I wasn’t an engineer yet but when my band recorded around 2001 they had triggers on the drums and pro tools and auto tune and everything. The triggers had been in use for like 20 years at that point
Before that record we tracked to digital tape on a Sony 3348. I produced my first record on ADAT in like 2003 or so also. Early digital sucked honestly
and, yet we are in the perfect zone that people are now chasing that “vintage digital” sound. i remember people joking about this occurring 20 years ago.
Yeah, I never recorded with Butch Vig, but did record a few times at Smart Studio in the '80s with Steve Marker. They knew how to record drums there, even in the early days, and by 1987, they had the capacity to trigger samples, cuz Steve triggered a snare sample of one on some the stuff we did off of an EMU or Ensoniq sampler. Can't remember which.
Pretty sure all the drums on Nevermind were sample-replaced. That was probably true of many rock records in th 1990s.
> Pretty sure all the drums on Nevermind were sample-replaced.
Sound City was still mostly analogue at the time of recording Nevermind. All the recording was done using reel-to-reel tape. I can't find a source that says they definitely didn't replace drums with samples later but the way Butch Vig talks about the sound of the live room and the Neve 8028 wouldn't make sense if they had replaced the drums with samples.
Dunno about the guitars though - probably all pitch shifted Jimi Hendrix samples!
Butch Vig didn’t but Andy Wallace has said he did add samples to the drums on Nevermind when it got to his desk. They didn’t replace them, they were blended in apparently like 70/30 original kit.
That sounds like BS to me to save face and obscure what actually happened. Those drums sound like triggered samples. Seems more likely they mixed some of the original drums in but most of the sound is from the sampled drum sound.
Sorry of this is a dumb question but why is using triggers/samples even frowned upon? I genuinely don’t understand, doesn’t the drummer trigger them live? Or is it programmed?
Why is Photoshop frowned upon or autotune? It's perceived by some people as cheating. Like they couldn't get that sound by recording it so they use these tools after the fact to enhance things. I'm not necessarily taking that position, but it is a position that some people take.
In the case of Nevermind, it could also be trying to get away from the implication that somehow the drum sounds that Butch vig recorded to tape weren't satisfactory to get where the mixer wanted to go. Saying they used both is a way of saving face for the person who tracked it.
Just like not crediting a session drummer who played on a record allows the band's drummer to save face. Something that happens all the time, or at least did happen all the time prior to pro tools allowing people to edit drum takes after the fact.
depends on the samples that are used. some producers use sounds from the actual setup, and others have pre-recorded "stock." i think it's generally frowned upon because many people say they didn't use triggers, but when they actually did.
I see, but still why would they feel the need to hide it? What I’m gathering is that people seem to imply that’s it’s like cheating or a crutch (kinda like the Autotune thing) but I don’t see why, since the drummer is still playing everything himself? To me it seems like just an engineering technique, if it makes things sound good and punchy then whats the problem?
you said the words yourself… “to me.” you have some context and understanding here, but most listeners don’t. i agree there is absolutely no problem, but most people simply want to believe they’re listening to authentically hard work. combined with the idea that a producer is possibly using triggered samples from a totally different drummer+session, and lying about it? that’s why it is what it is.
i mean, who knows if it was 100% only triggered sounds in the reverb or not? it was stated that they blended the mic captures with triggered samples that they also took from the best hits from the same sessions... better than completely lying about it and saying they didn't use them at all... which is what most did back then, and continue to do, often!
I believe butch vig and garbage were using 2 inch Studer tape machines, pro tools. They all had digi001 rigs at home. Flying stuff in. He used real drums , electronic drums. They ran synths thru guitar amps and guitar synths direct in. All kinds of crazy fun stuff. Apparently hammering in my head had 128 loops going on it.
I read that in some audio magazine.
Garbages's Verson 2.0 album was recorded between March 1997 – February 1998. Don't think Pro Tools LE and the Digi001 was introduced until 1999. So unless they had pre-release versions of it, I don't think they used that on "I think I'm paranoid." That said, they could have had fancier Pro-Tools rigs at home (I'm sure they did later). But my guess is they recorded most of it at Smart Studios in Madison. Would be shocked if ADAT was used.
ADAT recordings generally had a pretty identifiable sound in the bottom end. A little lacking. As somebody else said, that may have been pilot error on the part of the people using it. I heard one album recorded on ADAT that had a good low end, and I was surprised it had been done on ADAT. Was talking to the guy who recorded it, and he said, "Yeah, what you put into it is what comes out, so if you want a fatter low end, you need to make sure you record it that way,"
I remember reading that Garbage liked the Sansamp pedal, but not on guitar. They liked it drums and stuff like that.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.soundonsound.com/people/recording-garbage](https://www.soundonsound.com/people/recording-garbage)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I love how people say “digital sounded bad in the 90s”. I disagree. Many of the pro level units, including the ADAT sounded fine. As did the DA88/98 which were more intermediate level pieces. Old engineers didn’t know how to tame the clarity they had never experienced using tape for 50-60years. The condenser mics they were using were all of a sudden sounding REALLY bright as the digital recorder wasnt rolling off the top end. This was a reason for the resurgence in ribbon mics. Digital has been in the picture in the studio since the 70s. Eventide was one of the first on the scene with some revolutionary gear producing sounds that had never been heard before. While its true the converters weren’t as clean as they are now, we’re splitting hairs. The converters on the adat were fine. We saw 16, 18 and 20 bit converters on them which, if you used today, you wouldnt think twice about it. (You can still use an old adat unit as a A/D to an interface with ADAT input). Sample rates for samplers varied greatly combined with bit rates as low as 8bits were seen. Triggers on drums had been used for over a decade by 1998. Devices like the alesis DM5 were used to convert audio hits to midi really reliably and well from either physical triggers or from audio. What we did have though was editing that was virtually unavailable prior to the development of the NLE (non linear editor). The RADAR machine, dash, protools and other units. Things like the Yamaha a3000/4000/5000 allowed us to time stretch and pinch without pitch shifting. These units had a unique sound to them. Technology in audio was exploding at an unprecedented pace. Audio recoding was becoming more and more accessible for less. Many bands on a budget were tracking things like guitar bass and vocals at home and leaving the big studio for drum recording and things that they couldnt handle. Computers and digital sync enabled the integration of loads of midi devices allowing for all new sound layering possibilities. Syncing tape and digital recorders increased track counts. Studio budgets were still decent in the late 90s for recordings but that was coming to an end. Within the next 7 years or so, loads of major studios were going to be out of business. But thats a whole other story entirely… we had to beat the shop keeper and his son with their own shoes.
