.i have also noticed one or two inperfections in some well known mix cd's whereby a musical phrase would be cut sort,most likely where a dj may have been rocking a lil trainwreck for a few seconds.....its all good though.

Bondango

I can go Back to 1990, then, The Atari with C-Lab/Voyetra some MTC/SMPTE, R-Dat, Digi multi-trackers etc etc where your best freinds...

TBH, if your really interested in the technology back in the day, and the recording techniques, Try and get hold of some Sound on Sound magazine from 1990-1993..you'll see that things were even a bit more advanced that you would have expected
Non-linear, non-distructive editing was avialable to the masses by mid 91 when Pro-tools was launched.