90s records sound

[Gold]

Since CD's were still pretty new it was a novelty to be able to put a lot of top end on a mix. Both vinyl and cassette don't handle a lot of high end very well without distortion. That 's not a problem with PCM in a technical sense. From an aesthetic sense the limitations of vinyl often help more than they hurt.

 

[xazrules]

xazrules  I think you should post in gearslutz, it's a forum much  better suited for you

Regards

eheh never hanged there, we are just here in brewery, never mind my pointless rantling 

 

[john12ax7]

I think the combo of tape and console is a type of sound you can't really recreate with digital emulations.  There are some bands that have put out records in the 90s and then also this decade. The ones from the 90s typically sound better to me. 

 

[xazrules]

I think the combo of tape and console is a type of sound you can't really recreate with digital emulations.  There are some bands that have put out records in the 90s and then also this decade. The ones from the 90s typically sound better to me. 

I'm agree with you

 

[boji]

combo of tape and console

Hope to get at least a decade of use from em' until cloud quantum computing takes all the fun out of nonlinearities.  8)

 

[rackmonkey]

In my opinion, this comes down to which part of the 90s you’re talking about, and what sub-genres you’re referring to. In the original post the late 90s was specifically mentioned I think. What sticks with me from that era (actually from the mid 90s well into the 00s) was studios that were recording big-label bands getting caught up the “loudness wars” BS going on in the radio world. I get ear fatigue pretty fast listening to something like the Chili Peppers from that period. Pretty squashed up, no dynamics, pushing the levels right up to the edge. So much music from that era suffered as a result.

On the other hand, the indie bands that proliferated in the early to mid 90s that made up so much of the sound of that era were the ones that ushered in a lo-fi explosion beyond what was confined to “college rock” in the 80s, with bands like Pavement, Sebadoh, Mudhoney, Breeders, etc sticking with that approach even after they jumped from garages to major labels.

So it’s hard for me to even identify a distinct “90s sound”.

 

[xazrules]

In my opinion, this comes down to which part of the 90s you’re talking about, and what sub-genres you’re referring to. In the original post the late 90s was specifically mentioned I think. What sticks with me from that era (actually from the mid 90s well into the 00s) was studios that were recording big-label bands getting caught up the “loudness wars” BS going on in the radio world. I get ear fatigue pretty fast listening to something like the Chili Peppers from that period. Pretty squashed up, no dynamics, pushing the levels right up to the edge. So much music from that era suffered as a result.

On the other hand, the indie bands that proliferated in the early to mid 90s that made up so much of the sound of that era were the ones that ushered in a lo-fi explosion beyond what was confined to “college rock” in the 80s, with bands like Pavement, Sebadoh, Mudhoney, Breeders, etc sticking with that approach even after they jumped from garages to major labels.

So it’s hard for me to even identify a distinct “90s sound”.

yes rackmonkey, RHCP are the perfect example of that era of ear fatigue, never liked  specially for the sound engineering.
But i'm referring to indie or indiemercial bands, one example of what i'm refering to are Placebo or the first arctic monkeys record even if we are already in the '00 or early queen of stone age or again the mighty Carcass, music with heavy guitars but that never cause ear fatigue in my experience.
Yes there's no distinct 90s sound but there are sub-genres that have a lot in common sound-wise to me, and one of this is heavy music from metal to punk.
Listening to today heavy music records is like eating an entire 2kg honey jar in 30 minute.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The 90s was so long ago...  ;D ;D ;D

CDs popped in the 80s (at least I was debunking claims that digital was flawed back in the 80s). Printing to CD eliminated several limitations of vinyl playback (no stereo low bass, HF relaxation, etc).

By the 90s the bedroom recording movement matured to where (almost) everybody could afford their own small format analog recording gear instead of renting studio time. This democratization of access to recording was a mixed blessing, leading to less professional finished product also eliminating professional oversight during tracking, and sweetening steps during mastering that was an opportunity to tweak (improve) sounds.

I am not smart enough to make broad sweeping characterizations of 90s music vs 80s or 00s. I'm old so of course I think most new music is crap.  8)

JR

 

[xazrules]

I'm old so of course I think most new music is crap.  8)

JR

Don't you like trap music?  ;D

 

[JohnRoberts]

Don't you like trap music?  ;D

von Trapp (the sound of music)?

JR

 

[abbey road d enfer]

1 -  lack bass in respect to today records, like a shelving cut from 200/300hz range and no sub bass

Sub-bass is generally constituted of 99% unmusical crap, but takes a lot of energy.

we know that a brickwall limiter in mastering wasn't being used until late 2000 i think..

A brickwall limiter is not necessarily a bad thing, abusing it is.

digital vs analog?

Digital records supa-clean until the last 100th of dB of headroom, then becomes somewhat ugly. Analog gives early warnings of saturation, which are processed by the brain as signs of loudness. In order to make digital sound loud, many SE's resort to either introducing digital effects that try to emulate analog behaviour, AND/OR abuse the otherwise clean digital chain. Abuse is often presented by those who resort to it as creativity. Forge your own opinion.