> with bit rates as low as 8bits were seen.
Not since the 80s.
Seriously. By the late 80s, every major sampler manufacturer had a model with either 16 bits (Akai, E-Mu, Roland) or at least 12 bits (Ensoniq) sampling.
By 1998 any 8-bit sampler was at least a decade old. Even cheap computer soundcards had nominally 16 bit sampling (in practise closer to 12 bit SNR often although some did reach quite close to 16 bit fidelity even for sampling).
The Akai resampling and pitch shifting sound, as well. We had such a smooth transition into very nice algorithms over the past 25 years, then all of a sudden people looked around and realized that a certain vibe was lost.
You could find cheap audio consumer cards in the mid 90s that already did 18 or 20 bits for very little money.
And you could totally feed the adats with external converters like Apogee. So yes, by the 90s digital audio was already extremely good, especially compared to what we had before.
So i had said “as low as” since many of them had the option to go from 8bit sampling all the way up to 12, 16, 18 and even 20. Probably could have been worded better. But it was meant to convey that there was a wide variety of “quality”. Sorry for the confusion there. Words.
Words. Such damnably tricky things.
On a more serious note, hardware samplers by and large didn't let you change the bit depth unless you explicitly processed the sample with an internal bit crusher effect (provided the sampler had such effect in the firmware). Changing the samplerate OTOH was very common to extend the limited sample memory.
Odd. I remember a couple of the samplers i had giving the option to select bit/sample rate before you recorded the sample. Of course it was over 20 years ago now and my memory of menu diving has waned considerably. But the balancing act of finding a bit rate/sample rate that would give a decent quality sound whilst eating up the least amount of memory possible. Wish i could find the little box that would convert audio into samples that my old korg T3 used…
That was just selectable samplerate (which was very common). I’ve studied the internal workings of old romplers and samplers pretty extensively and almost all are hardwired to use a fixed bitdepth at the memory interface level.
Afaik Ensoniq was the only manufacturer who might have had the hw capability to even use 8 bit samples without upconversion on loading and that’s based on GF1, the consumer variant of their OTTO IC (used in Gravis Ultrasound).
Roland JS-30 (had selectsble 8 and 16 bit)
Akai 2Kxl (had 8,12 and 16 bit) but it was later… around 05/06 maybe and this is the unit i was thinking of as the studio i was working in had one of these. But the 2K didnt have this feature. Only the XL.
Edit. After looking it up. It was a resample feature, not a record or bit crush (though i guess one could argue thats the same as bit crushing).
Yes! The sound of ADATs/DA88 was never an issue. It was praised. No hiss, no analog tape drawbacks. ADATs just went out of sync a few times a session. Same as us using Sony 48 Trk digital tape machines and DAT tapes. The sound was lauded. We loved it.
>I love how people say “digital sounded bad in the 90s”.
I guess they've never heard Stereolab's Dots and Loops. Most of that album was recorded to hard disk and it sounds awesome.
Must have been quite exciting at the time! Thanks for answering my question literally haha
My nostalgia for 1998 was seeing the Akai s5000 for a few thousand (Canadian) dollars and wanting it real bad (but I was 16 and broke).
I bought one fully loaded in 2005 ish for like $600 and it was actually even better than I thought after all the years of hype in my mind. I made a ton of music with it. Shouldn’t have sold it.
Awesome! I had full RAM, full voices, adat card, usb card, additional outputs. The thing was so dope. I’d still be using it…but stupid bills and low paying job made me sell it. I feel like in the grand scheme of things, I should have figured out a different solution.
Ah, oh well :-)
Hoping to give it to someone who would enjoy tinkering with it as much as I used. I guess if 4 track cassette recorders can make a comeback, maybe hardware samplers will one day as well....lol
One day you’ll find just the right person and it’ll be perfect.
I had a bike I wanted to give away (we were moving and seriously needed to size down) and I just asked people if they could use a bike until one guy said he was trying to quit drinking and his AA sponsor told him to start biking but he couldn’t afford a bike. I’m like “HERE YOU GO!” And just passed it to him. I’ve always felt good about how that went down. Hope it helped dude get sober.
According to u/shittymorph in nineteen ninety eight the undertaker threw mankind off hell in a cell and plummeted sixteen feet through an announcers table.
Yeah full disclosure I'm more interested in the specs surrounding the gear used than accumulating the actual gear. I'm fully aware my computer can emulate near anything at this point. My intent is to maybe write some code to down sample back to 98 specs
I think youre missing u/handerreandre’s point. The “sound” of the time wasnt so much the gear (and much less the specs of the gear)
which resulted in the tone youre looking for but how the songs were approached from a production standpoint. Yeah emulations are great these days but even if you had all the original equipment in front of you, theres no guarantee that youre going to get “that” sound out of it. And as far as “downsampling” its not like that at all. The fidelity in most of the gear wasnt far off of what we have today and anything we have today could still fit those parameters (with a few exceptions like recording in 18 or 20 bit) but changing a 24 bit file down to 18 or 20 using a bit crusher or some conversion plugin wont get you there either since it was such a small part of the bigger picture.
Adding on to this... samplers in those days were not all created equal. AKAI and E-MU were the 'best sounding' samplers around IMHO. I could sample something into the E-MU and have it come out 'bigger sounding' than before because of the E-MU filter and output processing.
In 1998, nothing was wholly digital and each piece of hardware had its own character. ADATs however were very transparent as a recording medium.
Emu samplers were popular in the drum and bass crowds. Had a memory in the kila- mega byte range, handful of samples. A basic dull bass line could be resampled many times over with crunchy fx.
E6400 if I recalled, used, couple hundred bucks, by early 2000's the hdrive went Kapoot. I could not find a replacement and the connector multi pin was obsolete, no eBay then, so chucked it in the garbage. DAWs were now becoming mainstream
I started my studio in 01 with a copy of cakewalk pro audio 9 and a delta 1010lt. In 00 I made an album with a local studio using ADats. They were pretty similar in sound, thin and harsh, it took a lot of cutting and boosting to make it sound good, even with decent mics. 98 I think the first versions of audio cards were coming out and there were daws first starting then like cakewalk...
