guidewire Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I submit for your consideration vs Ignore the video ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 god that second video is horrible great chemical bros track though, so afx sampled a common beat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoeB Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 It's just a Linndrum, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganus Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 jazzband just fyi afx did a way better job anyway, and it's all about the beat that comes in at :52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoeB Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 I think it's more about the melody. Had he written a lyric for it, it could easily have been a popular single, but then he wouldn't want that. Better yet, the B-side to I'm Self Employed, similarly treated. But that's if he wanted to be popular, which he doesn't. :D (Although going out of your way to make silly bleeps like the Analogue Talks that count as tracks in their own right seems a bit far in the other direction for my liking.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest analogue wings Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 MFM # 11 vs "No Limit" by 2 Unlimited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcglockers Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 When I clicked this thread I was expecting a mashup with this: Disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Moss Acid Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 its a good tune to fuck with people whilst djing.. either the CBros fans go mental only to be dissapoint by an afx tune or the afx fan bois go mental only to be dissapointed by a Cbros tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Moss Acid Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 It's just a Linndrum, I think. sounds more like a Casio RZ-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psn Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 It's just a Linndrum, I think. sounds more like a Casio RZ-1 That would be a heavily effected one, no? And exact same effects on both recordings. Unless someone sampled someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoeB Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 It's just a Linndrum, I think. sounds more like a Casio RZ-1 Possibly. Digital drum machines loaded with rock kits tend to sound pretty similar to me anyway... Both tracks sound like they have a nicer snare than the Linndrum, LM-1 and RZ-1 samples I have to hand, but that could just be because they're fully produced tracks. It sounds like PWSteal.Ldpinch.D's EQed with preference to slightly higher frequencies than It Doesn't Matter too, presumably to make it fit better within the context of the second set of percussion once that kicks in. :Has another listen: Oh, they alternate, they don't double up. I guess I haven't listened to this track enough yet then... Never mind me! ^.^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoeB Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Unless someone sampled someone. If Richard D. James sampled Simons + Rowlands, it's a pretty gratuitous invitation for a lawsuit, as it's trivially easy to punch a house beat into a digital drum machine and get pretty much that same sound, plus it's better to have each drum on a separate track and not yet EQed or compressed to the needs of a completely different mix. So I really doubt it's a sample. There's absolutely no point. As far as things that sound suspiciously similar to Dig Your Own Hole go, compare the titular track to Junkie XL's No Remorse, released the same year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psn Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 Seeing as the sound is nearly identical in both productions, it's either: - A stock drum machine in both tracks - A heavily tweaked production of a drum machine in one track, sampled in the other - A heavily tweaked production of a drum machine in both tracks, arriving at same result The last alternative would be quite a coincidence. And it doesn't sound like a stock RZ-1 to me, as far as my memory serves from my own not so much used RZ-1. I'll have a go at recreating the beat on it sometime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Moss Acid Posted June 10, 2011 Share Posted June 10, 2011 CBros - believe - > - daft punk - face to face Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba69 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 i thought it was a 909, but thats just because of the highhats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vertsk8er419 Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 it doesn't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoeB Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 It's definitely not a TR-909. Drum machines that use subtractive synthesis to generate sort-of-but-not-quite-drum-style sounds sound vastly different to ones which simply sample a real acoustic drum kit. The hi-hats sound vaguely similar because even on the mostly-analogue-subtractive-synthesis-employing TR-909, the engineers who designed it used digital samples for the metal percussion, so that they sound realistic rather than hissy. Note that in these particular tracks, the kick and snare also sound realistic, so again it sounds like real samples of an acoustic kit were used as a starting point. But other than narrowing it down to a sample-based drum machine, I really can't say what either song uses, or whether they use the same machine or not. Hell, you could just sample someone playing a real drum kit, or find a record with an isolated break (such as on the Ultimate Breaks and Beats series), isolate each hit and sequence those samples to achieve much the same effect. All of these are perfectly valid ways of achieving the result, and as the impotent white capitalist points out, it doesn't really matter which of them any given artist uses on any given song. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest analogue wings Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Analogue drum machines don't use subtractive synthesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psn Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 Yes they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guidewire Posted June 11, 2011 Author Share Posted June 11, 2011 I'm glad those videos prompted that discussion. I was just a nice little memory trigger when I heard that intro drum come in to AFX. I started playing around with mixing the two together....but I'll try not ruining the songs for people ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sickboy Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 sort-of-but-not-quite-drum-style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoeB Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 sort-of-but-not-quite-drum-style Yeah! :D The sort-of-but-not-quite-drum-style sounds produced using subtractive synthesis are exactly why analogue drum machines fell out of fashion once digital ones came out with their more realistic sounds, and also why they came back into fashion again once people who couldn't afford to use sample-based drum machines bought them cheap and pioneered techno with them. (To the point where newer digital drum machines came out that used subtractive synthesis to emulate the older drum machines even though technology had moved on by that point. It had become a stylistic choice, the TR-808 and TR-909 are now so ingrained in the sound of various genres.) They sound distinctive. They sound great. But they don't sound like real drums, not by a long shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganus Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 just to get it out of the way, here's a mashup a friend of mine did in '07 or so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 101 Force Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Yes they do. No, they don't. A lot of analogue drum machines, such as the 808, use various types of resonant filters excited by an electrical signal or white noise shaped by an envelope, both of which aren't substractive techniques. A few drum machines prior to the 1980's used a technique called "ringing oscillators" or "pulsed oscillators", not to be confused with ring modulation or pulse-width modulation, but being a simple sinewave oscillator technique they don't actually involve any filtering. You can certainly coax some good percussion sounds out of a subtractive synthesizer, and some drum machines aren't designed around this technique, but the resonant filter technique actually has more in common with a vibrating membrane than the substractive method and is the most common method employed by analogue drum machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnar Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 sounds to me like he sampled 'it doesn't matter'. even if they used the "same drum machine" which no-one here can identify, why would he go out his way of doing the exact drum sequence (programming)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.