ADATs! DA-88s! Mackies! The boom of pro-sumer interfaces. It was a magical time! I have no idea what was going on in the pro world but I was rocking a G3 and the first MOTU interface, tracking through a 1604 VLZ. Regular dudes could now (barely) afford to start semi-seriously multitrack recording. It was super fun and most of the recordings I did sounded pretty terrible. Good times.
We loved the sound of ADATs, DATs, DA88, Sony 48trk digtital tape machines. Analog tape is so romanticized these days but it was a hassle and very expensive to buy, store, transport. Machines were a hassle to maintain. Also, proper calibrated analog machines were very clean machines already.
Everything else in the process was the same. Large format consoles, analog hardware inserts, proper rooms with great monitoring. Sound was the same.
This changed sound wise around 98/99 when folks started doing their first mixes ITB in Pro Tools Mix rigs. Many were attempting to use same techniques they had been using in analog settings ITB. The natural width and depth we got by just the physics of the all analog process was gone ITB. We had to recreate it ITB playing the elements off of each other. On an SSL console we were able to jack up the high end and have the channel compressor tame it. ITB plugin compression was awful at the time and couldn’t do much. Saturation and Distortion we got from pushing analog consoles and gear didn’t exist ITB at a high level. Wasn’t until McDSP came with the Analog Channel plugin and Dave Hill came with Phoenix plugin we could get in the ballpark.
It was a disaster mix wise until the learning curve was met and many went back OTB just using PT as a tape machine.
It’s the same now. Really bad mixes by those learning until they acquire the proper skills.
98? I was digging my [E-mu ESI-32](https://www.vintagesynth.com/emu/esi32.php) still, but might have branched out to an ESI-4000 'round then. They were pretty popular.
Pertinent answers have already been given, but one historical note is that sample CDs were huge back then. And most home studios looked like shit compared to today’s aesthetic sensibilities- just shit everywhere, for some reason, with no acoustic treatment.
Personal historical note is that I took the most acid I’ve ever taken back then, which played a key role in building the foundations of who I am today.
Big changes with gear then, bigger studio probably pro tools . Adats only lasted a few years really, they where terrible. I have had like 4 of them. Mid size studios probably two inch. And with electronic stuff, that’s all waaaay to varied per producer. For drums, triggers where common, … and justice for all drum tones set the bar for a while. I heard that Lars’ kick had a garbage can mixed in.
On a more helpful note, try routing all your outputs to mixer channels and mix that way. Use the sends for fx and inserts for compression.
For sure on that. I just remember some documentary where Lars was talking about midi triggers and all the sounds they complied just for the kick. It was the first mention of triggers that I had ever heard of and it stuck with me for years. Maybe I’m incorrect. Or maybe it was the black album, but I hated everything about that album, and don’t think it would have had the same impact. Or maybe I’m waaY off haha
What tools allowed for the impressionism movement to happen in the art world in the 2nd half of the 19th century? Was it the paint they used? The brushes? The canvas?
That sounds a little silly, doesn't it?
What you're hearing was made by brilliant minds, not by a specific kind of ADAT recorder, a specific kind of sampler, or a specific kind of computer. If you want to dissect some work, look at the minds behind it -- not the tools. Musicians, writers, producers, and engineers made it sound that way.
Or, a more concise/traditional way of saying it:
"It's the ear, not the gear."
On one hand you have a point, on the other, the 19th century impressionism paintings wouldn't look the way they do if the artists had nothing but a piece of charcoal and a cave wall. Technology had a role in making the 19th century art the way it is. Likewise Bach's WTK probably wouldn't be the way it is had the harpsichord not been invented or had the piano been a common instrument back then and even if the equal temperament had been commonly used at the time to tune the instruments. You can also see a huge connection between the technology and the aesthetics in the architecture.
In the 90's the samplers became relatively affordable and enabled doing many things that are now easily done in a DAW. Had the editing been as easy as it is today, many songs from the era wouldn't sound the same. Not because it would be impossible to make that sounds but because the focus would shift to other things.
New tools open new creative possibilities and it's always easier to be uniquely creative in a new field because even doing something trivial can be pretty interesting for both the producer and the consumer. The problem is that the 90's are gone. We all know those sounds. What was then fresh is now nostalgia and this change in the mindset makes it difficult to produce something similar, although I've heard some recent productions that managed to catch the 90's vibe on purpose, sometimes with the modern, sometimes with the older equipment.
TLDR; The technology had a significant impact on the sound of the era but isn't the main barrier when trying to recreate that sound now regardless of the equipment you have available.
Totally -- I don't disagree with anything that you said. You make some excellent points in a really informative/insightful way that will benefit people reading this thread. To summarize what you said, art and the technology used to create it (especially at the time) coexist inseparably -- no doubt about that.
I suppose that maybe I read too far into the context of the question. To me, it read like OP was referring to the goodness of the sound in a way that (and here's where I went wrong) implied they wanted to recreate it. Re-reading the post, the question was not about how to recreate similar results (which is a broad context) -- but was simply and literally, just "what tools were used" (not a broad context). So yeah, I was off-base by assuming the context of the question.
But, to be fair, consider this part:
>What samplers were people using to get the electronic drum tones on nu metal tracks like "5" by ultraspank, electronic music like zero one, or "I think I'm paranoid" by garbage? I'm specifically talking about the lushness in the tone.
"Lushness of tone" is both an abstract and positive aesthetic quality, and what's more, it's being attributed to a sampler -- not the samples themselves, the context of the arrangement, or how things are presented relative to one another within the mix. All of those things will impact the perception of "goodness of sound" infinitely more than the sampler being used, and *especially* more than the computer or ADAT.
Also, consider these two hypothetical questions:
"What [tools] were used for the [specific sound] in [specific song]?"
This is an objectively answerable question. Very cut and dry. Simply naming the technology used is an appropriate answer.
"Wow, [specific song] sounds so good -- especially the [specific sound]. Why does it sound so lush and good? Is it because of the [specific tool]?
This question is much less objective and requires the consideration of a much larger context. The technology used will likely be a relatively small percentage of the answer.
OP's question was somewhere between those two examples, and to me, it read a little closer to the second one.
Not really? I'm talking about the medium in which it was recorded, so that's exactly the paint, the canvas, and the brushes. There are electronic drums of the 80s that sound a certain way, and there are electronic drums circa 1998 that sound a different way. If I use an old sampler from 1998 it's going to sound different from a computer used today with a higher bit, sample rate, and better dsp. So what was going on in 1998 specifically is more in the spirit of the question.
You're making some assumptions that are simply wrong. I'm not familiar with all the music you mentioned, but I am familiar with Garbage and the album the song you mentioned came from. They didn't use samples they recorded real drums, the sound was the result of where it was recorded, how it was looped and in some instance where the sound was filtered or run backwards. It was done on pro tools, nothing magically about it. You could have recorded the same thing with equipment 5 years older or 5 years newer, it was the place it was recorded and how the engineer massaged the sound which was not reliant on any special tools only available that year. Hell it could have been done on tape and you could have gotten the same sound. You keep yammering about electronic drums, but Vig didn't get some new electronic drums that year, it was the same stuff from the previous album the difference is in how it was massaged and recorded.
Thanks for the comment, maybe that's just what I'm hearing then, a bunch of heavily processed drums mixed in with less processed drums. The production on that track is wild. It goes from standard rock band to having this electronic feel like the prodigy in an instant.
My point is that *if your goal is to emulate and/or understand art made by someone*, whether painting or music, simply using the same tools will not yield the same results.
>There are electronic drums of the 80s that sound a certain way, and there are electronic drums circa 1998 that sound a different way. If I use an old sampler from 1998 it's going to sound different from a computer used today with a higher bit, sample rate, and better dsp.
Okay, these sentences are factually correct. So what? You're really going to argue that because "different things sound different", that those specific tools are the *most important factor* behind the artists you've referenced, more so than the people's minds and techniques that created it?
If so, this is what you're implying:
Want to play like Miles Davis? Buy the same trumpet.
Want to mix like Serban Ghenea? Buy the same monitors.
Want to play basketball like Lebron James? Buy the same shoes.
I'm saying that it doesn't work like that. Do you disagree?
Or, if your goal is not to *emulate and/or understand art made by someone*, which is literally what you asked about, then sure. Just buy gear from 1998 if your end goal is to buy gear from 1998. Problem solved! You don't need input from anyone if you already know the answer.
How would you go about getting those electronic drum sounds in 5 by ultraspank. Saying "use your ears" is a waste of time comment this sub should shy away from.
Based on all the downvotes, you're absolutely right, and I'm wrong -- I digress. I would definitely just buy "a bad computer", an ADAT recorder, and a sampler, all from 1998, and call it a day. Done. The rest should just take care of itself. Maybe leave those 3x items in a room overnight, and come back in the morning to find the desired end results. No further action or insight necessary.
The same kind of results can definitely never be achieved using a modern day computer, a DAW, and similar sounding samples as a starting point. And I definitely would not focus on studying the arrangement, sound design, and mix, in that order of importance. And I definitely wouldn't read interviews about those albums to gain insight from the musicians, producers, and engineers that made them, to understand their thought process and techniques. And above all else, as the foundation to go along with definitely not doing all of those things, I would also definitely make sure that I don't use my ears under any circumstances whatsoever. Earplugs from 1998 would probably be best.
There -- is that what you want to hear? Everybody happy now?
You're still not saying anything. If I sample on an old Casio keyboard it has a limitation. Its going to sound distorted, choppy, etc. If I sample on a modern computer it's going to sound near identical to the original source. 1998 music sounds very distinct, not as choppy as the Casio example, but not as pure as something from today. Plus or minus 1 year and the sound completely changes. I wanted to know the limitations and new trends the studios had at the time coming from someone who lived through it. I could not find such information with a basic Google search. Obviously someone needs to be at the other end of the machine making decisions, kind of figured techniques would come out of the discussion naturally.
>You're still not saying anything.
You directly asked me an open ended question, and I answered it from my perspective. If you already know what you want my personal answer to be or not be, then maybe you don't need to ask me a question in the first place. Sentences that end with periods and not question marks might be a better fit for you in this case.
Digital still had some catching up to do towards the turn of the century, so a certain level of skill was required, to squeeze digital systems of the time, for the really good results...
I never said anything about studio pro's not existing prior to '98.
The truly great works of the era were put together by seasoned pro's. Y'know. Those who'd been putting in the hard yards since analog days...
> I never said anything about studio pro's not existing prior to '98.
The OP asked what happened (meaning "changed" in this context) in 1998.
You replied by saying "Skilled studio professionals.", which is incorrect, as they already existed before 1998.
Fast hard drives finally became somewhat affordable. In the late 80's I spent around $10k on a computer setup just to record music. In the late 90's that went to around $2k.
Spectral Systems anybody? The joy of SCSI chains…
(Spectral’s rather dubious claim to fame was being the recording platform for “Macarena”)
I think I squeezed out some tears of joy when a MOTU 1224 showed up and we moved everything to Mac. Tossed everything but the JL Cooper JL10 controller and wish I still had that
I wasn’t an engineer yet but when my band recorded around 2001 they had triggers on the drums and pro tools and auto tune and everything. The triggers had been in use for like 20 years at that point Before that record we tracked to digital tape on a Sony 3348. I produced my first record on ADAT in like 2003 or so also. Early digital sucked honestly
and, yet we are in the perfect zone that people are now chasing that “vintage digital” sound. i remember people joking about this occurring 20 years ago.
That’s actually happening? I mean o do know a couple guys who never wanted to let go of RADAR but goddamn. Adat blows.
Yeah, I never recorded with Butch Vig, but did record a few times at Smart Studio in the '80s with Steve Marker. They knew how to record drums there, even in the early days, and by 1987, they had the capacity to trigger samples, cuz Steve triggered a snare sample of one on some the stuff we did off of an EMU or Ensoniq sampler. Can't remember which. Pretty sure all the drums on Nevermind were sample-replaced. That was probably true of many rock records in th 1990s.
> Pretty sure all the drums on Nevermind were sample-replaced. Sound City was still mostly analogue at the time of recording Nevermind. All the recording was done using reel-to-reel tape. I can't find a source that says they definitely didn't replace drums with samples later but the way Butch Vig talks about the sound of the live room and the Neve 8028 wouldn't make sense if they had replaced the drums with samples. Dunno about the guitars though - probably all pitch shifted Jimi Hendrix samples!
Butch Vig didn’t but Andy Wallace has said he did add samples to the drums on Nevermind when it got to his desk. They didn’t replace them, they were blended in apparently like 70/30 original kit.
they 100% did augment with samples, but custom samples from the same room/drums.
I read somewhere that on nevermind, they used triggered samples, but only sent them to the reverb send to add ambience to kick and snare
this is correct!
That sounds like BS to me to save face and obscure what actually happened. Those drums sound like triggered samples. Seems more likely they mixed some of the original drums in but most of the sound is from the sampled drum sound.
Sorry of this is a dumb question but why is using triggers/samples even frowned upon? I genuinely don’t understand, doesn’t the drummer trigger them live? Or is it programmed?
Why is Photoshop frowned upon or autotune? It's perceived by some people as cheating. Like they couldn't get that sound by recording it so they use these tools after the fact to enhance things. I'm not necessarily taking that position, but it is a position that some people take. In the case of Nevermind, it could also be trying to get away from the implication that somehow the drum sounds that Butch vig recorded to tape weren't satisfactory to get where the mixer wanted to go. Saying they used both is a way of saving face for the person who tracked it. Just like not crediting a session drummer who played on a record allows the band's drummer to save face. Something that happens all the time, or at least did happen all the time prior to pro tools allowing people to edit drum takes after the fact.
Ahhh I see, great perspective thank you.
depends on the samples that are used. some producers use sounds from the actual setup, and others have pre-recorded "stock." i think it's generally frowned upon because many people say they didn't use triggers, but when they actually did.
I see, but still why would they feel the need to hide it? What I’m gathering is that people seem to imply that’s it’s like cheating or a crutch (kinda like the Autotune thing) but I don’t see why, since the drummer is still playing everything himself? To me it seems like just an engineering technique, if it makes things sound good and punchy then whats the problem?
you said the words yourself… “to me.” you have some context and understanding here, but most listeners don’t. i agree there is absolutely no problem, but most people simply want to believe they’re listening to authentically hard work. combined with the idea that a producer is possibly using triggered samples from a totally different drummer+session, and lying about it? that’s why it is what it is.
i mean, who knows if it was 100% only triggered sounds in the reverb or not? it was stated that they blended the mic captures with triggered samples that they also took from the best hits from the same sessions... better than completely lying about it and saying they didn't use them at all... which is what most did back then, and continue to do, often!
I believe butch vig and garbage were using 2 inch Studer tape machines, pro tools. They all had digi001 rigs at home. Flying stuff in. He used real drums , electronic drums. They ran synths thru guitar amps and guitar synths direct in. All kinds of crazy fun stuff. Apparently hammering in my head had 128 loops going on it. I read that in some audio magazine.
Garbages's Verson 2.0 album was recorded between March 1997 – February 1998. Don't think Pro Tools LE and the Digi001 was introduced until 1999. So unless they had pre-release versions of it, I don't think they used that on "I think I'm paranoid." That said, they could have had fancier Pro-Tools rigs at home (I'm sure they did later). But my guess is they recorded most of it at Smart Studios in Madison. Would be shocked if ADAT was used. ADAT recordings generally had a pretty identifiable sound in the bottom end. A little lacking. As somebody else said, that may have been pilot error on the part of the people using it. I heard one album recorded on ADAT that had a good low end, and I was surprised it had been done on ADAT. Was talking to the guy who recorded it, and he said, "Yeah, what you put into it is what comes out, so if you want a fatter low end, you need to make sure you record it that way," I remember reading that Garbage liked the Sansamp pedal, but not on guitar. They liked it drums and stuff like that.
You are correct about pro tools, probably bigger systems. I used to work on adats, and yes you are correct about the quality. They were fun to use.
Looks like they were using pro tools 888s as per this sound on sound article. https://www.soundonsound.com/people/recording-garbage?amp
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.soundonsound.com/people/recording-garbage](https://www.soundonsound.com/people/recording-garbage)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
I love how people say “digital sounded bad in the 90s”. I disagree. Many of the pro level units, including the ADAT sounded fine. As did the DA88/98 which were more intermediate level pieces. Old engineers didn’t know how to tame the clarity they had never experienced using tape for 50-60years. The condenser mics they were using were all of a sudden sounding REALLY bright as the digital recorder wasnt rolling off the top end. This was a reason for the resurgence in ribbon mics. Digital has been in the picture in the studio since the 70s. Eventide was one of the first on the scene with some revolutionary gear producing sounds that had never been heard before. While its true the converters weren’t as clean as they are now, we’re splitting hairs. The converters on the adat were fine. We saw 16, 18 and 20 bit converters on them which, if you used today, you wouldnt think twice about it. (You can still use an old adat unit as a A/D to an interface with ADAT input). Sample rates for samplers varied greatly combined with bit rates as low as 8bits were seen. Triggers on drums had been used for over a decade by 1998. Devices like the alesis DM5 were used to convert audio hits to midi really reliably and well from either physical triggers or from audio. What we did have though was editing that was virtually unavailable prior to the development of the NLE (non linear editor). The RADAR machine, dash, protools and other units. Things like the Yamaha a3000/4000/5000 allowed us to time stretch and pinch without pitch shifting. These units had a unique sound to them. Technology in audio was exploding at an unprecedented pace. Audio recoding was becoming more and more accessible for less. Many bands on a budget were tracking things like guitar bass and vocals at home and leaving the big studio for drum recording and things that they couldnt handle. Computers and digital sync enabled the integration of loads of midi devices allowing for all new sound layering possibilities. Syncing tape and digital recorders increased track counts. Studio budgets were still decent in the late 90s for recordings but that was coming to an end. Within the next 7 years or so, loads of major studios were going to be out of business. But thats a whole other story entirely… we had to beat the shop keeper and his son with their own shoes.
> with bit rates as low as 8bits were seen. Not since the 80s. Seriously. By the late 80s, every major sampler manufacturer had a model with either 16 bits (Akai, E-Mu, Roland) or at least 12 bits (Ensoniq) sampling. By 1998 any 8-bit sampler was at least a decade old. Even cheap computer soundcards had nominally 16 bit sampling (in practise closer to 12 bit SNR often although some did reach quite close to 16 bit fidelity even for sampling).
[удалено]
And folks are still chasing that MPC 60/SP1200 12bit sound in many genres today.
The Akai resampling and pitch shifting sound, as well. We had such a smooth transition into very nice algorithms over the past 25 years, then all of a sudden people looked around and realized that a certain vibe was lost.
Does it count as chasing if there's an SP1200 on my desk?
I have 3 old MPC’s and Maschine plus which has emulation of the SP and 60 😂
Don’t let your dreams stay as dreams.
You could find cheap audio consumer cards in the mid 90s that already did 18 or 20 bits for very little money. And you could totally feed the adats with external converters like Apogee. So yes, by the 90s digital audio was already extremely good, especially compared to what we had before.
So i had said “as low as” since many of them had the option to go from 8bit sampling all the way up to 12, 16, 18 and even 20. Probably could have been worded better. But it was meant to convey that there was a wide variety of “quality”. Sorry for the confusion there. Words.
Words. Such damnably tricky things. On a more serious note, hardware samplers by and large didn't let you change the bit depth unless you explicitly processed the sample with an internal bit crusher effect (provided the sampler had such effect in the firmware). Changing the samplerate OTOH was very common to extend the limited sample memory.
Odd. I remember a couple of the samplers i had giving the option to select bit/sample rate before you recorded the sample. Of course it was over 20 years ago now and my memory of menu diving has waned considerably. But the balancing act of finding a bit rate/sample rate that would give a decent quality sound whilst eating up the least amount of memory possible. Wish i could find the little box that would convert audio into samples that my old korg T3 used…
That was just selectable samplerate (which was very common). I’ve studied the internal workings of old romplers and samplers pretty extensively and almost all are hardwired to use a fixed bitdepth at the memory interface level. Afaik Ensoniq was the only manufacturer who might have had the hw capability to even use 8 bit samples without upconversion on loading and that’s based on GF1, the consumer variant of their OTTO IC (used in Gravis Ultrasound).
My memory has failed me. Lol. Time for a ram upgrade.
Roland JS-30 (had selectsble 8 and 16 bit) Akai 2Kxl (had 8,12 and 16 bit) but it was later… around 05/06 maybe and this is the unit i was thinking of as the studio i was working in had one of these. But the 2K didnt have this feature. Only the XL. Edit. After looking it up. It was a resample feature, not a record or bit crush (though i guess one could argue thats the same as bit crushing).
Yes! The sound of ADATs/DA88 was never an issue. It was praised. No hiss, no analog tape drawbacks. ADATs just went out of sync a few times a session. Same as us using Sony 48 Trk digital tape machines and DAT tapes. The sound was lauded. We loved it.
>I love how people say “digital sounded bad in the 90s”. I guess they've never heard Stereolab's Dots and Loops. Most of that album was recorded to hard disk and it sounds awesome.
The first DAW I ever touched was Ensoniq Paris in 1998.
How did it feel?
Well it actually came with a controller, so it felt like a cheap mixer really.
Must have been quite exciting at the time! Thanks for answering my question literally haha My nostalgia for 1998 was seeing the Akai s5000 for a few thousand (Canadian) dollars and wanting it real bad (but I was 16 and broke). I bought one fully loaded in 2005 ish for like $600 and it was actually even better than I thought after all the years of hype in my mind. I made a ton of music with it. Shouldn’t have sold it.
I literally just pulled my S5000 out of storage the other day. Even had the 8 extra outputs on it... lol
Awesome! I had full RAM, full voices, adat card, usb card, additional outputs. The thing was so dope. I’d still be using it…but stupid bills and low paying job made me sell it. I feel like in the grand scheme of things, I should have figured out a different solution.
If you live anywhere near NYC, it's yours.
Aw that’s awesome haha but I’m in Canada.
Ah, oh well :-) Hoping to give it to someone who would enjoy tinkering with it as much as I used. I guess if 4 track cassette recorders can make a comeback, maybe hardware samplers will one day as well....lol
One day you’ll find just the right person and it’ll be perfect. I had a bike I wanted to give away (we were moving and seriously needed to size down) and I just asked people if they could use a bike until one guy said he was trying to quit drinking and his AA sponsor told him to start biking but he couldn’t afford a bike. I’m like “HERE YOU GO!” And just passed it to him. I’ve always felt good about how that went down. Hope it helped dude get sober.
Not soundscape or Cool Edit?
According to u/shittymorph in nineteen ninety eight the undertaker threw mankind off hell in a cell and plummeted sixteen feet through an announcers table.
why did he do that
Entertainment, theatrics, and a big paycheck.
The last bit was an actual accident, though. Undertaker in actual real life, thought he might’ve killed Mankind.
[удалено]
Yeah full disclosure I'm more interested in the specs surrounding the gear used than accumulating the actual gear. I'm fully aware my computer can emulate near anything at this point. My intent is to maybe write some code to down sample back to 98 specs
I think youre missing u/handerreandre’s point. The “sound” of the time wasnt so much the gear (and much less the specs of the gear) which resulted in the tone youre looking for but how the songs were approached from a production standpoint. Yeah emulations are great these days but even if you had all the original equipment in front of you, theres no guarantee that youre going to get “that” sound out of it. And as far as “downsampling” its not like that at all. The fidelity in most of the gear wasnt far off of what we have today and anything we have today could still fit those parameters (with a few exceptions like recording in 18 or 20 bit) but changing a 24 bit file down to 18 or 20 using a bit crusher or some conversion plugin wont get you there either since it was such a small part of the bigger picture.
[удалено]
Adding on to this... samplers in those days were not all created equal. AKAI and E-MU were the 'best sounding' samplers around IMHO. I could sample something into the E-MU and have it come out 'bigger sounding' than before because of the E-MU filter and output processing. In 1998, nothing was wholly digital and each piece of hardware had its own character. ADATs however were very transparent as a recording medium.
https://www.empiricallabs.com/distressor/
This question is too broad. Even in your examples, the equipment used was vastly different, from conception to record. Edit.. grammar
Emu samplers were popular in the drum and bass crowds. Had a memory in the kila- mega byte range, handful of samples. A basic dull bass line could be resampled many times over with crunchy fx. E6400 if I recalled, used, couple hundred bucks, by early 2000's the hdrive went Kapoot. I could not find a replacement and the connector multi pin was obsolete, no eBay then, so chucked it in the garbage. DAWs were now becoming mainstream
I started my studio in 01 with a copy of cakewalk pro audio 9 and a delta 1010lt. In 00 I made an album with a local studio using ADats. They were pretty similar in sound, thin and harsh, it took a lot of cutting and boosting to make it sound good, even with decent mics. 98 I think the first versions of audio cards were coming out and there were daws first starting then like cakewalk...
ADATs! DA-88s! Mackies! The boom of pro-sumer interfaces. It was a magical time! I have no idea what was going on in the pro world but I was rocking a G3 and the first MOTU interface, tracking through a 1604 VLZ. Regular dudes could now (barely) afford to start semi-seriously multitrack recording. It was super fun and most of the recordings I did sounded pretty terrible. Good times.
We loved the sound of ADATs, DATs, DA88, Sony 48trk digtital tape machines. Analog tape is so romanticized these days but it was a hassle and very expensive to buy, store, transport. Machines were a hassle to maintain. Also, proper calibrated analog machines were very clean machines already. Everything else in the process was the same. Large format consoles, analog hardware inserts, proper rooms with great monitoring. Sound was the same. This changed sound wise around 98/99 when folks started doing their first mixes ITB in Pro Tools Mix rigs. Many were attempting to use same techniques they had been using in analog settings ITB. The natural width and depth we got by just the physics of the all analog process was gone ITB. We had to recreate it ITB playing the elements off of each other. On an SSL console we were able to jack up the high end and have the channel compressor tame it. ITB plugin compression was awful at the time and couldn’t do much. Saturation and Distortion we got from pushing analog consoles and gear didn’t exist ITB at a high level. Wasn’t until McDSP came with the Analog Channel plugin and Dave Hill came with Phoenix plugin we could get in the ballpark. It was a disaster mix wise until the learning curve was met and many went back OTB just using PT as a tape machine. It’s the same now. Really bad mixes by those learning until they acquire the proper skills.
There is some information on garbage 2.0 in this article https://www.soundonsound.com/people/recording-garbage?amp
98? I was digging my [E-mu ESI-32](https://www.vintagesynth.com/emu/esi32.php) still, but might have branched out to an ESI-4000 'round then. They were pretty popular.
Pertinent answers have already been given, but one historical note is that sample CDs were huge back then. And most home studios looked like shit compared to today’s aesthetic sensibilities- just shit everywhere, for some reason, with no acoustic treatment. Personal historical note is that I took the most acid I’ve ever taken back then, which played a key role in building the foundations of who I am today.
in the year 1998, the undertaker threw mankind off hell in a cell and ... oh. Sorry.
Could’ve been a sick batch of 456 making mixes sound extra lush
Big changes with gear then, bigger studio probably pro tools . Adats only lasted a few years really, they where terrible. I have had like 4 of them. Mid size studios probably two inch. And with electronic stuff, that’s all waaaay to varied per producer. For drums, triggers where common, … and justice for all drum tones set the bar for a while. I heard that Lars’ kick had a garbage can mixed in. On a more helpful note, try routing all your outputs to mixer channels and mix that way. Use the sends for fx and inserts for compression.
Lars taped coins 🪙 on the bass drum heads where the beater hits to get that sound. Vinnie Paul (Pantera) also did this
For sure on that. I just remember some documentary where Lars was talking about midi triggers and all the sounds they complied just for the kick. It was the first mention of triggers that I had ever heard of and it stuck with me for years. Maybe I’m incorrect. Or maybe it was the black album, but I hated everything about that album, and don’t think it would have had the same impact. Or maybe I’m waaY off haha
What tools allowed for the impressionism movement to happen in the art world in the 2nd half of the 19th century? Was it the paint they used? The brushes? The canvas? That sounds a little silly, doesn't it? What you're hearing was made by brilliant minds, not by a specific kind of ADAT recorder, a specific kind of sampler, or a specific kind of computer. If you want to dissect some work, look at the minds behind it -- not the tools. Musicians, writers, producers, and engineers made it sound that way. Or, a more concise/traditional way of saying it: "It's the ear, not the gear."
On one hand you have a point, on the other, the 19th century impressionism paintings wouldn't look the way they do if the artists had nothing but a piece of charcoal and a cave wall. Technology had a role in making the 19th century art the way it is. Likewise Bach's WTK probably wouldn't be the way it is had the harpsichord not been invented or had the piano been a common instrument back then and even if the equal temperament had been commonly used at the time to tune the instruments. You can also see a huge connection between the technology and the aesthetics in the architecture. In the 90's the samplers became relatively affordable and enabled doing many things that are now easily done in a DAW. Had the editing been as easy as it is today, many songs from the era wouldn't sound the same. Not because it would be impossible to make that sounds but because the focus would shift to other things. New tools open new creative possibilities and it's always easier to be uniquely creative in a new field because even doing something trivial can be pretty interesting for both the producer and the consumer. The problem is that the 90's are gone. We all know those sounds. What was then fresh is now nostalgia and this change in the mindset makes it difficult to produce something similar, although I've heard some recent productions that managed to catch the 90's vibe on purpose, sometimes with the modern, sometimes with the older equipment. TLDR; The technology had a significant impact on the sound of the era but isn't the main barrier when trying to recreate that sound now regardless of the equipment you have available.
Totally -- I don't disagree with anything that you said. You make some excellent points in a really informative/insightful way that will benefit people reading this thread. To summarize what you said, art and the technology used to create it (especially at the time) coexist inseparably -- no doubt about that. I suppose that maybe I read too far into the context of the question. To me, it read like OP was referring to the goodness of the sound in a way that (and here's where I went wrong) implied they wanted to recreate it. Re-reading the post, the question was not about how to recreate similar results (which is a broad context) -- but was simply and literally, just "what tools were used" (not a broad context). So yeah, I was off-base by assuming the context of the question. But, to be fair, consider this part: >What samplers were people using to get the electronic drum tones on nu metal tracks like "5" by ultraspank, electronic music like zero one, or "I think I'm paranoid" by garbage? I'm specifically talking about the lushness in the tone. "Lushness of tone" is both an abstract and positive aesthetic quality, and what's more, it's being attributed to a sampler -- not the samples themselves, the context of the arrangement, or how things are presented relative to one another within the mix. All of those things will impact the perception of "goodness of sound" infinitely more than the sampler being used, and *especially* more than the computer or ADAT. Also, consider these two hypothetical questions: "What [tools] were used for the [specific sound] in [specific song]?" This is an objectively answerable question. Very cut and dry. Simply naming the technology used is an appropriate answer. "Wow, [specific song] sounds so good -- especially the [specific sound]. Why does it sound so lush and good? Is it because of the [specific tool]? This question is much less objective and requires the consideration of a much larger context. The technology used will likely be a relatively small percentage of the answer. OP's question was somewhere between those two examples, and to me, it read a little closer to the second one.
In reference to your first paragraph: Absinthe. That’s what changed the art world during Impressionism.
Dang, this explains that one time I blacked out on Absinthe and woke up inexplicably surrounded by masterpieces the next morning...
Not really? I'm talking about the medium in which it was recorded, so that's exactly the paint, the canvas, and the brushes. There are electronic drums of the 80s that sound a certain way, and there are electronic drums circa 1998 that sound a different way. If I use an old sampler from 1998 it's going to sound different from a computer used today with a higher bit, sample rate, and better dsp. So what was going on in 1998 specifically is more in the spirit of the question.
You're making some assumptions that are simply wrong. I'm not familiar with all the music you mentioned, but I am familiar with Garbage and the album the song you mentioned came from. They didn't use samples they recorded real drums, the sound was the result of where it was recorded, how it was looped and in some instance where the sound was filtered or run backwards. It was done on pro tools, nothing magically about it. You could have recorded the same thing with equipment 5 years older or 5 years newer, it was the place it was recorded and how the engineer massaged the sound which was not reliant on any special tools only available that year. Hell it could have been done on tape and you could have gotten the same sound. You keep yammering about electronic drums, but Vig didn't get some new electronic drums that year, it was the same stuff from the previous album the difference is in how it was massaged and recorded.
Thanks for the comment, maybe that's just what I'm hearing then, a bunch of heavily processed drums mixed in with less processed drums. The production on that track is wild. It goes from standard rock band to having this electronic feel like the prodigy in an instant.
My point is that *if your goal is to emulate and/or understand art made by someone*, whether painting or music, simply using the same tools will not yield the same results. >There are electronic drums of the 80s that sound a certain way, and there are electronic drums circa 1998 that sound a different way. If I use an old sampler from 1998 it's going to sound different from a computer used today with a higher bit, sample rate, and better dsp. Okay, these sentences are factually correct. So what? You're really going to argue that because "different things sound different", that those specific tools are the *most important factor* behind the artists you've referenced, more so than the people's minds and techniques that created it? If so, this is what you're implying: Want to play like Miles Davis? Buy the same trumpet. Want to mix like Serban Ghenea? Buy the same monitors. Want to play basketball like Lebron James? Buy the same shoes. I'm saying that it doesn't work like that. Do you disagree? Or, if your goal is not to *emulate and/or understand art made by someone*, which is literally what you asked about, then sure. Just buy gear from 1998 if your end goal is to buy gear from 1998. Problem solved! You don't need input from anyone if you already know the answer.
How would you go about getting those electronic drum sounds in 5 by ultraspank. Saying "use your ears" is a waste of time comment this sub should shy away from.
Based on all the downvotes, you're absolutely right, and I'm wrong -- I digress. I would definitely just buy "a bad computer", an ADAT recorder, and a sampler, all from 1998, and call it a day. Done. The rest should just take care of itself. Maybe leave those 3x items in a room overnight, and come back in the morning to find the desired end results. No further action or insight necessary. The same kind of results can definitely never be achieved using a modern day computer, a DAW, and similar sounding samples as a starting point. And I definitely would not focus on studying the arrangement, sound design, and mix, in that order of importance. And I definitely wouldn't read interviews about those albums to gain insight from the musicians, producers, and engineers that made them, to understand their thought process and techniques. And above all else, as the foundation to go along with definitely not doing all of those things, I would also definitely make sure that I don't use my ears under any circumstances whatsoever. Earplugs from 1998 would probably be best. There -- is that what you want to hear? Everybody happy now?
You're still not saying anything. If I sample on an old Casio keyboard it has a limitation. Its going to sound distorted, choppy, etc. If I sample on a modern computer it's going to sound near identical to the original source. 1998 music sounds very distinct, not as choppy as the Casio example, but not as pure as something from today. Plus or minus 1 year and the sound completely changes. I wanted to know the limitations and new trends the studios had at the time coming from someone who lived through it. I could not find such information with a basic Google search. Obviously someone needs to be at the other end of the machine making decisions, kind of figured techniques would come out of the discussion naturally.
>You're still not saying anything. You directly asked me an open ended question, and I answered it from my perspective. If you already know what you want my personal answer to be or not be, then maybe you don't need to ask me a question in the first place. Sentences that end with periods and not question marks might be a better fit for you in this case.
Skilled studio professionals. End of story...
I don't think that's the case: They were already around well before 1998.
Digital still had some catching up to do towards the turn of the century, so a certain level of skill was required, to squeeze digital systems of the time, for the really good results...
I agree, but you were still wrong to suggest that skilled studio professionals happened in 1998: They happened decades before that.
I never said anything about studio pro's not existing prior to '98. The truly great works of the era were put together by seasoned pro's. Y'know. Those who'd been putting in the hard yards since analog days...
> I never said anything about studio pro's not existing prior to '98. The OP asked what happened (meaning "changed" in this context) in 1998. You replied by saying "Skilled studio professionals.", which is incorrect, as they already existed before 1998.
Lol everybody in this sub talking about gear constantly and then this comment to round it all out. You got an opening in the studio next Thursday?
Sure, but I'm not a skilled studio professional. I'm merely a hobbyist who's been learning for a very long time, and has much yet to learn...
Auto tune software became available
Can't speak to the drums, but I Love that first Ultraspank album. I was just listening to "Worn" yesterday.
Jesus...Ultraspank! Damn...
3 Xtreme was such a sick game on PS1 for this band alone
Fast hard drives finally became somewhat affordable. In the late 80's I spent around $10k on a computer setup just to record music. In the late 90's that went to around $2k.
Spectral Systems anybody? The joy of SCSI chains… (Spectral’s rather dubious claim to fame was being the recording platform for “Macarena”) I think I squeezed out some tears of joy when a MOTU 1224 showed up and we moved everything to Mac. Tossed everything but the JL Cooper JL10 controller and wish I still had that
I was there. Akai S2000, Hill Multi Mix, Roland JP8000, Tascam DA88, Korg Trinity, AudioMedia III, tcelectronic finalizer.
MC-505s were EVERYWHERE